Seminole

I wasn't asking you to go hunt for it, but I thought you may already be aware of it from someone, anyone at all, that had suggested what the poster was positing. I'm not aware of any myself, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Didn't mean any harm in asking.

I think the Russians did it to try and better shield the lower, left side of the river and reduce what they're required to commit in that region. If it puts the Crimean water supply at risk it seems like a particularly defeatist move, though. I don't know why you'd do it if you thought you could actually hold the region. I think it creates too many problems the Ukrainians must deal with long and short term to imagine it outweighs whatever short term benefits they could possibly see in it. I really can't put together any good reasons for them to this and reduce uncertainty for their foe.

It was in the context of the Ukrainian war that this was offered as a reason the US couldn't have been involved in the pipeline's destruction: a lawless act at complete loggerheads with the US and EU role of supporting the international order I concur the idea the US is lily-white, and thus couldn't have been involved in the pipeline destruction, is naïve.

Can you point me to a single US pol or member of the security state suggesting the existence of the pipeline was in our interest? It's easy to find a montage of the opposite, but I can't find anyone suggesting we should allow it to exist, much less use it as a carrot with the Russians (did anyone engage in the latter, or is that entirely a speculated position?). The leverage was over Germany. The pipeline was an incentive to Germany to see a deal made at Ukraine's expense.

The pretense that the US doesn't break the law when it suits us? I think that's an 'unsubstantiated, illogical, and flawed point'. I disputed, with an example (Stuxnet), the notion that the US doesn't break laws in the furtherance of its ends. Do you remember when the DOJ dropped their gun running case against Marc Turi, because his lawyers were going to show at trial he was just doing what the US admin wanted done (shipping arms from Libya to Syria), and they didn't want it coming out? One shouldn't lose sight of how immoral some of the decision makers are. To think they wouldn't break the law is a joke. What you're calling a 'whataboutism' is simply another example of the behavior being denied. The point that the U.S. will break the law when it suits it has not been refuted, or smacked down. It wasn't even addressed. Do you think it was legal to tap Merkel's phone? Or do you think it didn't even happen? Is the idea 'right out of my backside'? That's not a 'whataboutism', it's just pointing to another example of us breaking the laws our leadership decides to break. Logically, how better can I dispute this than with examples to the contrary?

The U.S. withdrawal was subsequent to the unearthing of radioactive material (via Israeli spying) that Iran wouldn’t explain and actively tried to cover up (they bulldozed the site of the ‘carpet warehouse’ before allowing inspectors - wasn’t good enough). You’re dropping relevant context that I assume not everyone knows. In November 2019, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog urged Iran to explain uranium traces found at an undeclared site. Reuters reported that the site was a warehouse in Tehran’s Turquzabad district. What is known about the site? In his 2018 address to the U.N. General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alleged that there was a “secret atomic warehouse for storing massive amounts of equipment and materiel from Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program” in the Turquzabad district of Tehran. He revealed a photo of the building in question and claimed that Iran stored “300 tons” of equipment at the site, including 15 kilograms of unspecified radioactive materials. Netanyahu said Israel shared intelligence about the site with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and urged it to investigate the warehouse. The IAEA’s efforts to seek clarification from Iran about the site began in January 2019. Inspectors reportedly visited the warehouse in the spring and took environmental samples. Test results leaked in June indicated that uranium was found at the site, but the agency did not publicly confirm the presence of uranium until November. On November 7, 2019, Acting-Director General Cornel Feruta convened a special meeting of the IAEA’s Board of Governors and reported that the agency “detected natural uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at a location in Iran not declared to the agency.” Diplomats present at the meeting confirmed to reporters that the samples were taken from Turquzabad and that the uranium detected was processed, but not enriched. The acting IAEA chief said that the composition of the particles indicated that they may have been produced through uranium conversion activities, according to U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA Jackie Wolcott. What explanation has Iran offered? Iranian officials publicly denied that the warehouse was used to store materials and equipment from its nuclear program. Even after the IAEA’s disclosure, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) said that the warehouse was owned by a private company and could have been used to store old equipment from Iran’s uranium mine. The AEOI said that particles of uranium could “fly anywhere.” Iran’s Foreign Ministry has also accused Israel of setting a “trap” at the site and called on the IAEA to “maintain its vigilance.” Besides its public denials, Iran does not appear to be fully cooperating with the IAEA’s investigation into the site. In his address to the IAEA Board of Governors on November 21, Feruta said that the investigation “remains unresolved” and urged Iran to comply with the agency’s inquiries. Rafeal Grossi, who took over from Feruta in December, said that the IAEA continues to question Iran about the site. But as of December 3, the agency had “not received an entirely satisfactory reply.”

Would you consider releasing a virus like Stuxnet to be ‘a lawless act at complete loggerheads with supporting the international order’? The notion the U.S. won’t break laws where it sees a benefit in doing so is laughable. The only ‘international order’ under consideration is keeping the US on top. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted, “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

How do you square this fantasy conversation protecting the pipeline with the steady drumbeat from US politicians? e.g. “If Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine — then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” President Biden

The Russians had restored that water flow at the outset of the invasion: February 24, 20221:58 PM ESTUpdated a year ago MOSCOW, Feb 24 (Reuters) - Russian forces restored water flow to a canal linking the Dnieper River in Ukraine to Russian-annexed Crimea, a Russian defence ministry spokesperson said on Thursday, as Russia pressed ahead with a vast military operation against Ukraine. Ukraine cut off fresh water supply along the canal that had supplied 85% of the peninsula's needs after Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014. The Soviet-era waterway was built to channel water from the Dnieper to arid areas of Ukraine's Kherson region and Crimea.

‘Stable government’ strikes me as a rather backhanded compliment, given the concerns of worldwide trend toward authoritarianism. It doesn’t seem that long ago helicopters were strafing protestors and we reading about an F-16 pilot who had orders to shoot down Erdogan. But I admit I didn’t think of the last angle, that it’s a carrot for accepting Sweden without further conditions. I just think of Turkey’s position in the 2003 Iraq invasion and their position during the attempt to overthrow Assad. Not exactly a strong ‘team player’. That’s why I find it a surprising element, but not impossible.

"Army North will be located at the American base in Wiesbaden, Army South in Izmir." Focusing a new command in Turkey seems... optimistic? Just seems like the alliance as a whole wouldn't want a new command potentially 'hostage' to Erdogan's whims.

Osteoporosis is part of life for people over 80, that’s why falls by the elderly are often deadly, and not particularly analogous to falls among toddlers, or even the middle aged.

OPEC+ news: The Financial Times reports that OPEC has barred several media groups from attending its crucial production meeting in Vienna this weekend, in a move officials said was driven by Saudi Arabia Reporters from Reuters, Bloomberg News and Dow Jones, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, have been denied invites to Opec’s Vienna headquarters, according to people familiar with the matter. The ban is unusual and no reason has been given for excluding the media groups, but people familiar with the decision said it had been instigated by Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman. Are they readying a surprise cut announcement and don't want any leaks? If it was Russia's intention to send oil tumbling after its oil minister last week said that OPEC+ has no intentions of cutting production, in the process inviting another round of shorts and bearish CTAs, well... mission accomplished: on Wednesday oil tumbled more than 3% following the latest dismal Chinese PMI data, and followed a 4.4% drop on Tuesday the black gold is now on pace for its worst month since November 2021. But the real driver behind the latest dump is the reversal of last week's speculation that an OPEC+ cut may be coming following a thinly veiled threat by the Saudi energy minister. ... Meanwhile, Goldman forecasts a hold for major producers because they likely first want to observe the impact of fresh cuts which just started this month (actually, they haven't as Russia has been cutting output only verbally, while its exports remain near record high). As an aside, OPEC has never cut within three months of a previous cut with stocks as low as today. "Signs that the market remains on track for H2 deficits, incomplete Russia compliance, and several recent comments by OPEC+ and US energy policymakers also support a hold" according to Goldman., which lays out these four reasons why the major producers are likely to roll over output. First, OPEC projections and inventories data suggest the market remains on track for large and sustained deficits in H2 with unchanged OPEC production. OPEC, the IEA, and our team all continue to predict that solid global oil demand growth will outpace non-OPEC supply growth this year (Exhibit 2). Second, our Russia supply nowcast suggests that Russia production has fallen by less than the 500kb/d pledged. The Wall Street Journal also reports that “Saudi officials have complained to senior Russian officials and asked them to respect he agreed cuts”. We suspect that OPEC policymakers will likely first want to see stronger evidence of full Russia compliance before announcing any deeper cuts. Third, several recent comments by OPEC+ policymakers also point to a hold. For instance, Iraq's Energy Minister said that "there will be no additional reduction." Fourth, recent comments by US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm that the US could start repurchasing oil for the SPR after June, and the announcement of a modest SPR purchase of 3mb suggest that OPEC’s frustration with Western energy policies—which likely contributed to the surprise cut in April—may have edged down.

I think a partisan political report is less credible than a decision to not prosecute where facts must be demonstrated in a court of law. We’ve had years of bogus accusations from members of Congress. I think more important is to recognize the sum being discussed is around $5000. The idea that the NRA was actually a money laundering operation for Russian influence flounders a bit when you mention that tiny sum and contrast it with what Americans contribute to the organization. As I was trying to say, the story is sexier with fewer details where your imagination can run wild.

In 2018, the NRA admitted that it had received contributions from 23 Russians or Americans living in Russia since 2015, amounting to just over $2,500 in "routine payments" such as membership fees or magazine subscriptions. The NRA later said that it had received more money from two Russian nationals previously disclosed, including Alexander Torshin, a Russian banker, with links to the Kremlin. [ed. note: Torshin bought a lifetime membership - $1,500) At the time, Torshin was under an FBI investigation into whether any Russian money was funneled through the NRA to help Donald Trump in the 2016 election. The NRA has denied that money they gave towards Trump's campaign came from Russia. The FEC general counsel's office concluded in 2018 that there was "insufficient" evidence to state that Russian money was illegally funneled through the NRA to influence the presidential campaign. These smears actually work better with less details, lets the imagination run.

I think it’s safe to say he’s the #1 hawk left in Congress, and he’s someone I’d expect to be well briefed by the Ukrainians.

Kinda funny to get mad at them for refusing to enforce a treaty we refuse to sign. From NPR: MARTIN: I do want to point out that Russia also does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but the ICC has already opened investigations into possible war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine. Can the U.S. help with these investigations, despite not being a member of the court itself? BELLINGER: Well, it certainly can, and it should, in my view. There are some legal problems because when the court opened in 2002, Congress passed, on a bipartisan basis, a very draconian piece of legislation called the American Service Members Protection Act that strictly limits the U.S. ability to cooperate with the court, with some exceptions. So the Biden administration would have to work its way through these legal restrictions, which would, I think, ultimately allow some support to the court.

Such as the way Serbia ‘provoked’ the NATO intervention in their civil war. Or perhaps the Libyan ‘provocations’ that necessitated NATO intervention in their civil war. NATO would never intervene in a foreign civil war again, right? Bonkers notion. Unless maybe it was in essence on their ‘border’? I would think Russian leadership could look at the brutal civil war waged in Chechnya and conclude there is a greater than 0.0000000% chance NATO could intervene in a future Russian peripheral separatists conflict, if they had bases reasonably close enough to contribute. Hence the desire to avoid the development of such bases, and thus render even more remote the possibility. After Kosovo and Libya you can’t truthfully argue that NATO is a ‘purely defensive’ organization. It’s become a multi-national end run on the UN’s monopoly of force. That isn’t to argue whether that is itself desirable or not, it’s simply the case.

Indeed, policies like glasnost and perestroika aren Stalinist, and they’ll bring your communist state to an end because it requires near total compulsion/compliance. Agreed, my point was they don’t last without a Stalinist at the helm. And more specifically the guy at the helm of a Stalinist state has more to do with whether it persists than just about any step an external power can or would take short of 2003 regime change style invasion. Didn’t work under Gorbachev’s policies. Saddam and Kim navigated that era just fine.

Saying someone isn’t as bloodthirsty as Stalin is still on the other side of the spectrum from someone that eschews violence. Plenty of Stalinist states plug along, to his credit Gorbachev isn’t a Stalinist, but that’s the secret ingredient to keep a communist state operating. See: North Korea

I think the internal factor that Gorbachev wasn’t as bloodthirsty as predecessors had more to do with the collapse of the USSR than any external factor. I suspect a Stalin, Kim, or Saddam would have kept the rotten edifice going irrespective whatever value they concocted for their military expenditures as a portion of the concocted value of their total economic output.

The idea we shouldn't worry about a Russian nuke because we imagine there is a percentage chance it won't work seems to ignore that they possess thousands of these things. Just doesn't seem like a strong argument in favor of not worrying about them. Is there really anything except the nuclear war prospect that is keeping the U.S. from being directly involved in this conflict? If the prospect keeps us out, the reality would draw us in? To what end? The World's? Crazy times. Hope this all finds the least ugly end remaining.

Imagine instead of a tactical nuke on Russian soil they put a city killer into Lvov, with a promise of more to follow if Ukraine refuses to submit. Is there an escalatory counter to that? Or would Ukraine be forced to quit at the risk of literal annihilation? The reason so much effort has gone into engineering a relatively ‘soft’ defeat for Russia is because if faced with a ‘hard’ defeat they can instead make everyone lose. Few nations on the planet hold that card, even fewer could ever be imagined to play it.

It’s less the opposition to fascism and more the adherence to other unsavory ends of the spectrum: The antifa movement has existed in different eras and incarnations, dating back to Antifaschistische Aktion, from which the moniker Antifa came. It was set up by the then-Stalinist Communist Party of Germany (KPD) during the late history of the Weimar Republic. Imagine being opposed to communists and fascists. The nerve of some people.