Russia is transferring forces even from ... Siberia to the Ukrainian border

Your quote, precisely, was:

While it is true, that could be said EVERY TIME we had a change in government: 1) if that had been your point, it seems the equivalent of saying, "we have a NEW government," which hardly seems like something that needs to be pointed out;
2) yet, from my having read your other posts-- not from reading your mind-- I have the impression that, had it been a Republican President, your comment would not have read the same. Of course, as I admitted in my response, I am not beyond being wrong; but it seemed a reasonable assumption.

As far as your point goes, then, as you now imply it might have been intended to suggest, I think it would apply far LESS to Joe Biden, who had recently spent 8 years as Vice President, and has spent 4 decades in Congress, most of it as a Senator, than it would to most administrations. That is to say, he is much more a known entity, in international politics, than was Donald Trump, for example, or Barack Obama, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, for that matter. And many of the faces he is putting in his Administration are familiar, from the Obama years. So, I guess my response would be that there's no president in recent history for whom your comment would be less applicable.

The other possible meaning, since you don't explain the reasoning behind your comment, in either version of it, might be that there is something particular to world politics, at this particular juncture in history, that would foster this dynamic of, "testing," the U.S. If that was your line of thinking, I encourage you to expound on it as-- though I can't guarantee, in advance, that I will agree with your perspective-- it still would be interesting to read & consider.

If we can be honest, which I see as one of the goals of an online forum, I still believe you meant to imply there being something specific to Joe Biden that underpinned your comment, if his being a Democrat was, on its own, not sufficient cause for your remark. So, I am curious to know what that reason is, if it is not merely that he is, "new," (as president, at any rate), or a Democrat.

I am well aware of that, as my reply should have indicated, in its references to Viet Nam (Gulf of Tonkin incident) and Cuba's Bay of Pigs. So I don't know what I had posted that would've led you to mention America's checkered record, regarding intervention. Surely, we have spent almost the entirety of the thus-passed portion of the 21st century, injecting ourselves in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries. If you wished to elucidate some direct parallel, or analogy, to the subject of the OP, I would imagine that to be worthwhile reading. Or are you advocating, as was President's Trump disposition, that international politics should be blind to concepts as diaphanous as right & wrong, and come down to accepting whatever any country can do, in service of its own interests?

Speaking of that, I hope you don't think of my disagreeing with your take, on any given subject, as anything hostile, or as an act of aggression.


P.S.-- Thanks for the career suggestion, but the base pay & benefits for remote mind readers is not as good as you might expect. I haven't actually applied, but, as you know, I didn't need to.

 

From my news sources, which I take to have a different spin than your own, preferred media, this challenging of Biden was depicted as an appearance of weakness, not domination. And Biden's not bothering to even reply, was interpreted as underscoring of that fact. It was seen as would be a political challenger, calling on the incumbent, for a debate; the one in a higher position, does himself a disservice by, "punching down."

 

That was the lie that the Bolsheviks fed the Russians, and they were imprisoned for 70 years. Anything that is imposed on others, and any form of control over the lives of others is enslavement. Wanting to control others in itself is egotistical and therefore sinful, so how can anything good come out of it?

Actually our Founding Fathers created the best government that could be created and it was very revolutionary for its time. But they were highly devout individuals, with a strong sense of right and wrong, as well as a reasoning that stemmed from the Enlightenment. If anyone created this nation, it was the English Puritanism and reasoning, and the industriousness of the Germans.

Everyone that came here, were able to contribute their gifts to this country, only because of the culture formed by its English and Germans settlers. To believe otherwise is foolishness.

It's unfortunate that we've swayed so much from our spiritual and ethical foundation these past 60 years. I don't know if we will survive.

This land we love so mightily,
should not be handed readily,
to selfish men with hearts of stone,
who carest only for their own.

Who'll push us down upon our knees,
but not to worship as we please,
but only gods of lust and greed
and all the things we shouldn't heed - Jeannette​

 

I watched the full video of Putin replying on this subject.

No offense, but I suggest you find a new news source.

Putin responded in kind and called out a loud mouth...and Biden was exposed for the doddering senile old fool he is.

 

No!

Humans were happier when each race lived in their own homogenous nations ruled by their own kind.

.

 

I see this as part of an ongoing continuum of intimidation. That is, incursions into Taiwan's airspace, that end w/o incident, are not anything required, in preparation for actual action. China has been flexing its muscle for some time, & I am not aware of any signs that, for now, they aren't content with that. That said, we must be vigilant of the liklihood that, at some point in the future, they will wish to put some of this muscle to use.

 

Nice spin, but it doesn't work.

Challenging Biden was ridiculous, and Putin did it as a mockery. Everyone knows that Putin can answer questions for 3 to 5 hours straight, and Biden has dementia and can't remember one thing from the next. He was also mocking Biden when he wished him good health and then took off with Shoigu for the Taiga - which is next to the Arctic.

By calling Vladimir Putin a killer, Biden insulted all the Russian people since he is their elected president. So in return, Putin mocked the American people who voted for Biden, by bringing attention to their president's mental and physical incompetency.

 

Your Commie definition of "sin" is Bolshevik BS.

The Bible definition of "sin" is transgression of God's Law. God is the ultimate "Supremacist" and told His people to be separate from other people!

.

 

No offense, either, but your description of our president doesn't paint a picture that recommends you as an impartial assessor of news sources.

P.S -- Do you agree with Jeanette's interpretation, that Putin did this as a, "mockery of American voters?"

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...krainian-border.586718/page-4#post-1072552901

 

What a silly rant.

 

LOL....little platform shoes Putinka had his "inferiority complex" exposed had his little meltdown Biden didn't bite, and Putler is butthurt since he's not being taken as an "equal".

 

First off, I wasn’t even going to reply to you because like many, you seem to take Western Fake News Russia Russia Russia propaganda hook line and sinker.

As for Jeanette, she is usually right and far more informed than most when it comes to issues in that part of the world.

Was Putin mocking US voters? IIRC, there may have been a slight, but only towards Biden voters. All super legit 80 million of them, lmao.

 

Yes, I bet you would see it as such, but as someone who sees the American leader as he really is, lying, corrupt, entitled, bragging, looting and loud-mouthing gets the opposite picture, a picture of a low character show-off.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/499065-lies-damned-lies-and-the-truth-about-joe-biden

 

Thank you, for your kind words. While it might seem petty to you or me, you must be aware of the phenomenon of a person with great wealth who, nevertheless, still regards the accrual of more as their primary mission in life. I believe, but of course have no way to confirm, that Putin is one of these individuals. The #1 reason I think he would have for a land grab, would be to augment his own popularity (beyond what his shirtless calendars contribute to that end) & so strengthen his security in his position, which is what affords Putin the opportunity to plunder from Russia's wealth.

This is why the reaction from the West would come into the equation. Any military effort that brings swift victory, not to mention benefit, to a country, will be embraced, domestically, with popular praise. But getting bogged down in a military morass, is likely to have the opposite effect.

You make a number of valid arguments. I only feel that you are jumping a bit too quickly to the punch. Has Russia reached its apex in operable, stolen U.S. intelligence, and had the opportunity to weaponize it, for exploitation? Has it hit the wall, in its ability to divide us? And the idea of China & Russia plotting together-- though there is, of course, historical precedent for this type of arrangement; and the two did, recently, issue a joint statement against the U.S.-- strikes me (I hope not naively) as sporting a surfit of intrigue, at this time.

IF the U.S. & other countries would take military action in either the Russian or Chinese case, these two operating in concert would, at most, provide cover for just the one for which it was deemed intercession was least urgent. And to get that 50 - 50 chance, both countries would have to trust the other enough to share their secret plans.

I think both would rather do things on their own terms. For China, the pattern has been slow but steady progress toward a goal. That they are currently having their fighter jets violate Taiwanese airspace, says to me that China is still attempting to exercise control through intensified intimidation tactics. Admittedly, there is the possibility that China is hoping that an overly-aggressive response by Taiwan will give China its excuse to get physical. Yet the idea that Taiwan would shoot down a Chinese jet, seems farfetched, to me. But stranger things have happened.

In the scenario above, in which there was the political will to engage militarily w/ both of these world military powers-- and I have strong doubts about direct conflict in either case-- I think the choice would be to help Ukraine. The reason for this would be that, in the case of an allied victory, Ukraine is more easily accessible to NATO. It is bordered by 4 members: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, & Romania. So it would be much more feasible to continue protecting their freedom. Also, Ukraine would be an unlikely place-- because of its ethnic Russians, its rich farmland which Russia would hope to benefit from, and just its proximity to Russia, itself-- for Putin to opt to employ their tactical, "battlefield" nuclear weapons.

In the case of Taiwan, victorious allies would have to settle for keeping defenders permanently afloat, nearby, with reinforcements in South Korea, maybe Japan, and Australia. That's not a long-term solution with an especially optimistic ring to it.

 

Which of the things I said, mostly in my response to Jeanette, were part of Western Fake News' Russia-Russia-Russia propaganda: 1) that Russia launched disinformation campaigns in the U.S. & in Europe to influence election results;
2) that Russian troops moved in to occupy former Soviet territory in Crimea, which was annexed, as well as in Georgia ('08),
though not yet officially in Ukraine (unless you accept Jeannette's word, which you say is usually right);
3) that the U.S. diplomats afflicted with deafness & various odd medical problems in Cuba & elsewhere were due to a Russian low-frequency sound weapon, and that the poisoning of a former Russian agent, in the UK, as well as others, with a signature Russian, nuclear poison, which no other country in the world is known to possess, was perpetrated by the Russian Federation?

 

People were separated at the Tower of Babel, and it would be a boring world if everyone was the same. Being among your own is merely a comfort factor, it doesn't mean that you consider yourself superior to others. If you do though, then you're a nationalist/Nazi and in Christianity humility is a perquisite, so any self exaltation is prideful and sinful. The Nazis by the way, were pagans - thus the crooked cross.

 

When I read any Democrat attack the Russians, it is like they attack their own family as I see them. Birds of a feather and so forth.

When I served in our Army in Germany, then we had great reasons to dislike the Soviets. But today Russia is not one bit like the old Soviets were. Democrats live in the 1950 era I believe.

 

Here's a translation of the latest from a Greek site:

An attack on the republics of New Russia (Donbass) is reportedly being prepared by Ukraine's military, as well as photographic footage showing the advance of military forces in an invasion position in Donbass and Donetsk.

A suicidal move by Ukraine and its comedic president, as at the same time Russia has assembled large troops on the border with Ukraine, while Sergei Lavrov and Kremlin leaks have declared that an attack on civilians in eastern Ukraine would amount to a declaration of war on Russia which would lead to the flattening of Ukraine.

Russian public opinion is boiling over after images of the dismembered five-year-old child most likely killed by a Turkish drone.

Watch the revealing video of the Ukrainian army's concentration of forces:

https://twitter.com/ivan8848/status...ki-kinisi-oykranias-me-tis-eyhes-ee-etoimazei

 

1. Perhaps had you narrowed it to several Russians you would get a better hearing. The claim made by our side was limited to several Russians who despite we have a deal with Russia allowing us to prosecute them for crimes, it turns out we did not prosecute any of them. Democrats never made that an issue that I know of.
2. Crimea had been donated to Ukraine but the residents of Crimea voted to be removed from Ukraine and appear to be very pleased to go back to Russia. I do not recall Ukraine going to war over Crimea, do you?
3. Was the Cuba incidents as you report or what makes you say what you say? For all I know you are in intelligence at some level.

Jeanette has long been pretty correct when she posts. I can't think of a single time she was wrong. (notice my volume of posts)

 

Could Putin Launch Another Invasion?
The same factors that led up to his incursion into Ukraine are in place again, including domestic protests, a struggling economy and a desire for glory.


A trained KGB agent, Vladimir Putin knows how to hide his feelings, but in 2013, after former President Barack Obama described him looking like “the bored kid in the back of the classroom,” Putin let it be known that he was furious. And rightly so: kids in the back of the room are rarely ambitious. Putin, from day one of his rule 21 years ago, has had big, ambitious plans for himself and for Russia.

A far greater Soviet patriot than a Russian one, one of his first priorities when he became president in 2000 was to recover state ownership or control of the key political and economic assets lost in the Soviet Union’s demise: major industries, courts, media, national politics. Then, in his third and fourth presidencies, he turned his ambition to geopolitics: to incursions into Ukraine and Crimea, an alliance with Syria, and various assaults on Western democracies with what the KGB used to call “active measures” recast as cyberattacks.

Now, on the seventh anniversary of the Crimean Anschluss, many of the same vectors that produced the invasion of Ukraine are here again. Anticipating their trajectory and formulating a plan ought to be among the Biden administration’s main concerns.


There are at least two reasons for Putin to be thinking about similar big and bold actions today. One is strategic and abiding: glory for himself and his Russia, the two by now entwined in his mind. The other motive is tactical: He is working toward a lifetime presidency—a six-year term in 2024, at 72, and perhaps another in 2030— in a country where the economy and incomes have stagnated for over a decade and the still-raging Covid-19 pandemic has left deep scars. What’s more, the arrest of pro-democracy leader Alexei Navalny has ignited waves of protest rallies in over 100 Russian cities for the first time since anti-Putin demonstrations in the winter of 2011-12.

... ctd: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/15/russia-putin-invasion-ukraine-baltics-nato-475527

 

This the entire media should have trumpeted. That Biden has a lousy habit of lying. And he has not changed at all.

 

Russians will see Putin the way Democrats see Biden.

The article ignores a huge difference in Ukraine and Crimea.
Only some of the Ukrainians can be called Russians.
Most of those that lived in Crimea were actually Russians. With some Tatars tossed in.

Crimea also held a vote as to remain with Ukraine or bolt to join Russia again.

 

How did you get such demented bolshevik brainwashing?

Was in leftist American schools or somewhere else ??

.

 

Read the article. Putin has been preparing ethnic Russians in several former Soviet republics to welcome his glorious military conquest of those areas where they live and subsequent Anschluss with Russia. Crimea was a successful first attempt at this, and as the article's author describes, the situation in Russia is likely driving Putin to do the same thing somewhere else in order to get the same sort of quick military victory and the rise in domestic popularity that comes with it. Ukraine would be a relatively easy target since it isn't part of NATO, but the author argues that taking a part of a NATO member -- one of the Baltics, namely -- would be even better. Russia enjoys an offensive military advantage and majorities of people in several NATO countries would rather not come to the defense of their allies if they are attacked. I suspect Putin's "active measures" attacking NATO and western solidarity in general over decades already is in no small measure to thank for that.

In sum, we have been set up to fail miserably as an alliance. Putin has a combination of military superiority (under certain circumstances as described above) and "militarized patriotism" in Russia, giving him popular support to attack and take areas of land the way he took Crimea. His active measures amplify notions of isolationism. Trump embodied that magnificently in his person, too. We still see it coming from all of those who complain endlessly about "globalists," blaming them for everything wrong with the world.

I used to say during the Obama years that our conservatives have a case of Putin envy, and of course I was right. But that's a topic for another day.

 

You sound no less demented, you know. "Leftist American schools"