why shouldn’t Putin be expected to sweeten the deal to make it benefit Ukrainians more to NOT join NATO than he has?

Yes, my thoughts, exactly.

And, that could very well have happened long before this war. But, the US (and Biden) and NATO made sure that wouldn't happen by taking NATO membership off the table - for thirty years!

What I do not understand about your stance that Ukraine should be forced to abide by Russia’s demand that they not join NATO is this: why shouldn’t Putin be expected to sweeten the deal to make it benefit Ukrainians more to NOT join NATO than he has?

Yes, Ukraine served as buffer between Russia and NATO, but was that beneficial for Ukrainians? Putin installed corrupt leaders to run Ukraine to follow his wishes and place Russian interests above all else. The Ukrainians got sick of that and voted Putin’s puppets out of power! The corruption that Putin infused the Ukrainian government with was sought out and removed like a surgeon cutting out a cancerous tumor!

Russia could have paid the gas tax that the Ukrainian government requires anyone using their pipelines to the Black Sea to pay… but Putin decided just to take it for Russia. The people in Crimea could have benefitted immensely from the money that gas tax would have brought the area… but Putin would not take home as much profit if they did the right thing…so cry me a River, Crimea!

If Russia was not constantly giving the people of Ukraine a reason to want to join NATO, this would not be an issue. But that is on RUSSIA!

And, the city is ... grateful, er ... the Grateful Dead.

Morning Dew

I've never seen a single episode of discovery. Should I?

Lizsplaining 101 - the Russian War in Ukraine

Okay, I’m going to explain why I think this war could have and certainly should have been avoided and who I think is to blame for inviting the start of it.

But, first, to be clear and for the record, Putin and Russia are solely responsible for starting this ridiculously unnecessary and unjustified war against Ukraine, for the death of civilians and for committing obvious war crimes about which the ICC is investigating and rightly so. Such a declaration, here in Weigantia and among friends, should go without saying.

Now, you will recall that when the Berlin wall fell and the disintegration of the USSR began, NATO, which was set up to counter the Soviet Union, began “assessing” that it would be a good idea to expand to ensure the continuing security of Europe.

For one brief shining moment, the Yeltsin government in Moscow entertained the idea of Russia joining this strategic security arrangement, in some form or fashion. I even recall advocating for the same during the very early nineties when NATO began in earnest to consider expanding its security zone across Europe and, indeed, its sphere of influence. However, old ideas and patterns die hard sometimes and the Russians didn’t pursue joining NATO.

As Russia embarked on its fledgling democracy, there were many Russians who felt a distinct sense of humiliation in the aftermath of the break-up of the Soviet Union. It was, after all, quite a shock to the system. And, in this environment when Russia was down and out and trying to emerge from a yolk of totalitarianism and economic hardship, NATO decides that this would be an opportune time to expand and, eventually, right up to Russia’s border.

For thirty years, Russia has declared that Ukraine is a red line for them in terms of NATO expansion. Why would NATO wish to welcome Ukraine into the fold and have NATO forces just hundreds of miles from Moscow? Why, indeed. I would argue that Ukraine provides a security buffer for both Russia and NATO and space for continuing dialogue on the security concerns of both parties, especially given the nature of nuclear arms control negotiations that have been ongoing for decades, not to mention the general dynamics of the Cold War.

So, knowing and understanding the real and ultimately manageable security concerns of Russia in the midst of NATO expansion up to its border, the US and NATO open the door to the possibility of Ukraine membership, leaving NATO's muscular force structure and weaponry, thanks to the US, right at Russia’s doorstep, only a few hundred miles from the heart of Moscow. Ukraine, in a move that helped to seal its current fate, enshrined in its constitution an aspirational intent to become a NATO member and all that is entailed with entering into such a security arrangement.

Despite clear and consistent messaging from the Kremlin - over the course of the last thirty years, no less - the West refused to take Russia's security concerns seriously and Putin moved to recapture Crimea. Studying the history of this parcel of land, by the way, is instructive but, I will leave that complicated story to others.

Later, with Ukraine, the US and NATO still stubbornly clinging to the notion that their public stance remain open to Ukrainian membership (“sovereign nations have the right to choose their alliances”, never mind the fact that NATO also has the right to choose its members and there was no logical reason nor realistic chance that Ukraine would ever actually be admitted) Putin moves to control the separatist regions of the Donbas in eastern Ukraine, thus creating facts on the ground to counter the real and imagined NATO threat.

Fast forward to February 2022 and the amassing of Russian troops along its western border with Ukraine and in Belarus. And, still, Ukraine and the US and NATO refuse to accept reality on the ground or even discuss the real and manageable security concerns of Russia that have led to this troop build-up.

In fact, Biden, in a historically stubborn and obtuse move, publically declares that the idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO is sacrosanct and, as such, is off the negotiating table to diffuse the potential crisis. Which, of course, is all about NATO expansion into Ukraine. Adding fuel to the flames would be an apt phrase to describe this wholly irresponsible behavior on the part of an American president, NATO and Ukraine, who should all know better.

And, here we are.

Viability is NOT based SOLELY on medical technology and while it might be easy for you to postulate that a fetus could be “viable” at 6 weeks; it would be wrong for you to postulate such BS.

Fetal viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus. Fetal viability is generally considered to begin at 24 weeks gestational age, since at this point in the pregnancy, most infants survive a preterm birth.

William Shatner must be ecstatic..

STAR TREK 5 is no longer the WORST TREK EVER...

Banal... Insulting...

There was actually a LINE from Culbert..

"We really must analyze these feelings" :^/

Some parts where danger was high and they stopped the action to congratulate everyone on what a great job they are doing..

It was like Fred Kwan in GALAXY QUEST...

"You guys did great.. Come on in here.. Group hug.."

It was JUST LIKE THAT...

Utterly and completely ridiculous... Discovery needs to be de-commissioned as a starship and then re-tasked as a therapy ship where people go to get in touch with their feminine/peace-nik/hippy feelings...

This wasn't Star Trek.. It was psychedelic acid trip inside the psyche of a Left Wing progressive and their feelings...

I look forward to it's utter demise...

My bust...

Ketanji Brown Jackson Failed To Provide Clarity During Confirmation Hearings

Several senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee have pressed her for clarity on her record but only received non-answers in reply. Judge Jackson simply circles important questions, turning them into declarative statements and evading any sense of concrete judicial philosophy. Senators – Republicans and Democrats alike – must continue to press her. American citizens deserve to know every facet of her judicial philosophy.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/24/ketanji_brown_jackson_failed_to_provide_clarity_during_confirmation_hearings_147377.html

Looks like Jackson Brown is a wash out.. :D

According to what they are saying over at Slate, all GOP are going to vote NO and maybe even a couple of DEMs are NO VOTES...

Glorious!! :D

That's what happens when you use a racist criteria to make a SCOTUS selection..

OK All hostility aside, THAT was pretty funny.. :D

Having been on the receiving end of MUCH Liz'splainin' I appreciate the humor.. :D

Naw, no hostility, Dawg. So what if we disagree? And since all comedy has its roots in tragedy I just gotta laugh sometimes.

Having said that, clearly
I have gotten crabby with Elizabeth over her lack of Liz'splainin' and I need to chill out.

Oh well, she'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes...

And not a moment before.

no, it isn't. i guess that makes the dictionary racist?

We can disregard the "new" definition of racism because it's SOLELY based on a political agenda, not on fact.

The pre-Democrat-based definition of racism is the only valid definition..

It's like how people change the definition of "trolling" to make whatever attack they make "work"..

You can "PROVE" any argument as "valid" if you are allowed to change definitions and reality..

Cordless Hole Puncher

I'll stick with the VALID definition of racism..

The one that Dr Martin Luther King lived by and died for..

Making a selection or expressing a preference based on race is racism..

Pure and simple..

you should read john mcwhorter's treatises on racism. he's highly independent and enough against the grain of 'woke' society that i think you'd enjoy it.

JL

no, it isn't. i guess that makes the dictionary racist?

OK All hostility aside, THAT was pretty funny.. :D

Having been on the receiving end of MUCH Liz'splainin' I appreciate the humor.. :D

There is simply NO POSSIBLE way to spin away the simple fact that Joe Biden's statement to ONLY CONSIDER a black woman for the SCOTUS nomination is blatantly and unequivocally racist..

Biden is PLAINLY stating for the record that he is using RACE as the very first criteria for selecting his nominee..

That is as RACIST as it could POSSIBLY get, my friend..

The fact that he doubles down and uses sexism as his very NEXT criteria simply shows how far gone the Democrat Party is..

Loved the Gilligan's Island reference.. :D

But this "Let's Fly" crap is a poor POOR substitute for "ENGAGE"....

Joe Biden specifically STATED for the record that he would "ONLY CONSIDER a black woman if he is allowed to make a SCOTUS nomination"...

That is the VERY DEFINITION of racist..

Imagine how ya'all would have shat yer pants if President Trump had stated, "I will ONLY consider a white man for a SCOTUS nomination"

Ya'all would have had a major coronary over such a claim of racist intent..

I'm surprised that geopolitical affairs is so difficult to understand.

Then by all means Lizsplain it to us!

Weigantians keep pointing out the problems with your naive a bad peace is better than no peace pacifism but you post as though you've ignored them all.

I'm here to learn and be persuaded when I'm wrong. So please, Elizabeth, show me the way. I don't think you can.

Democrats don't get to complain about racism because the ENTIRE selection process of Jackson Brown was BLATANTLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY racist..

Oh, I get it. A black woman has never served on the Supreme Court. So Joe Biden doing something about that is racist? *smh*

No Dogs Get Alpo

Yeah, well ... unfortunately, Biden/NATO/Z made darn sure we would never find out about that, didn't they? It's really too bad that this threesome took Ukrainian membership in NATO off the table. ;)

NATO membership is baked into the Ukraine Constitution..

It will not be given up that easily...

Allow me to rephrase..

Jackson Brown is the FIRST black woman to serve on the Supreme Court...

"Yea!!! Awesome!!! That's totally great!!"
-People Who Only Care About Race

"Yea?? So???"
-People Who Are Colorblind With Regards To Race

"Yea!!! Awesome!!! That's totally great!!"
-Racists...

"Yea?? So???"
-Non Racists...

The contested regions in the east are then up for discussion, I would asssume. And, that would obviously include Mariupol.

I understand that Z is ready to set Ukraine's NATO aspirations aside so, there's that.

I also believe Z is ready to put forward that Ukraine will have neutral status with security guarantees that are iron clad and enforced by the US, UK and others. So, there's that on top of that.

Have you heard anything furthur about Ukraine's terms?

Why on earth would Ukraine give ground now? They're in a position of relative strength, which means they set the terms of negotiation.

What are the terms for negotiation set by Ukraine?

The ONLY way to have prevented this war was to force Ukraine to abide by Putin's wishes by denying Ukraine it's freedom of choice to join NATO..

NATO has freedom of choice, too and, they have exercised it by not allowing Ukraine to join its membership.

And, that is a very logical choice that makes a lot of sense, even if NATO can't bring themselves to admit it publically.

Even then, I am not entirely convinced that Putin wouldn't have followed thru with the invasion..

Yeah, well ... unfortunately, Biden/NATO/Z made darn sure we would never find out about that, didn't they? It's really too bad that this threesome took Ukrainian membership in NATO off the table. ;)

Oh yeah? Care to explain how? Leave out the part about capitulating to Putin just because he wants Ukraine and the West to do so.

I'm surprised that geopolitical affairs is so difficult to understand.

NATO doesn't want Ukraine to join it!!!

So there will come a time, sooner rather than later, where it might be as little as 6 weeks..

Which is why over 80% of Americans support abortion restrictions at SOME point in the baby's gestation period..

I would also be very interested to hear your thoughts on the majority of Democrats who want to #SHOUTOUT their abortions and #CELEBRATE their baby killing..

Do you think such attitudes HELP or HURT the Democrat Party??

Enquiring minds want to know.. :D

Being able to breathe and survive outside the womb is not so intricate a concept. It's been the dividing line for personhood since before abortion was legal.

Except it has not been a STATIONARY dividing line, has it??

It's been moving inexorably towards sooner and sooner in the gestation period..

I think now it's at 22 weeks..

So there will come a time, sooner rather than later, where it might be as little as 6 weeks..

What will that do to your abortion support??

Will you change your views based on the SCIENCE??

Or keep them where they are at right now based on the political agenda??

THAT is the question..

This has never been about a woman's right to choose.. The woman DOES have the right to choose..

She can CHOOSE to participate in activity that might create a child..

Once she makes that CHOICE she should be bound by the consequences of that choice.. A grave threat to her own life or the life of the gestating child should be the only exceptions..

We pump so much money into military spending, yet we still have a large number of our military that must rely on SNAP to help feed their families. If WE cannot make sure that our people are properly fed with our massive military bank account, should we really be shocked that Russian troops are not being fed?

I see the moral point you are trying to make with your comment.

But I must point out that the US military has absolutely NO PROBLEM keeping our troops fed. Especially during combat operations.. That's what MREs are for..

What you are talking about is keeping the soldier's FAMILIES fed... And I agree that more should be done so that soldiers don't have to have welfare for their families to survive..

On the other hand, I see the logical argument from the military/economic side of the issue.

It's only the lower ranks that are not paid well. And those ranks are, in economic terms, "unskilled labor" and their pay is commiserate with that designation...

Which is why, in the olden days, it was always smarter for young bucks to WAIT until they were financially secure before starting families..

The vast majority of hardships in people's lives can, more often than not, be traced back to stoopid decisions made.. That goes for civilian, military, race, gender, lifestyle... Whatever kind of hardship you can name..

Not always, to be sure.. But most times you'll find this to be factually accurate..

The world or life doesn't owe ANYONE a living.. It must be earned...

None involved a big city. All involved places on maps that were important solely because of the of each particular conflict.

"Sokovia?? It's no where on the way to everywhere.."
-Anita Hill, AVENGERS AGE OF ULTRON

Re: #8 & #9

Now THAT sounds a little more realistic..

Honestly, I don't know why it's so hard to get a FACT based picture on the ground..

To hear our media tell it, for Putin's Russia, oblivion is just right around the corner...

And that simply makes NO logical or rational sense..

this is an unnecessary war that should have been prevented in the first place along lines that have been very well known for a very long time.

I have to disagree with you here..

The ONLY way to have prevented this war was to force Ukraine to abide by Putin's wishes by denying Ukraine it's freedom of choice to join NATO..

Even then, I am not entirely convinced that Putin wouldn't have followed thru with the invasion..

Peace at any cost is not true peace.. It's slavery..

I have a VERY difficult time believing all the reports from Ukraine that the Russian army is actually prosecuting the war THIS badly...

I can't help but feel we're seeing more propaganda and less actual facts in how things are going..

Besides, even if it's not a religious hangup on your part why do you think the 40% of Americans who believe that abortion is wrong get to lord it over the 60% of us who disagree?

Funny you should mention polls..

Over 80% of Americans support abortion restrictions.. This is documented fact..

The only point of contention amongst that 80+% is WHEN those restrictions should occur..

The so-called "viability line"..

And, since viability is based SOLELY on medical technology and, as we would all agree, medical technology is a FAST growing technology, it's easy to postulate that, in time (a SHORT time) a baby in the womb would be "viable" at 6 weeks...

A fetus is a baby that simply hasn't grown yet. Trying to dehumanize the fetus to make it's brutal killing easier to justify is understandable... But a fetus IS a life... This is scientific fact...

It's a moot point really. Because even if Jackson Brown is confirmed, abortion is STILL going the way of the dodo...

Beau explains why opposing Ketanji over a newfound concern over her LSAT score is straight up racism.

Did Beau support Biden's complete racist selection process???

Democrats don't get to complain about racism because the ENTIRE selection process of Jackson Brown was BLATANTLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY racist..

Why, that sounds downright Republican!

How so?

Um, does the part about the nationwide Republican efforts to deny the vote ring any kind of bell, Elizabeth? Gurl, you sure ain't on your game lately. But I still love ya :P

Already explained, in great detail.

this is an unnecessary war that should have been prevented in the first place along lines that have been very well known for a very long time.

Oh yeah? Care to explain how? Leave out the part about capitulating to Putin just because he wants Ukraine and the West to do so.

The person who'se been nominated will be the first Black woman, ever. Because of that a whole lot of folks have come out of the woodwork trying to find a reason for her to not be there, because it's still the United States.

She graduated from Harvard Law -- she probably knows what she's doing!

How so?

Off topic!

this is an unnecessary war that should have been prevented in the first place along lines that have been very well known for a very long time.

Sir, you are entitled to your own opinion. You are NOT entitled to your own FACTS.

Tip O'Neil

By ANY measure of REAL science, a fetus is a person....

No, you don't get to say "pre-born" instead of the scientific term "fetus."

Besides, even if it's not a religious hangup on your part why do you think the 40% of Americans who believe that abortion is wrong get to lord it over the 60% of us who disagree?

Don't tell me that you believe in minority rule just because you cannot convince the majority of Americans that you're right.

I posted quite a lot from William Bradley's latest piece. What do you disagree with?

Haha that's pretty funny for the guy that once again flubbed his chance to address Bashi's evisceration of OD.

It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!

Fredo Corleone
GODFATHER Part 2

I'm not wasting time on you anymore, Fredo. You're boring.

MtnCaddy,

Must you resort to insults in your attempts to enter into a discussion?

No, no insults. It's just aggravating when you act like nobody here hasn't pointed out the error of your Munich, 1938 thinking.

Must you resort to insults in your attempts to enter into a discussion?

This is a yuge gift to NATO and the West because they've managed to unite against this threat to the 77-year peaceful and historically prosperous Pax Americana.

Enough with that failure of imagination crap!
Neither Biden nor Zelensky could stop the Ukrainian people from resisting invasion by their ancient foe.

All Ukraine has to do is what they've already done -- fight for their country!

What are you basing that rosy picture on?

C'mon, Elizabeth! Aren't you paying ANY attention to the facts on the ground?

I understand that Z is being pushed and pulled every which way but he has to make a decision about how to end this thing or lose completely the independence of Ukraine.

As for Mariupol, a city that Russia needs to take, I have learned and as quoted above, Z doesn't have to surrender - just declare it an "open city" as was done in WWII in order to save a city from complete destruction.

Elizabeth. The Ukrainians have already won this war. All they have to do is nothing more of what they've already proved that they can do, which is stop Russia cold.

It's just a matter of time before the sanctions make Russia boot Putin out the door.

Perhaps not so hard to ascertain as you just spent the rest of your column listing all of the reasons Russia's military hasn't gotten the job done, hello?

Here are some excerpts from William Bradley's latest piece which is a cautionary tale about relying on "assessments" from so-called experts and the western media who rely on Ukrainian facebook posts for most of the information they report, I have learned.

On March 7th, less than two weeks after the Russian invasion, the DOD assessment was that Russia retained 90 percent of its “combat power” inside Ukraine. (“Combat power” is a fairly arcane milspeak term with a complicated war college definition reflecting how much force a unit can bring to bear against its opponent. It is not a simple measure of how many troops are available. Though the Pentagon has issued some wildly varying casualty estimates, it prefers not to.)

What’s the DOD assessment now?

After more than two weeks of fierce Ukrainian resistance powered largely by advanced American weaponry, Russia’s combat power in Ukraine has degraded from 90 percent of what it entered with to “maybe just a little bit less than 90 percent.”

At this rate of degradation, Russia’s combat power in Ukraine will be down to 50 percent sometime in late 2023.

Heh.

Air operations? Early this week, Russia upped its operational tempo over Ukraine to more than 300 sorties per day. Ukraine of course keeps screaming for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over Ukraine, along with still more US surface to air missiles and Soviet era jets its pilots can fly.

But would they fly them? DOD will say how much the Russians are flying but has stopped saying how much the Ukrainians are flying. The last time they reported on that, Russians were flying more than 20 times as many sorties as the Ukrainian Air Force.

Whatever air losses the Russians are suffering, and DOD won’t give a figure, are all the result of ground-based air defense. There are no Ukrainian dogfight wins, contrary to a dramatic New York Times story about “Top Gun” derring do.

And at sea? Russia has a naval blockade of all Ukrainian ports. The Ukrainians scuttled their own flagship at the beginning of the month to prevent it falling into Russian hands.

To me, that sounds bad for Ukraine.

After a few weeks of brutal fighting and brutal shelling, Russian forces are all over the interior of the strategic port city prize of Mariupol. This is the gruesome terminal phase of urban combat, as seen in the US-led coalition’s capture of Mosul and Raqqa in 2017. (The DOD doesn’t talk about that part publicly.)

Taking Mariupol, says DOD, will enable the Russians to use the still largely untouched port facilities for their own purposes in southern Ukraine.

It also cements their goals of of establishing sustainable land corridors between Crimea, annexed after the Ukrainian regime change in 2014, and Russia and between Russian-held southern Ukraine and the increasingly Russian-held eastern Ukraine.

In the immediate tactical environment, it also furthers the strategic Russian objective of enveloping Ukraine’s Joint Forces Operation, described to me weeks ago as the Ukrainian army’s principal center of gravity.

DOD now assesses something noted here a week-and-a-half ago, that Russian forces are advancing along several axes to encircle that big Ukrainian unit originally formed to confront the separatist “people’s republics” in eastern Ukraine.

So, what do the Battles of Yorktown, Waterloo, Gettysburg, and Midway have in common? They were the decisive and/or turning point battles in the American Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War, and the Pacific Theater of World War II.

None involved a big city. All involved places on maps that were important solely because of the of each particular conflict.

I bring this perspective here because no one really knows what assessments are accurate on a day to day basis. But, there are certain fundamentals that should be taken into account when relying on information that is sketchy at best and should always be taken with more that a few spoonfuls of salt.

Oh, I think you may be quite right about that, Chris!

Actually, what the real prognosis is is UNKNOWN.

[The Russians] reportedly still have 900,000 soldiers in uniform, which is certainly nothing to sneer at. But after amassing close to 200,000 of them (estimates vary, from 150,000 up to around 190,000), they have not lived up to their reputation, to put it mildly.

Is this assessment based on Ukrainian officialdom or western media sources or from some Washington think tanks as they are getting most of their information from Ukrainian facebook posts!

Probably not. At least, not if you think Ukraine can win a war with Russia.

Today brought the news that Ukrainian forces are actually recapturing territory and pushing the Russians back.

In Ukrainian town, reality doesn’t match government boasts of victory over Russian forces

I have learned early on in this war to beward of propoganda from all corners, particularly when it's coming from Ukrainian officials who are boasting about successes against Russia.

I think we in America have grown up believing that every country in the world had a military that was similar in size and preparedness as we do…and that just cannot be true! Of the countries that spend the most on their military, the US spends the most by far! In the list of the top 10 spenders, the US spends more in military spending than the next 9 countries…COMBINED!

We pump so much money into military spending, yet we still have a large number of our military that must rely on SNAP to help feed their families. If WE cannot make sure that our people are properly fed with our massive military bank account, should we really be shocked that Russian troops are not being fed?