Comments by "PNH 6000" (@PNH-sf4jz) on "Jake Broe"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Reasons for "Measured and Proportional Response."
There is, effectively, a conference of countries of which the UK, the US {by virtue of their commitment given to Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan under terms of the Budapest Memorandum}, Ukraine of course, Poland, Germany, and approximately 50 other countries, are members. The decisions made are arrived at by consensus among the participating countries, with Ukraine having the deciding voice. One of the issues that appears to have been clear is the concept of "Measured and Proportional Response".
Issues to be considered in the provision of hardware and resources are: logistics, supply lines, facilities for repair - {Repairing tanks is not like taking the SUV to the local repairer for brake disc and pad replacement}, combinations of other support vehicles and even aircraft; consideration of how the hardware is to be used and, probably most important of all, adequate training and experience for the personnel who will be operating the hardware and equipment.
While I acknowledge and understand the frustration that millions of people are experiencing, the consequences of escalating beyond what is referred to as a "proportional response", may be even greater devastation and hardship for Ukrainians than they are already experiencing.
Such a possibility may be difficult to conceive, but Ukraine would be the first likely target if the RuZZians decided to really test the resolve of the "west" or "free world". And if the RuZZians were to fire a small number of tactical nuclear weapons against the major eastern cities of Ukraine, I leave it to you to web-search information about the possible consequences.
The article, in the website below, provides some details on what the response, by western nations, but specifically by the US, to the firing of a nuclear weapon by RuZZia would be. You may wish to read and consider the details, as the possibilities concern us all.
What If Russia Uses Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine?
A look at the grim scenarios—and the U.S. playbook for each
By Eric Schlosser June 20, 2022
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapon-us-response/661315/
{RuZZia refers to the RuZZian Nazi-Fascist style regime that appears to be acting against the interests of their own population and those of other countries, particularly, but not only, Ukraine at the present time.}
====== Russian Nuclear Weapons Targets.======
Russia, through Putin and others, claims that it has numerous city targets around the world that it can attack with nuclear weapons.
However, the "Achilles' heel" for Russia, particularly because of the immense size of the country, is that there are only two cities to target, Moscow and St. Petersburg. If both of those cities were to be annihilated, it would decimate the Russian Federation.
The country currently identified as the Russian Federation would simply revert to being controlled by the ethnic and national identities and groups, of which the current federation is comprised.
Then Putin, if he survived and could find a horse, would need the horse to help him hunt for food. His capacity to exercise power would no longer exist, except in a very limited region, and he would be the focus of recrimination and responsibility for the devastation that would have been exacted on Russia with western conventional weapons because of the Russian pre-emptive strike. The "west" are most UN-likely to respond with nuclear weapons, but neither would they need to.
Putin would have to be aware of the high probability of this outcome, which would most likely be the only reason that would matter to him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Agreed and Supported.
RuZZia refers to the RuZZian Fascist-Nazi regime that appears to be acting against the interests of their own population and those of other countries, particularly Ukraine at the present time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Nazism is a form of fascism,[2][3][4][5] with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. It incorporates fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, scientific racism, and the use of eugenics into its creed. Its extreme nationalism originated in pan-Germanism and the ethno-nationalist neopagan Völkisch movement which had been a prominent aspect of German nationalism since the late 19th century, and it was strongly influenced by the Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged after Germany's defeat in World War I, from which came the party's underlying "cult of violence".[6]
🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 VICTORY for UKRAINE 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No!!! Giving the US mineral rights in Ukraine is
DEFINITELY NOT ANY FORM OF SECURITY GUARANTEE
There were Americans working in Ukraine, and at the embassy in Kyiv on both occasions when Ukraine was invaded, in 2014 and in 2022. Neither the presence of Americans nor of the ohchr UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) which was deployed in March 2014 : --
**** at the invitation of the Government of Ukraine. {UN Human Rights in Ukraine} ***
or staff of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, which started its activities on 21 March 2014 : --
**** at the request of Ukraine’s Government and a consensus decision by all 57 OSCE participating States. ***
And, discontinued its operations on 31 March 2022. The presence of American nationals and these two prominent organizations had any effect in preventing the Russians from beginning and escalating their WAR against Ukraine.
Indeed, the Russians accused the US (America) of sedition, incitement to insurrection, orchestrating a coup and fomenting the WAR, waged by Russia against Ukraine. It is, therefore, highly unlikely, even inconceivable, that the presence of Americans in Ukraine would deter the Russians from their WAR. The Russians are constantly indicating by their statements that "peace" can only be on their terms - nothing else will be considered. This is not an ambit statement, it is all that they will accept.
Because of the buildup of Russian troops in Belarus, US Embassy staff and foreigners had to be evacuated in 2022.
TIMELINE
11 Feb 2022 — The US State Department ordered US embassy staff to leave Ukraine as Western intelligence officials warned that a Russian invasion was imminent. Foreigners urged to leave Ukraine, US to evacuate embassy amid warnings Russia could invade before end of Winter Olympics.
12 Feb 2022 — US evacuated diplomats, troops from Ukraine amid 'war zone' warnings. The US evacuated its diplomats and troops in the country and urged private American citizens to leave immediately, according to the State Department
13 Feb 2022 — US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the "imminent" threat of Russian military action in Ukraine justifies evacuating the US embassy in Kyiv. US defends evacuating embassy as Zelenskyy urges calm.
14 Feb 2022 — US relocated embassy from Kyiv. The US State Department said Monday it was temporarily relocating its embassy in Ukraine from the capital, Kyiv, to the city of Lviv in the west of the country.
15 Feb 2022 — U.S. moving Ukraine embassy from Kyiv to Lviv amid Russian buildup. Most embassy staff have already been ordered to depart Ukraine, and U.S. citizens have been advised to leave the country by commercial means.
1 Mar 2024 — State Department Personnel Stationed in Ukraine Return to US. Several U.S. diplomats stationed in Ukraine have returned to Washington after first relocating from Kyiv to Lviv and then from Lviv.
The role of the HRMMU was to monitor and publicly report on the human rights situation in the country, with a particular focus on the conflict area in eastern Ukraine and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, occupied by the Russian Federation.
Since 2014, HRMMU has maintained a comprehensive record of conflict-related civilian casualties in Ukraine, with data disaggregated by sex, age, place of incident, and type of incident or weapon involved. Since 24 February 2022, HRMMU has increased the frequency of its public updates on civilian casualties.
As of 31 August, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) had verified that conflict-related violence had caused the deaths of 11,743 civilians and injured 24,614 in Ukraine since 24 February 2022.
The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and
the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine
were both established to monitor human rights in Ukraine. The UN mission focuses on protecting human rights, while the OSCE mission focused on implementing the Minsk Protocol. The OSCE mission has since closed.
The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) started its activities on 21 March 2014 and discontinued its operations on 31 March 2022.
The SMM was deployed following a request to the OSCE
**** by Ukraine’s Government and a consensus decision by all 57 OSCE participating States. ***
The SMM was an unarmed, civilian mission, operating on the ground 24/7 in Ukraine. Its main tasks were to observe and report in an impartial and objective manner on the security situation in Ukraine; and to facilitate dialogue among all parties to the conflict.
The decision to discontinue the operations, and to close the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), follows the lack of consensus at the OSCE Permanent Council on 31 March 2022 to extend the Mission’s mandate.
“This is not an easy decision to take. We have explored all possible options through political dialogue with participating States to achieve the renewal of the Special Monitoring Mission’s mandate, but --
**** the position of the Russian Federation left us with no choice but to take steps to close down the Mission,” ***
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@A_Derpy_NINJA Absolutely agreed and supported. I believe that all your points are valid. I am at a loss as to the reason that more people do not recognise those issues. Re your comment beginning "first of all that(s) not a given that Ukraine could have found a work around."
The last point carries the most weight, I think. "They got a good deal at a time when WE all thought a new Russia was being born." Ukraine had been assured that it would be safe from attack, invasion and WAR waged against them. While, at the time, they had some misgivings about relinquishing the nuclear weapons, it seemed, on balance, the reasonable thing to do, both from national and international perspectives. If Ukraine had retained the nuclear weapons, they would also have increased the possibility of being attacked with nuclear weapons. Russia's unprovoked WAR against Ukraine, commenced in 2014, demonstrates that possibility and high probability.
I think that most people are not aware that Ukraine also relinquished to Russia, on the basis of promises made by Russia, most of their military hardware. That included all the Tu-95 heavy bombers. Much, if not all of this hardware has been used against Ukraine since Russia's insurgency, invasion, incitement to insurrection and WAR waged by Russia against Ukraine, since 2014.
As a result of the transfer of Ukraine's military hardware to Russia, and despite Russia's claim to "need to demilitarise Ukraine", the Russian political and military establishment and Putin, in particular, as the signatory to the agreements, knew that Ukraine had, between 1991 and 1997, been militarily emasculated or neutered. Not only did Ukraine have no wish to attack Russia, but they could not do so, without being aware that Ukraine would simply bring great harm on themselves.
🇺🇦 Victory for Ukraine, Absolute Victory 🇺🇦
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
How does anyone, including Jake, explain the un-explainable? If any-one or any group, institution, national or international entity, does not wish to do something, or chooses not to do so, it is only they that can explain their reasons why, if they even know the reasons for their decisions and actions. And if those reasons are deliberately clouded with subterfuge and obfuscation, it is likely that no justifiable reasons, for the positions held, will ever be clearly apparent or stated.
1
-
1
-
Antonio Alvir, I really like the way that you have condensed a lot of historical and contemporary information into a relatively brief and significant report.
To state the obvious, no country is perfect and no country's actions are perfect. However, there are countries that endeavour to serve their own citizens with honour and also the citizens of other countries in the best ways that they can.
Unfortunately, The Russian political and military establishment and the military forces that they control, seem to have decided on a path that is devisive and destructive, not only for the people of other countries, but also the people of Russia.
One of the most sobering and concerning references, that I have read recently, is on the site:
"Russia under Vladimir Putin" in a paragraph near the end of the article entitled:
"Militarism and wars outside Russian territory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_under_Vladimir_Putin
---- "In Andrey Piontkovsky's opinion, Vladimir Putin feels the frustration towards Soviet Union’s defeat in {the} Cold war (which Piontkovsky calls Third world war) and wishes to get a revanche revenge, defeating the West in {a} Fourth world war. In fact, Putin has started this war in 2014 with {the} annexation of Crimea, more specifically since 20 February 2014 – this date is specified in the Medal "For the Return of Crimea".[252] Piontkovsky believes that {the} geopolitical thinking of Putin and his close circle was reflected in the 2018 “Zavtra” magazine article by Alexander Khaldey:[253]
---- "Piontkovsky considers that Putin’s strategical purposes are following:
1) the installation of Russian military and political control under over post-Soviet area {era states and countries} and, perhaps, Central Europe;
2) the discrediting of NATO as unable to protect its members;
3) the entrenching Russia's sphere of interest in Europe through new "Yalta Agreement" with humiliated USA. These goals should be achieved through 3 elements:[255]
Gerasimov doctrine of hybrid war
Patrushev doctrine of nuclear blackmail
Russian traditional despising an {of their} own citizens lives that provides an advantage over “hedonistic West”
---- "The Gerasimov doctrine[256] enunciates wide use of so-called non-linear warfare and reflexive control (propaganda, cyberattacks, diplomatic actions, economic instruments, bribing foreign public officials, etc.); specifically fighting are carried out by special forces and mercenaries under the guise of local partisans. This doctrine declares that non-military tactics are not auxiliary to the use of force but the preferred way to win; that they are, in fact, the actual war.[257] The difference between Gerasimov doctrine and Western views of hybrid conflict is that Russian doctrine combines both low-end, hidden state involvement with high-end, direct, even braggadocio superpower involvement.[258] Russian hybrid warfare conduct aims to create a "hallucinating fog of war" and consistent deception that aims not to paralyze the West's intelligence and anticipatory capabilities, but to alter Western analytical end-results and perceptions of Russia's strategic intentions.[259] The Gerasimov doctrine has been directly applied by Russia in the Russo-Ukrainian War.[260]"
---- "The essence of the Patrushev doctrine boils down to “de-escalation through nuclear escalation”. Russia would cause a direct military conflict against NATO in any region outside Russian territory, for example in the Baltic States, avoiding the use of weapons of mass destruction. At first, Russia would succeed, using an element of surprise, but later a turning point in the war would be achieved to the benefit of NATO. At that time, Russia would threaten to use nuclear weapons, and if the threats do not succeed, Russia would launch a limited nuclear strike on targets in Europe. If the West decide to make a limited nuclear retaliatory strike, then Russia would make a larger nuclear strike on targets in Europe and USA. Kremlin strategists believe that the West would flinch first, giving up to “strong-willed Russia”, and would agree to end the war on Putin’s terms.[261] American response to Russian Patrushev doctrine has been so-called Pompeo doctrine,[262] the major standpoints of which were set out in the 2018 US National Defense Strategy, in which for the first time since the end of the Cold war Russia was designated as a global power and principal opponent of the USA. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review declared that the key objective of U.S. nuclear policy is to dissuade Russia from its mistaken impression that a first-use of nuclear weapons by Russia in a conflict would de-escalate the conflict with terms favorable to Russia.[263] As in the Cold war times, the Arctic can be the area of potential NATO-Russia conflict.[264]" {End Quote}
---- Russian traditional despising an {of their} own citizens lives seems to have been apparent in the way that Russians have been directed to and have fought in the Russo-Ukraine war
Two other sites of interest and relaevant to past and recent events are:
Russo-Ukrainian War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War
Putin's Palace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin%27s_Palace_(film)
All words in brackets like this {have been added to the text by me} and also deleted words for clarity by me.
🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 VICTORY for UKRAINE 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1