manning5me Loc: Richmond, Va.

Russia has again today threatened nuclear war over our support to Ukraine. That is Blackmail!

manning5me Loc: Richmond, Va.

As far as I am concerned, we are seeing the ultimate in aggression by Putin when he plays the nuclear card over Ukraine. There is no sweetness and light showing in Russia. Has anyone asked Mr. Putin whether he wants war with NATO, war with the US? Nuclear war with the US? The US has vowed never to be a first user of nuclear weapons. But our ability to totally and completely devastate any nation that nukes our country is a fact. This response umbrella extends to nuking NATO nations, and the Ukraine, I believe. Further, I am fully convinced that even aggressive Putin is Bluffing, as I wrote earlier. How far are we willing to go to satisfy Putin? Give back the Ukraine? Give back the Baltic states? Give back Poland? Give back East Germany? The exact same muclear blackmail approach will pertain after the Ukraine war is settled or not, and now, no assurance from Putin that all he wants is in Ukraine can be believed. When does NATO stand up and stop Putin? Ukraine.

Yes, Russia has more nukes than we do but we have quite a large number at the ready. We have made sure that Putin knows this, yet he threatens us still. Will we cave in?

manning5me Loc: Richmond, Va.

Such a decision to proceed in the Ukraine despite Putin's threat is not mine to make! Then too, I wonder whether Putin's command system would respond and launch their missiles or would subordinates refuse to execute his command. We should be so lucky!

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

I'm back. So much to absorb, your responses to me, in general and other responses to others. I'll try to avoid those last one although valid they may be. I need to catch up. But I will read and reread as necessary to come up with an honest response. I think both of us really want a peaceful Europe and it is a matter of fault and cures we disagree on. I'll get back.

L R

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

A short summary of my experience over the 43 years of my career. is called for, since I am being compared to Scott Ritter. I bow to his currency; that I cannot match.

But I have had long and deep knowledge of intel, command and control, communications, and computers, all applications from the top down, WH, Pentagon, Omaha, Fleet, and delivery systems. such as the B-52H, Boomers, etc.

The whole nuclear warfare systematics was a major
part of my background. I held high clearances throughout my efforts. I spent a year helping the CIA automate its overt side. For 7 years I was in the pentagon renovation program, with concentration on all command centers, and data requirements.

I went to Holland in 1974, working for a subsidiary of Philips called Hollandse Signaal Apparaten or HSA. From that company position as manager of advanced systems, I was brought into studies for NATO on a wide range of topics vital to its role in the defense of Europe. NATO AWACS was one program where I worked on the communication system. Air Defense was yet another specialty I was deeply involved in. for a number of years.

My 10 years in HSA included working with the Dutch army to automate their artillery system. And as result of my knowledge of the US TACFIRE artillery system, I was invited by the German MOD to consult in their approach to automation, and subsequently did the same for the Swiss army. At the time, I had the reputation of being an artillery expert.

After returning to the US, I was appointed by E-Systems to lead an effort from NATO called BICES, where we teamed with BAE to propose a solution to manage the expected war with Russia by automating support to the commanders. We didn't win the contract, but the system knowledge we acquired was significant.

I recognize that my experiences, while comprehensive at the time I was involved, are over two to three decades old. But the fundamentals of modern warfare, of NATO, the complexity of the C4I problem, Russian tactics, the nuclear war aspect, the air defense problem, the strategy and tactics I was exposed to, each of the NATO members at that time, and the expanding role of NATO I observed are all quite useful to me today.

This, then is where I am coming from, just some of the background of my knowledge when discussing the Ukraine situation. I will post a response to LR shortly.



You were doing a hell of a job. Thanks for that. Let me give some thoughts on where I'm coming from.
I was in a Navy Computer school when the Cuban Missile crises happened. And I was at sea returning from cruising off of Vietnam when our Captain announced that our Commander in Chief was assassinated. I guess that was the first time I really connected our CIC and President as the same person and leader. My experience in Vietnam consisted in the carrier I was on flying a sortie over Vietnam as a show of force during a coup attempt. Qualified the whole task force as Vietnam Vets. I don't brag about what I didn't do and I didn't do much for that. Never returned.

My work after that was strictly commercial computer maintenance. No biggie there. But it was about using Logic to resolve problems and coming to solutions.

All my life I was a heavy follower of the news via the Chicago Tribune when it was a great newspaper and TV and Radio news. Now in retirement I am almost obsessed with what is happening in the world, and the causes, and failed solutions, or missed chances at solutions. I have also had this point were I am constantly thinking up new and off the wall solutioins to problems. And I am definitely to the Right and Conservative, although thought of as a liberal for my style and the way I lived my life. Hence the name, Logically Right. Besides my constant heckling of some of the most outrageous leftists on Opp for their insane ideas and comments, I do like to find real solutions or new ideas that might solve some of life's problems. And I'm retired and have a lot of time to devote to that cause.

I want to get this one out of the way. Back in those days we were in a standoff between NATO and USSR. Nobody trusted anyone. Suddenly Russia stationed Missiles on Cuban soil and Kennedy drew a Red Line. A blockade and attacking Cuba or removal. Russia removed the missiles. I always thought that it was about Kennedy standing up to Russia. Well, it was and more.
I just looked up on the Internet the Cuban Missile Crisis just to verify what I heard just in the last year. "However, disaster was avoided when the U.S. agreed to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s offer to remove the Cuban missiles in exchange for the U.S. promising not to invade Cuba. Kennedy also secretly agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey."
I didn't know that last part until recently. Always learning and we aren't always perfect here in America. In other words, it wouldn't have happened at all of America hadn't threatened Russia directly with land based missiles in Turkey, pointed right down Moscow's throat. And it is these types of actions that give me reason to look at Russia's responses to America's actions. Are we always right, or bullies pushing our form of Government and interferring in countries all over the world.

I don't believe back then that Russia wanted any direct conflict with America. They were behind all of those Communist nations in Europe and South East Asia. But they preferred to fight on others soil through surrogates and it was working. And Khrushchev said back then that he didn't need to fight America to further Communism because America would fall from within. And aren't we doing just that with these Leftists leading the charge.

First response. More to follow.

Logically Right

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

***The central question we are wrestling with is Putin and his intentions for Russia, its independence, its commerce and its defense. I have no direct knowledge of his intentions. It is possible that no one knows Putin's plans, he was a trained KGB agent and is highly intelligent.

One rather revealing thing I do know is that he is a chess player. So am I, at just below the master level at one time. A good player thinks ahead, at times many moves ahead. Indeed, intimidation and the attempt at mental destruction of the opponent is quite normal for good players.

This is revealing to me. I can see marks of this thinking over the past few years by Putin. As a player, he looks at both sides of of his approach, on the one side it is opening Russia to the world as a good citizen, with commerce and industry, then the other side has a turn: how to defend the homeland against all possible invaders. Russia has been invaded over 50 times and is paranoid about their defense.

This leads to the need for regaining the key passes that lead to the heartland so that minimal forces can stop an invader long enough for mobile forces to reinforce them. The Soviet Union possessed all 8 of these passes, and Putin has regained 4 of them during his 9 wars and interventions since assuming the presidency. This is aggressive Putin.

He wants to possess the other 4 ultimately, and the Ukraine lies between one of them, and the Baltic states rest on the others. Thus, it is in the cards that Putin invaded the Ukraine, to get to the Carpathian Mountain passes, and he will ultimately go for the Baltic states. This is fundamental to his defensive thinking for the Motherland.

But his plans and schedules for acquiring the defense points has been totally disrupted by the Ukrainian response to the invasion, and that battle continues. More on this later.

The Baltic states are all new members of NATO, and count on Article 5 of the NATO treaty to be supported if they are invaded, say by Russia. If Putin invades one of these states, we have the option of either a conventional response or a nuclear response. Considering the fact that Russia has many nuclear-tipped intercontinental missiles at the ready to respond to our nuclear attack, MAD comes to the fore, which leads to our decision not to use our nukes over the taking of a Balkan state by Russia. This is a fact. By using this nuclear blackmail approach, Russia could take the Balkan states or any other state, one by one until they have all of the defense points, they think they need.

The key question here is this in Putin's agenda or not? If it is, we need to thwart it in the Ukraine. If it isn't, then we can consider stopping the fighting in Ukraine, and find a settlement that makes sense.
All of NATO believes Putin wants to expand the borders of Russia into eastern Europe and the Balkans, so they believe in Putin's aggressive plans.

In opposition to this, many believe the Putin can be trusted to make a reasonable settlement with the Ukraine, that we should sue for peace, stop the killing, and try to find a way to better relations with Russia, while saving a ton of money. Of course, there is the problem of reconstruction of cities, infrastructure and farms in the Ukraine. Who pays for that?

We have benevolent Putin and we have aggressive Putin. Ours to discover which one we are dealing with!

It is apparent also that the US is duplicitous to the max with regard to the Ukraine in the past, and thus the word of the US government is seriously suspect now. Under Biden, we are continuing to support the fighting , and the bill passed to provide the Ukraine some $67 billion in new support. All of NATO is gearing up production of armaments to support the Ukraine and to increase their own stocks of arms.

Personally, I believe in the aggressive Putin, hence I support the fight to remove Russian troops from the Ukraine, and to thwart Putin's aggression elsewhere, such as in the Baltic.

However, should Putin signal his desire to stop the shooting and go to the negotiating table, we must do the same. And, if the terms they offer are good, we can accept them. The killing must stop sooner than later. I do not believe our administration will go to the table though.

I dearly hope we can prevent any nudnicks from converting the US to socialism. I believe that would cause an insurrection to stop it.

>>>No, we don't know Putin's plans and can only speculate. While we are often an open book, we also have problems with what our government is doing for us and to us, supposedly for our own good, whether we like it or not, just because they were elected and don't have to answer to us.

Another thing I don't like is the casual mentioning of Putin as a KGB agent. Like it absolutely means he can't ever be trusted and has to be 100% accepted that he is evil because of it and always accused of it. No matter what good he might do or try to do. It always reminds me or the great engineer and architect who complains about building great buildings, bridges, monuments, and such and never being recognized for that, but suck one c*ck. Without proof of dirty deeds and such as KGB, it matters little to how he conducts himself now. But we are in agreement in that he is smart and calculating and thinks through and far in advance.
***This is revealing to me. I can see marks of this thinking over the past few years by Putin. As a player, he looks at both sides of of his approach, on the one side it is opening Russia to the world as a good citizen, with commerce and industry, then the other side has a turn: how to defend the homeland against all possible invaders. Russia has been invaded over 50 times and is paranoid about their defense.
>>>On that we can agree.

You mentioned aggressive Putin going after 9 passes that are natural barriers to protecting Russia. Not sure on that. And the location of Ukraine might be part of his insistence that Ukraine can never be part of NATO. That is understandable in Putin's looking back in history and trying to defend his country. But I stand by the point that it was totally unnecessary until the American/NATO/EU sponsored coup in 2014. I stand on that and Putin's immediate move on Crimea. And his excuses and such for doing so. To allow American/NATO/EU to take over Ukraine, as an equal or as a tool for the West, was to much and he moved immediately. To delay was to put NATO right on his border were the advancements were headed. He had no problem with Finland. They were at peace. The small Baltics were just that and done, I believe just before he took over control of Russia and under Yeltsin's watch. And Ukraine's president just chose the Russian's deal over the EU's deal, just before the coup. A direct attack at a deal between two countries, Russia and Ukraine.

A point about Coups. We have been talking in America about, if a country has no borders does it cease to be a country. Well, I say if a country has no leader, because he was forced our at the threat against his life, does the country still exist as a country. And if new leaders are imposed on the country, in part by outside suggestions, are the people required to accept them. And if these new leaders then subject part of the people to discriminatory rules and regulations against their heritage, are they required to accept them as their new leaders. The ethnic Russians were suddenly being persecuted and rebelled. And Putin/Russia supported them. Did they have a right to rebel, and even secede from Ukraine. And did Russia/Putin have a right to support those moves. I would think a violent removal of leadership opens all doors. And we started this in our efforts to cut off Russia to the outside world on their western borders.

While I can't say that Putin won't go after those three little Baltic States, I just don't see it. But what scares me is what I see there and Moldova in them getting tougher and tougher on ethnic Russians living there. And the only reason I see Putin doing something there is to protect ethnic Russians. To that I would say to those states is to please treat them as the citizens of those states that they are. Then there is no justification for Putin to start something there. Just treat then as you would good neighbors, equal and friends. But from what I read, that is the opposite of what those states are doing, and just giving Putin an excuse to attack there. Personally, I doubt he would otherwise, and that would be an attack against NATO. Even though NATO is attacking him in their support of Ukraine.

***The key question here is this in Putin's agenda or not? If it is, we need to thwart it in the Ukraine. If it isn't, then we can consider stopping the fighting in Ukraine, and find a settlement that makes sense. All of NATO believes Putin wants to expand the borders of Russia into eastern Europe and the Balkans, so they believe in Putin's aggressive plans.
>>>Hence the need for talks. Russia tried and England put pressure on Ukraine to not talk. And remember the Minsk accords. Russia agreed and the west, admittedly, just used the pause for talks, to rearm Ukraine. As long as the West can't be trusted, Putin has no need to trust them. Ukraine needs to ask for talks and tell NATO to FO. But with this new aide from America, they will think of nothing but victory that won't ever happen and cause the deaths and injuries to tens of thousands more men, and destruction of ever more of Ukraine. And American's don't care because Americans are going to make billions rebuilding Ukraine. The more that is destroyed, the more they can make, and the more they can buy up. Stop this insanity now.
***In opposition to this, many believe the Putin can be trusted to make a reasonable settlement with the Ukraine, that we should sue for peace, stop the killing, and try to find a way to better relations with Russia, while saving a ton of money. Of course, there is the problem of reconstruction of cities, infrastructure and farms in the Ukraine. Who pays for that?
>>>I believe that. Trust and verify. And that goes both ways and America has shown to be the least trustworthy in Europe of late, 1990 to now. Costs. Both sides destroyed Ukraine. and Ukraine also is at fault. Percentages. And go after Ukraine resources by helping develop them and use all profits for redevelopment.
***It is apparent also that the US is duplicitous to the max with regard to the Ukraine in the past, and thus the word of the US government is seriously suspect now. Under Biden, we are continuing to support the fighting , and the bill passed to provide the Ukraine some $67 billion in new support. All of NATO is gearing up production of armaments to support the Ukraine and to increase their own stocks of arms.

Personally, I believe in the aggressive Putin, hence I support the fight to remove Russian troops from the Ukraine, and to thwart Putin's aggression elsewhere, such as in the Baltic.

However, should Putin signal his desire to stop the shooting and go to the negotiating table, we must do the same. And, if the terms they offer are good, we can accept them. The killing must stop sooner than later. I do not believe our administration will go to the table though.
>>>With the exception of believing in the Aggressive Putin, and our continuous support of the fighting, we agree here. It definitely needs to stop and the West won't talk to Putin. I believe if this went on until next January, President Trump would already be talking to Putin and a deal would be made.

***I dearly hope we can prevent any nudnicks from converting the US to socialism. I believe that would cause an insurrection to stop it.
>>>And at 83, I would be willing to take up arms to stop that insanity.

Still a great discussion. More to come. I need a break.

Logically Right

manning5me Loc: Richmond, Va.

The postings on youtube are rather hard to believe. That Russia is withdrawing from Ukraine; that Putin may run for his life, that Chechnya forces have fully gone over to the Ukraine, etc. Lots of noise in the channel. What isn't noise is Putin's dire threat to go nuclear on Tuesday because of US support of the Ukraine. Then, vague news that Medniev, SP? the former president was opposing Putin and offering the Russian to end the war and return Russia to prosperity, all seem to me to be fake news. I cannot find any corroborating sources for any of it, but the nuclear threat. That in itself is bad enough, and highlights the Mad, Aggressive Putin state of mind. Of course, many believe he is bluffing, US/NATO, and I too.
One ear I have in Europe says NATO will proceed with their support, as will the US. So, we will have either significant sunshine or nuclear winter real soon now. Again, the question arises: is Putin a rational player, or not? Then too, are the smoke signals from Russia heralding a regime change real soon now? We will find out this year, I guess. The gauntlet has been thrown down, so what is next?

In October, 1962, I was just leaving the CIA basement to take charge of the Naval Intel Center's database system development in Morrocco. They decided to move it to Rota, Spain, and before I could absorb that, they moved it back to Jacksonville, Fla. I declined the opportunity at that point, so they tried to get me to go to Misawa, Japan on, as I remember it, the 466L project. I refused that too, and the rath of IBM management came down on my head! In a short time later, I had an offer from RCA, which I accepted. They were developing a military computer compatible with the IBM 360, and wanted to address a number of opportunities for such a capability. They didn't pan out, so that is when I went to Holland to manage their advanced system developments, mainly for the new M-Frigates and its entire electronics suite in my first years there, and to spearhead their NATO efforts later on. Great company, great social life, great education for my kids, lots of very interesting work, and six weeks of vacation to tour Europe with. And 220 days of rain to cope with per year.

Give me a sniper rifle and I will support from my house returning the US to sanity, freedom, and as far from DEI, WOKE, CRT, and idiots , etc, as I can help achieve.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Manning5me, your sincerity is not in question, however, Freemasonry is, in fact and deed, a Satanic mockery of Christianity, and subjective denials such as yours, although routinely heard from Freemasons and Freemasonry, cannot stand against the plethora of objective truth.

https://pulpitandpen.org/2017/03/23/a-pastors-awakening-to-freemasonry/

A Pastor’s Awakening to Freemasonry: This entry is part 6 of 31 in the series Freemasonry:

James Bell has been shepherding the Lord’s flock as the pastor of Southside Baptist Church in Gallatin, Tennessee for over forty years. Brother Bell prepared for the ministry by studying God’s word at Truett-McConnell College, Belmont University, and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The following is his personal testimony about encountering Freemasonry:

"In January of 1969, at the ripe age of 23, I left seminary to take my first full-time pastorate. My wife and I moved from Ft. Worth, Texas to Hartsville, Tennessee where I had been called to pastor First Baptist Church. Quite a few FBC members were active in the local Masonic Lodge, Harstville Lodge #113. Many of their wives were active in the Order of the Eastern Star. My wife and I were often invited to monthly potluck dinners at the Lodge, provided, of course, by the Eastern Star ladies.

Once we had our fill, they would kindly invite us to leave. Prior to taking my pastorate and being invited to these potlucks, I had no knowledge of the Masonic Lodge. Quite frankly, I had neither interest in nor curiosity about Freemasonry. However, during my six year tenure at FBC that would change. Three memorable events opened my eyes to the darkness and dangers of Freemasonry.

First, I received a used book from England entitled “Darkness Visible: A Revelation and Interpretation of Freemasonry” I was amazed as I gazed upon a photograph in the book of a candidate prepared for initiation into a Masonic Lodge. He was blindfolded with one pant leg up above the knee. I was stunned as I read the horrible vows that such candidates were expected to make. They were blood oaths. “How could Christians make such vows!?” I exclaimed.

Disturbed by what I had seen and read, I took the book to a respected FBC Church member who was a Mason. He looked and listened as I turned to the pages which I had marked. Then, without hesitation, he proclaimed that he knew nothing of such vows and practices…that maybe they did such in England; but definitely not in Hartsville, Tennessee!

He stood there, looked his own pastor in the face, and lied. Since that time, I have found dishonesty to be a common practice among Masons. When confronted about the disturbing nature of their craft, Masons lie. When confronted with inside information from former Masons who gave up the craft out of Christian conviction, Masons will accuse the former Masons of being dishonest.

The second event was the first Masonic funeral I attended. I discovered that when a Mason died the Lodge members would show up at the funeral services wearing their white aprons and expect to have the last word at the grave site. As a pastor, this was normally my role. Over time, I noticed that regardless of what a Mason had professed as to Jesus Christ and regardless of how he had lived, his Masonic brothers proclaimed that he was going to have a grand eternity simply because he was a Mason.

Needless, to say, this was deeply troubling. I had no ability to stop their proceedings. However, I told families and funeral directors that if I was expected to preach the funeral then the Masonic rituals would have to be done before I concluded at the grave site; I insisted that the Bible have the last word.

A third, heart-breaking event, solidified my stance against Freemasonry. Brother Nat McKinney, pastor at the Riddleton Baptist Church, in Smith County, Tennessee, asked me to preach a “Revival Meeting“… which I did. Before the evening’s services, we visited in several homes. One of those visits was to the home of an 85 year old gentleman who had never professed faith in Christ. He graciously received us into his old, but substantial, house and proceeded to make us feel most welcome. In fairly short order, he gave me permission to share the gospel of Christ with him. He seemed to listen carefully.

However, when I asked what his response to what he had heard was, he did not hesitate to reply, “Young man, I believe in God but I am a Mason. I do not need Jesus!” I remember appealing to him; but he was steadfast— Being a Mason was enough to secure his eternity in heaven… he did not need Jesus.

That settled it. From that day forward, I have gathered materials, usually written by former Masons, and I have used such materials to help others leave the darkness of the Masonic Lodge. In spite of all Masonic denials, Freemasonry is a false religion which every Christian should flee."

James Bell, forty year pastor, Southside Baptist Church, Gallatin, Tennessee

manning5me Loc: Richmond, Va.

=====================

Thanks for the info, Zemirah. I agree that Masons voice and signal a bloodcurdling oath, which I, and the members I knew, did not take very seriously, to me it was merely a promise not to betray Freemasonry to the world, and made more vivid to us by its ancient imagery. Then the idea that Masons deny Jesus is and was not true for any of my associates, all of whom were church-going Christians to my knowledge. The one funeral I attended in a church did not usurp the pastor's role, but simply was a touching farewell to a loyal Mason, after which the pastor led us in prayer, and gave a blessing over the coffin. It is easy for me to believe that such things as you wrote were local distortions of some lodge, and so are the many accusations of dark doings by Masons, in my view, spawned by: 1. those rejected for membership; 2. those making things up in order to write a book condemning masonry and make some money; and 3. There could well be rogue elements within Masonry that decide to distort the message of fellowship for their own reasons. I never experienced true, intentional evil while I was active in the Lodge, Scottish Rites, or Shriners over 7 years. To the contrary, I was proud of the two children's hospitals that Shriners sponsored, and other community works too. You can say that I was shielded from evil doings at high levels of Freemasonry, and I cannot deny the possibility, but I had absolutely no knowledge of any true, intentional evil doings whatsoever, and no denial of Jesus either.

What troubles me is that former Masons seem to have betrayed their oath not to divulge matters of Masonry. So much for their word. A lot of what was meant to be secret or private, albeit innocent enough, to Masonry is now public knowledge. I find that extremely reprehensible. If you give your word, you must keep it, and obviously they didn't. Perhaps they are the evil ones.

In any event, that is in my past now, and my Christian faith is still as strong as ever! Then too, I do not lie. That is for me a fundamental moral imperative.

Incidentally, in college I was initiated into the Sigma Nu Fraternity, with its rituals and oaths of fidelity. I saw great similarities when I joined Masonry, and thought of it as a fraternity, quite flamboyant in their rituals, nothing more. To me, it was never my religion, since I am a steadfast Christian, and have been for over, hummm, 50 to 60 years, or so, although attendance in church has not been my strong point in the last 24 years since I retired from the DC area to Richmond.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Continuing my conversation with manning5me on Ukraine

***What does Rssia gain from the Ukraine?
1. Substantial oil and natural gas reserves.
2. Major manganese reserves.
3. Titanium, the most in Europe, for aircraft and engines.
4. Uranium deposits the largest in Europe.
5. Iron ore a major export.
6. Coal, 34 billion tons of proven reserves.
7. 194 minerals deposits of significance..
8. .A technical engineering capability if not killed in the war..
9. A land bridge to Crimea
10. Crimea's naval base of high significance and insurance of open ports and seas for shipping.
11. Some part of Ukraine's wheat production if they want it.

1 to 7. I don't believe these were Russia's interests when this war or any of its escalations started, or were any real part of Russia's or Putin's motives for there actions. Russia is loaded with untapped resources of it's own.
But I would consider this thought to be a real part of negotiations for rebuilding Ukraine after the war. That the west and Russia assist Ukraine in developing these resources with the profits devoted to strictly rebuilding Ukraine. Details for them to work out.
8. Help them get started rebuilding Ukraine with their own talent and labor forces. They will need the work and pay.
9 was not the goal of the war at all, but will be a part of Russia's demands now. And they will keep trying to solidify this route right up to the end in order to protect 10
10. This is something that I don't think Russia will ever give up. Not now. Back in 2014, this was something that could have been worked out, but I doubt it. The 2014 Coup sealed Crimea's fate. Russia absolutely needs this access to the world, guaranteed for the security of free trade.
As for protecting the Black Sea fleet and having a port, the Ukraine missiles, sea and air unmanned attacks have revealed the vulnerable nature of super ships in close confinement like the Black Sea. And America/NATO ships in the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea also should closely monitor what happened to Russian ships in the Black Sea. They are vulnerable and their loses are catastrophic in human, offensive and political power.

This war has really changed the way of warfare forever with the killer unmanned air and sea attacks and that of the Russian Glide Bombs, and the defenses that can shoot down most of them. But not all.

Logically Right

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

***Yes, I can see that Russia is concerned for their access to sea routes, either from the Baltic or The Black Sea, should they lose control of the Crimea and their Naval base.
>>>On that we both understand Russia's concerns.

***They have been surrounded precisely because the Baltic states fear attack, Poland fears attack and the Ukraine is attacked. It is the NATO mission to defend their members, after all.
>>>This attempt to surround Russia on its east has gone on since the late 90s, and started under Clinton. I know of no known threat to these states coming from Russia in the 90s. And any since, it is on NATO's own doing. A total unnecessary expansion after promising to never do that very thing. And it wasn't just a blind promise. It was on conditions that Russia let East and West Germany reunite. "Mister Gorbachev, tear down that wall." They did, we didn't. And we haven't stopped since. And even up to 2022, Russia was working with Germany on the Nordstream pipe line that in all probability was destroyed by America or with America's knowledge and permission and encouragement.
What did America have against Gorbachev and Yeltsin to continue NATO after its cause for creation, The Warsaw Pact, disbanded? Russian Communism was dead and gone and so was Communism in most of Europe, as the old dictators died off and the people reclaimed their freedom. Often in bloody wars. But these were never a threat to Europe or NATO or orchestrated by Russia.
And Russia was also going through major changes. They dumped Communism and tried to find their spot in a free market or Capitalistic society. One of their major mistakes was handling the Oligarchs and their grabbing of all of that wealth. America might have been able to help in that regard and seen to a greater spreading of the wealth of Russia among its citizens. We should have welcomed them into our sphere of economic and personal freedom like we did to Japan and Germany and all of the rest of them. But that wouldn't satisfy England and America. They would become to big of a competitor. So instead we got China. We should have helped Russia like we helped Japan and Germany. But instead we kept then distant so they could still be used as a excuse to make money within the military Industrial complex. Eisenhower warned us about them. And this was all before Putin. We couldn't let go of Russia being the enemy. Meanwhile we worked with them on Nuclear treaties and the Space Station. And they were right there to help us as a way station for supplies coming into Afghanistan in our futile war there. And then along came Putin, KGB agent. Must be evil. Sorry, but I saw and see him as the strong man that kept Russia going and guided it forward. Flawed? Hell yes. But have you taken a good look at the leaders we've had since 1990. I firmly believe that at least Putin really loves Russia and wants the best for its future. And if that means protecting it borders and routes and access to the world, he will do what he deems necessary. Work with him and he will work back with you. I'd trust him over China. Trust, bet verify. Always. Not like this money we are handing to the most corrupt country in Europe.

***There is precious little trust on both sides to attempt a stand-down and NATO/Ukraine/Russian roundtable to thrash things out. Not when Russia is the invader right now. Personally, I see Putin as an aggressor, as I have stated earlier, and so does NATO I am sure. What you seem to be leading up to is a proposal for the US to coerce NATO/Ukraine and to convince Putin to go to the table real soon now to make an attempt to settle things and form a treaty we can all live with. That is a very tall order indeed.
>>>What other solution is there? And Russia is not the invader, but the defender of its territorial integrity and ethnic Russians under brutal attack in Eastern Ukraine, all started by America/NATO in 2014.
*** The Baltic nations, Norway Sweden Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are now alerted to what they see as possible Russian plans for aggression beyond the Ukraine, and so does Poland. The west-most of them are now NATO members.
>>>Norway, Sweden, Finland, were never in the equation until western propaganda got them going and they joined NATO. Sweden and Finland joined NATO out of the fear raised by the west and only increase their chances of being involved in a future war because of joining NATO. Russia had no problem with them. Now, Russia has to counter the military buildup in Finland by building up their own. How does that insure peace when there already was peace.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were already members of NATO and certainly not a threat to Russia. But their social attacks against ethnic Russians are a serious concern. Gee, didn't we go to war in Grenada in part over protecting American students going to cheap schools in Grenada from the Cubans who managed to get a grip on Grenada. The ethnic Russians in those countries are not loosing jobs and not being allowed to get new ones. They spoke local languages and Russian and now are be segregated because of their languages. Can't buy property, etc. All the sorts of things that Ukraine started to do to the ethnic Russians right after 2014 Coup. These are and were citizens in those respective countries. And there are UN laws against ethnic cleansing. That is what they are doing. And Russia objects. But if this war winds down with satisfactory treaties, I'm sure the Russians are not about to invade them. There is diplomatic processes that they would try.

***Just how can they be reassured that tomorrow Russian troops will not invade one or more of them? Putin's word?
>>>It is America that broke their word and led to this whole situation with NATO expansion.

***Then too, Putin will want his four oblasts and Crimea to be certified as his, right? And perhaps more, he still has the nuclear card to play.
>>>Remember, all he wanted in that regard was for two of them to possibly get semi self government within Ukraine, Ukraine neutrality and never NATO. That sure would have been a cheap option compared to what happened since.

***This emasculates the Ukraine, and makes a mockery of their defense to date, their shattered nation, and their enormous casualties.
>>>Yes it would. But better getting emasculated then annihilated through endless war to satisfy NATO and America
***And the aggressor wins yet again. We can force the Ukraine to sit at that table, of course, but... this makes me ill to think of it as we, the west, dictate their response under threat of abandonment. We have few cards to play other than intent to continue the war, and to use that at all, we would need to first demonstrate we can continue effectively and could actually be threatening to turn the effort in favor of the Ukraine by sending more and more really good fighting stuff to Ukraine right now, and with loud promises of even more, such as hundreds from our store of 8,000 M1A2 tanks being readied, etc.
So we offer him safe passages! Is that good enough? I doubt it. At this point I am out of ideas to conclude the story. Maybe later.
>>>Again we disagree on who is the aggressor. You say Putin and Russia. I say America and Clinton/Bush/Obama/Trump/biden all who could have tried to work with Russia instead of attacking Russian security through NATO expansion and the Coup in Ukraine. Yes, we can threaten to keep escalating through threats of greater and more powerful weapons and more of them. And Russia can threaten back with threats of greater and more powerful weapons and more of them. And Ukraine falls deeper and deeper into a pit of unlivable hell. All over American insistence on eventually putting Ukraine in NATO and putting Nukes on Russia's border. Remember how that worked when in 1962, America had nukes in Turkey aimed at Moscow. So Russia countered with Nukes in Cuba and we had a Cuban Missile crises. We talked, compromised and both removed their missiles. Meanwhile Russia keeps demanding that Ukraine always becomes a NATO free buffer between NATO aggressors and Russia.
But we either annihilate each other or we sit down and talk. Russia tried in the past and Ukraine was almost willing until England told them to back off.

Logically Right

manning5me Loc: Richmond, Va.

======================
I did not see your response to the nuclear threat Russia/Putin made Tuesday. A Bluff? Or not! NATO/US believes it is a Bluff, and is proceeding with supplying the Ukraine war machine as rapidly as possible.

What do you make of the reports of instability in Russia? Overblown?

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

***1.Nuclear war must be off the table: an exchange even at the tactical level, will escalate to full destruction of both nations. Threats must not enter the room! We cannot negotiate with this threat hanging over the proceedings
>>>I believe Russia only intimidated at this if they saw themselves losing or enemies in Russia proper.

***2. This concerns the Balkan nations too, so they must be included to their satisfaction.
>>>Yeah, Russia give in to this. It isn't a part of the war at hand. Lets stop this war and then work on an overall treaty on European security. That should include Russia's agreement to not invade anyone and NATO dissolving.

***3. Major support to the Ukraine must commence immediately, and with really top war material.
>>>Just more escalating and Russian countering and people dieing and more infrastructure be destroyed. Russia will talk without that. It is the west that doesn't want to talk. To many people are making money.

***4. The fighting must stop.
>>>They tried that with two Minsk accords and they were openly used to resupply Ukraine.

***5. We must speak with one voice, a NATO voice.
>>>Russia didn't attack NATO. But NATO did attack Russia. This is to be resolved between Russia and Ukraine. And could be if Zelensky disappears.

***6. The Ukraine must accept the NATO lead, however it goes.
>>>Keep NATO out of peace talks

***7. There should be an impartial moderator for the meeting.
>>>I'm available. Seriously where would they find one. That is like trying to have a fair trial for Trump in New York.

***8. There must be an agreed decision agenda point by point in advance by all parties. We meet ahead of time with appointees to create this agenda in advance.
>>>A peace meeting before the peace meeting???

***9.The next meeting then is to discuss then ratify or not the decisions one by one. If acceptable to all at the end, it is up to the respective government representatives to review and sign off.
>>>Okay. If it could get done.

***11. Poor Ukraine! I have no faith in this at all. Putin will be quite willing to continue the war, I believe if we do not meet every one of his demands.
>>>Poor Ukraine! I have no faith in this at all. America/Nato would be quite willing to continue the war. They are risking no bodies. I believe if Putin does not meet every one of American/NATO's demands.

***The Decision Agenda is key. I am not a diplomat, and my take on this may sound weird. It should cover: Cease fire; Prisoner exchange; Demarcation lines and Disengagement between forces; the fate of territories; Free Access to Seaways; Reconstruction of Ukraine; Reparations; Schedule of Events;
non-aggression guarantees between all concerned parties; Safety Considerations;
Relocation of Citizenry; Citizen's Rights; Handling Casualties and the Deceased; Right of Access to Territories ?; More as identified.
>>>Good points.

Logically Right

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

***As far as I am concerned, we are seeing the ultimate in aggression by Putin when he plays the nuclear card over Ukraine. There is no sweetness and light showing in Russia. Has anyone asked Mr. Putin whether he wants war with NATO, war with the US? Nuclear war with the US? The US has vowed never to be a first user of nuclear weapons. But our ability to totally and completely devastate any nation that nukes our country is a fact. This response umbrella extends to nuking NATO nations, and the Ukraine, I believe. Further, I am fully convinced that even aggressive Putin is Bluffing, as I wrote earlier. How far are we willing to go to satisfy Putin? Give back the Ukraine? Give back the Baltic states? Give back Poland? Give back East Germany? The exact same muclear blackmail approach will pertain after the Ukraine war is settled or not, and now, no assurance from Putin that all he wants is in Ukraine can be believed. When does NATO stand up and stop Putin? Ukraine.

Yes, Russia has more nukes than we do but we have quite a large number at the ready. We have made sure that Putin knows this, yet he threatens us still. Will we cave in?

Such a decision to proceed in the Ukraine despite Putin's threat is not mine to make! Then too, I wonder whether Putin's command system would respond and launch their missiles or would subordinates refuse to execute his command. We should be so lucky!

>>>I believe Putin only mentions Nuclear weapons as a last resort. He is well aware of the total annihilation of both countries and the world if that happens. But he must keep that option as a threat as NATO keeps escalating the conflict in a war that is none of their business. They don't have any treaties to defend Ukraine. Russia never has stated it wanted to conquer all of Ukraine, or threatens any NATO members. All Western speculation.

Manning5me, we've discussed this from all aspects. We both know where each of us stands and who we believe is at fault and how we can trust to end it. I'm more then wiling to go on, or give you a final chance at stating your opinion. Mine is well spelled out.

We need peace now and end all escalation and military advancements. Talks on the issues between Ukraine and Russia. Settle it. It isn't worth more lives. I believe NATO/America were at the start of this and Russia finally drew a red line and aren't backing down. Russia's back is against a wall and they can't loose. They have/had to make a stand. Ultimately, Russia would be glad to establish a peace treaty in Europe and move forward to open commerce. They have not made any threats towards NATO, but NATO encirclement can't go on. peace will only be accomplished when the remnants of the Cold War are disbanded. That is NATO.

It has been a great conversation. I await your final statement or we go on.

Cheers
Logically Right

manning5me Loc: Richmond, Va.

==============
I believe that NATO is seriously thinking about direct support in the Ukraine, and if so, the US will be sending over large forces real soon now.
Putin reacted to this by threats of nuke war, I believe.
NATO will not support signaling for peace talks just now.
I think Z is strong in his role with citizens and NATO support.
The war may well go on for another one or two years, at which time NATO will be far stronger and Russia perhaps a lot weaker.
I believe the US will be sending the advanced weapons and aircraft they want real soon now, with more to come.
The danger of missile attacks on Russia's homeland will be greatly increased, and may be the trigger for nukes flying.
Dig, baby dig! For all the good it won't do you!