Yes, you've digressed nicely. Somewhere in all this you have a point?
You keep implying there is a moral symmetry between Russia's invasions of Ukraine and the west's responseâsupplying Ukraine with the means to resist those invasions. You've gone a bit beyond that, implying that supplying Ukraine with the means to resist those invasions is sinister, a direct threat to Russia justifying what can generously* called a preemptive war.
There is nothing Ukraine did or could have done to justify Russia's actions. Ukraine was not a threat to Russia. NATO was not a threat to anything but Russia's ambitions of once again dominating eastern Europe.
*Generous to Russia. Outside of Planet Putinâwhere all that matters are Russia's goals, and arguments like yours are just dust to fling in the air to obscure what is plainly happeningâthe attacks on Ukraine are an imperial war of conquest. Something the world had hoped it had seen the last of.
I see, you got nowhere and so it's time to change the subject again. I thought we were doing "But Russia = War crimes!" after suggested US malfeasance.
Ah yes, switch to morality, where you (personally) no doubt claim to hold the high ground.
Nicely qualified/hedged. So then we can argue over what constitutes "a legitimate military target" and who defines/decides/ignores that.
Barton Gellman, a staff writer for the Washington Post, writing
soon after the 1991 conflict, observed that: âSome targets, especially
later in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over
Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself.â Gellman
quoted Colonel John A Warden, deputy director of Air Force strategy,
doctrine and plans: âOne purpose of destroying Iraqâs electrical grid
was that you have imposed a long-term problem on the leadership that it
has to deal with sometime.â Gellman added: âIt gives us long-term
leverage.â
To state the obvious: without an electrical grid, there are no functioning water/sewer plants, hospitals, etc., etc.
Yes, you've digressed nicely. Somewhere in all this you have a point?
You keep implying there is a moral symmetry between Russia's invasions of Ukraine and the west's response—supplying Ukraine with the means to resist those invasions. You've gone a bit beyond that, implying that supplying Ukraine with the means to resist those invasions is sinister, a direct threat to Russia justifying what can generously* called a preemptive war.
There is nothing Ukraine did or could have done to justify Russia's actions. Ukraine was not a threat to Russia. NATO was not a threat to anything but Russia's ambitions of once again dominating eastern Europe.
*Generous to Russia. Outside of Planet Putin—where all that matters are Russia's goals, and arguments like yours are just dust to fling in the air to obscure what is plainly happening—the attacks on Ukraine are an imperial war of conquest. Something the world had hoped it had seen the last of.
Nicely qualified/hedged. So then we can argue over what constitutes "a legitimate military target" and who defines/decides/ignores that.
Barton Gellman, a staff writer for the Washington Post, writing
soon after the 1991 conflict, observed that: âSome targets, especially
later in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over
Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself.â Gellman
quoted Colonel John A Warden, deputy director of Air Force strategy,
doctrine and plans: âOne purpose of destroying Iraqâs electrical grid
was that you have imposed a long-term problem on the leadership that it
has to deal with sometime.â Gellman added: âIt gives us long-term
leverage.â
To state the obvious: without an electrical grid, there are no functioning water/sewer plants, hospitals, etc., etc.
Um...I just condemned an attack on civilian energy infrastructure. Do you need help finding that? Does that represent your position (on Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure)?
Why is it so hard for you to state in plain language what you support?
Read it again. It's a bad thing, right? Whoever does it?
Probably the same answer you'd give if I asked you about the US' attack on power grids (regardless of whether the war itself, yadda, yadda, yadda). A bad thing, right?
Um...I just condemned an attack on civilian energy infrastructure. Do you need help finding that? Does that represent your position (on Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure)?
Why is it so hard for you to state in plain language what you support?
Nice pivot! Bravo!
Now, are Russia's attacks on Ukraine's power grid legitimate acts of war (regardless of whether the war itself is legitimate; you haven't explicitly endorsed Russia's invasion/occupation but you sure hint at that a lot) or not?
If you want to get around to saying the quiet part out loudâendorsing Putin's "special military operation"âyou're welcome to do that too.
Probably the same answer you'd give if I asked you about the US' attack on power grids (regardless of whether the war itself, yadda, yadda, yadda). A bad thing, right?
For a history of US Air Force (USAF) strategy in attacking electric
generation and distribution grids, read this USAF University thesis,
entitled âStrategic Attack of National Electrical Systemsâ, dated 1994:
âThe USAF has long favoured attacking electrical power systems.
Electric power has been considered a critical target in every war since
World War II, and will likely be nominated in the future⦠The evidence
shows that the only sound reason for attacking electrical power is to
affect the production of war materiel in a war of attrition against a
self-supporting nation-state without outside assistance.â
Nice pivot! Bravo!
Now, are Russia's attacks on Ukraine's power grid legitimate acts of war (regardless of whether the war itself is legitimate; you haven't explicitly endorsed Russia's invasion/occupation but you sure hint at that a lot) or not?
If you want to get around to saying the quiet part out loudâendorsing Putin's "special military operation"âyou're welcome to do that too.
For a history of US Air Force (USAF) strategy in attacking electric
generation and distribution grids, read this USAF University thesis,
entitled âStrategic Attack of National Electrical Systemsâ, dated 1994:
âThe USAF has long favoured attacking electrical power systems.
Electric power has been considered a critical target in every war since
World War II, and will likely be nominated in the future⦠The evidence
shows that the only sound reason for attacking electrical power is to
affect the production of war materiel in a war of attrition against a
self-supporting nation-state without outside assistance.â
If Hersh's report is accurate (and he has a pretty good track record) this was a colossally stupid, counterproductive act against civilian infrastructure, unconcerned about the inevitable suffering this would cause the civilian population . They ended a hostage situation by killing the hostage.
Do I take then that you whole-heartedly condemn attacks against civilian energy infrastructure in general? These, say, which started two weeks before the Nordstream sabotage? They are part of a wider pattern of attacks which have been going on in one form or another since 2015.
In the past few years of East-West crisis, the U.S. military has vastly expanded its presence inside Norway, whose western border runs 1,400 miles along the north Atlantic Ocean and merges above the Arctic Circle with Russia. The Pentagon has created high paying jobs and contracts, amid some local controversy, by investing hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade and expand American Navy and Air Force facilities in Norway. The new works included, most importantly, an advanced synthetic aperture radar far up north that was capable of penetrating deep into Russia and came online just as the American intelligence community lost access to a series of long-range listening sites inside China.
In return, the Norwegian government angered liberals and some moderates in its parliament last November by passing the Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA). Under the new deal, the U.S. legal system would have jurisdiction in certain âagreed areasâ in the North over American soldiers accused of crimes off base, as well as over those Norwegian citizens accused or suspected of interfering with the work at the base.
Norway was one of the original signatories of the NATO Treaty in 1949, in the early days of the Cold War. Today, the supreme commander of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg, a committed anti-communist, who served as Norwayâs prime minister for eight years before moving to his high NATO post, with American backing, in 2014. He was a hardliner on all things Putin and Russia who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War. He has been trusted completely since. âHe is the glove that fits the American hand,â the source said.
Back in Washington, planners knew they had to go to Norway. âThey hated the Russians, and the Norwegian navy was full of superb sailors and divers who had generations of experience in highly profitable deep-sea oil and gas exploration,â the source said. They also could be trusted to keep the mission secret. (The Norwegians may have had other interests as well. The destruction of Nord Streamâif the Americans could pull it offâwould allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe.)
I like to imagine my edits above are over-the-top.
Your analysis is spot-on, don't get me wrong. But our house is made of glass: we have done tremendous damage to our standing in recent years.
Peace,
c.
ha.. not entirely without merit. But the US constantly shows that its merit lies in its flux. Despite appearances to the contrary, it is a very vibrant political system. Russia, by contrast, is sclerotic in the extreme.
How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline The New York Times called it a âmystery,â but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secretâuntil now Seymour Hersch
Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, âThis is false and complete fiction.â Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: âThis claim is completely and utterly false.â
