Russia-Ukraine

[Yoused]

If you have an anti-aircraft device on the roof of a tall building in Moscow, what should you do with it? Oh, right, you should cover it in green camo netting so no one can spot it from overhead.

Seriously, would you want these people running your country?

 

[Huntn]

Even Russian propagandists, who normally refer to him as “our Trump” (they also adore Tucker Carlson), are mocking Trump’s assertion that he could solve it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1621211837881618433

View attachment 21647

Even the Russians know that the Ukrainians will continue to fight without assistance for as long as they can and the Nordics/Baltics/CEE will continue support. Obviously US support is the most important, especially for a Ukrainian victory (well one that isn’t pyrrhic anyway). But this war doesn’t end if we pull out. The Russians have been stupid, but they aren’t that dumb.

We all know that Donald J Drumph is the biggest most prominent, mentally ill, poisonous, ASS HOLE in the US, possibly the world. (Not said critically regarding your post)

 

[AG_PhamD]

Trump has been pretty consistently pro Russia or at least as consistent as he is on anything. Hence why the Russians refer to him as “our Trump”. And my concern is that this won’t have to be a hill the MAGAts will die on largely because the rest of the Republicans in the House will fold as they have always done. It’s important to remember that Kevin McCarthy only got the speakership after Gaetz couldn’t think of anything else to extract from him rather than because of any pressure put on Gaetz. They control him. I’m now of the opinion that McCarthy will survive as “Speaker” simply because he has no power and no will. So there will never be a reason for the MAGA wing to remove him and the institutionalist wing (they are not moderates, those are almost extinct) are too weak willed or craven for power themselves to do it. So the pressure would have to come from Senate Republicans.

It’s important to remember that these people’s stated goal is to stop government from functioning - and in some cases depending on their role in Jan 6th, are actual insurrectionists who tried to help overthrow the government in an auto coup. There is no bottom and the Republicans have rewarded their behavior with high profile committee appointments. They simply don’t care about the damage to the US. This is, overall, not a rational political party.

Largely the American public does still support continuing support for Ukraine. However support amongst Republicans is eroding and largely due to the MAGA influence especially in right wing media like Tucker Carlson. And there’s little the administration can do to reach out to those listeners, they would reject it or dig in further. Such influence would have to come from a trusted, ultra conservative source who is not a never Trumper but that is also willing to be clear eyed about Ukraine and willing to defy the MAGAts. And who would that be?

I don’t think that’s really true… with regard to the current war, Trump first claimed it would have never happened with him as President and that we should use F-22’s to “bomb the shit out of Russia” while blaming it on China. Later he said NATO taunted Putin into too the war. And now he wants to broker a peace deal.

Trump has spoken very highly of Putin. Trump’s personality would seem to appreciate the power and wealth that comes with being a dictator- perhaps some envy there and a desire for appeasement from people like Putin and Kim. But it’s also true Trump actually hit Russia pretty hard with sanctions, a lot of sanctions. He actually sent weapons to Ukraine unlike his predecessor. If I remember correctly Trump’s Ukraine-Phone Call scandal ever actually really affected the money flow- he didn’t have the power to withhold funds. And that’s not because he was “anti-Ukrainian” and “pro-Russian”, he was consumed with digging up dirt on Biden.

His relationship with Russia is convoluted. Perhaps it could be a strategy to make Putin more amenable… but I could also see Putin flattering Trump and Trump loving that (More than anything Trump seems to love people that (appear) to love him). But then his advisors probably have to remind him Putin is a nasty character. Trump seems so mercurial with his opinions on everything as it is, they are not consistent.

Ultimately, I don’t think Trump has an ideological backbone, he does what he believes will benefit himself. Putin, Russia, Ukraine, etc mean nothing except opportunities to exploit.

With his statements about the Ukraine war in mind, it seems to me he’s doing what he’s always done. Throw out a a whole host of ideas to appease a broad audience and then down the road he can say “I told you so”. It’s also clear Trump has no idea what he’s talking about since F-22’s are really not designed to carry out a bombing campaign- they are first and foremost designed for aerial combat has limited ground strike abilities.

I think we have yet to see how much influence the MAGA squad will have when push comes to shove. The polls seem to show a continuing decline of Trump’s popularity. The less popularity, the less overall influence those people will ultimately have. Let’s hope that’s the case anyways.

One has to ask though, if Trump loses the Republican primary, do we actually think he will concede his run? Or will he run as an independent and take down the entire Republican Party with him.

 

[dada_dave]

I don’t think that’s really true… with regard to the current war, Trump first claimed it would have never happened with him as President and that we should use F-22’s to “bomb the shit out of Russia” while blaming it on China. Later he said NATO taunted Putin into too the war. And now he wants to broker a peace deal.

He also said it was a really good idea and showed how smart Putin was. The F-22 comment was the one comment he made that was anti-Russia both before and after he was decidedly pro-Russian (brokering a peace deal in this case favors Russia as a cease fire would benefit them far more than Ukraine). As I said, he is as consistently pro-Russian as he is on anything else.

Trump has spoken very highly of Putin. Trump’s personality would seem to appreciate the power and wealth that comes with being a dictator- perhaps some envy there and a desire for appeasement from people like Putin and Kim. But it’s also true Trump actually hit Russia pretty hard with sanctions, a lot of sanctions. He actually sent weapons to Ukraine unlike his predecessor. If I remember correctly Trump’s Ukraine-Phone Call scandal ever actually really affected the money flow- he didn’t have the power to withhold funds. And that’s not because he was “anti-Ukrainian” and “pro-Russian”, he was consumed with digging up dirt on Biden.

Sort of. A lot of that was congressionally mandated and yes he did try to tie weapon shipments to the dirt. Also, the lethal weapons program that those weapons were sent under was actually set up by Obama as one of the last things he did in office. No weapons were shipped while in office, but the lethal aid program was started then. It shouldn't have been the last thing he did, he should have started it immediately after Crimea, but he did do it eventually. Further Trump's statements about NATO funding and NordStream 2 were not designed to foster NATO unity, but its disunity and set the conditions for US withdrawal (much like our withdrawal from various treaties with Russia which was actually to the benefit of Russia). Again, there is a reason they refer to him as "our Trump" on Russian TV and the Russians continually opine about getting him back (though DeSantis is seen as a possible replacement). If you want a peek into the horror show you can see what the Russian propaganda shows say helpfully translated by Julia Davis (Daily Beast) and Francis Scarr (BBC).

His relationship with Russia is convoluted. Perhaps it could be a strategy to make Putin more amenable… but I could also see Putin flattering Trump and Trump loving that (More than anything Trump seems to love people that (appear) to love him). But then his advisors probably have to remind him Putin is a nasty character. Trump seems so mercurial with his opinions on everything as it is, they are not consistent.

Most of the advisors he listened to (especially by the end) most closely like Miller and Bannon and Flynn were decidedly pro-Russian - one of them, I think Miller, even claimed that within the administration they had put in place the plan to leave NATO near the beginning of the 2nd term ... which would have coincided perfectly with the full Russian invasion of Ukraine (I'm NOT saying they knew that's what would happen, but Ukraine would have been left adrift regardless). And if that wasn't enough, let's say that wasn't true, just Miller spouting off, his most fervent vocal base is pro-Russia and he both leads and follows them. Think vaccines, he tried to claim credit, which to be fair, it was a success! But his "people" hated that and now Trump is reportedly going to go after DeSantis for DeSantis' early positive, vaccine statements as each jockey for the fervent anti-vaccine crowd that make up the MAGA base.

Ultimately, I don’t think Trump has an ideological backbone, he does what he believes will benefit himself. Putin, Russia, Ukraine, etc mean nothing except opportunities to exploit.

Trump's personality is essentially the same Yankuvich (sic) and well we know how that turned out. While Y was always venal and corrupt he didn't initially kill the EU deal until he succumbed to Putin and agreed to one with the Russians instead setting off this whole shebang in the first place. Trump's personality is essentially perfect for manipulation by Putin. You are correct, for Trump it is flattery and self-service rather than some ideological support for Russia over Ukraine. But that's enough.

With his statements about the Ukraine war in mind, it seems to me he’s doing what he’s always done. Throw out a a whole host of ideas to appease a broad audience and then down the road he can say “I told you so”. It’s also clear Trump has no idea what he’s talking about since F-22’s are really not designed to carry out a bombing campaign- they are first and foremost designed for aerial combat has limited ground strike abilities.

I think we have yet to see how much influence the MAGA squad will have when push comes to shove. The polls seem to show a continuing decline of Trump’s popularity. The less popularity, the less overall influence those people will ultimately have. Let’s hope that’s the case anyways.

And yet, Trump was on the phone calling members of congress to vote for McCarthy and most of the holdouts listened to him. True Gaetz held out out for even longer until he personally got more and humiliated McCarthy further, but Trump still carries enormous influence within the Republican party. Supposedly there's a 30% always Trump crowd. That's big enough to swing things if not win outright.

One has to ask though, if Trump loses the Republican primary, do we actually think he will concede his run? Or will he run as an independent and take down the entire Republican Party with him.

He has to run. If anything else, he views it as a way to try to protect himself from jail.

 

[Huntn]

He also said it was a really good idea and showed how smart Putin was. The F-22 comment was the one comment he made that was anti-Russia both before and after he was decidedly pro-Russian (brokering a peace deal in this case favors Russia as a cease fire would benefit them far more than Ukraine). As I said, he is as consistently pro-Russian as he is on anything else.



Sort of. A lot of that was congressionally mandated and yes he did try to tie weapon shipments to the dirt. Also, the lethal weapons program that those weapons were sent under was actually set up by Obama as one of the last things he did in office. No weapons were shipped while in office, but the lethal aid program was started then. It shouldn't have been the last thing he did, he should have started it immediately after Crimea, but he did do it eventually. Further Trump's statements about NATO funding and NordStream 2 were not designed to foster NATO unity, but its disunity and set the conditions for US withdrawal (much like our withdrawal from various treaties with Russia which was actually to the benefit of Russia). Again, there is a reason they refer to him as "our Trump" on Russian TV and the Russians continually opine about getting him back (though DeSantis is seen as a possible replacement). If you want a peek into the horror show you can see what the Russian propaganda shows say helpfully translated by Julia Davis (Daily Beast) and Francis Scarr (BBC).



Most of the advisors he listened to (especially by the end) most closely like Miller and Bannon and Flynn were decidedly pro-Russian - one of them, I think Miller, even claimed that within the administration they had put in place the plan to leave NATO near the beginning of the 2nd term ... which would have coincided perfectly with the full Russian invasion of Ukraine (I'm NOT saying they knew that's what would happen, but Ukraine would have been left adrift regardless). And if that wasn't enough, let's say that wasn't true, just Miller spouting off, his most fervent vocal base is pro-Russia and he both leads and follows them. Think vaccines, he tried to claim credit, which to be fair, it was a success! But his "people" hated that and now Trump is reportedly going to go after DeSantis for DeSantis' early positive, vaccine statements as each jockey for the fervent anti-vaccine crowd that make up the MAGA base.



Trump's personality is essentially the same Yankuvich (sic) and well we know how that turned out. While Y was always venal and corrupt he didn't initially kill the EU deal until he succumbed to Putin and agreed to one with the Russians instead setting off this whole shebang in the first place. Trump's personality is essentially perfect for manipulation by Putin. You are correct, for Trump it is flattery and self-service rather than some ideological support for Russia over Ukraine. But that's enough.



And yet, Trump was on the phone calling members of congress to vote for McCarthy and most of the holdouts listened to him. True Gaetz held out out for even longer until he personally got more and humiliated McCarthy further, but Trump still carries enormous influence within the Republican party. Supposedly there's a 30% always Trump crowd. That's big enough to swing things if not win outright.



He has to run. If anything else, he views it as a way to try to protect himself from jail.

My impression is that The Head Liar is in love with a “strong murderous leaders” like Vlad and Kim and dreams about running the USA in such a manner. When it comes down to it, I don’t know if he is cut throat enough, and pray we never get the chance to find out. That said, I do believe the boat regarding his “greatness” has sailed, not that there are not others eager to fill his shoes.

 

[AG_PhamD]

He also said it was a really good idea and showed how smart Putin was. The F-22 comment was the one comment he made that was anti-Russia both before and after he was decidedly pro-Russian (brokering a peace deal in this case favors Russia as a cease fire would benefit them far more than Ukraine). As I said, he is as consistently pro-Russian as he is on anything else.



Sort of. A lot of that was congressionally mandated and yes he did try to tie weapon shipments to the dirt. Also, the lethal weapons program that those weapons were sent under was actually set up by Obama as one of the last things he did in office. No weapons were shipped while in office, but the lethal aid program was started then. It shouldn't have been the last thing he did, he should have started it immediately after Crimea, but he did do it eventually. Further Trump's statements about NATO funding and NordStream 2 were not designed to foster NATO unity, but its disunity and set the conditions for US withdrawal (much like our withdrawal from various treaties with Russia which was actually to the benefit of Russia). Again, there is a reason they refer to him as "our Trump" on Russian TV and the Russians continually opine about getting him back (though DeSantis is seen as a possible replacement). If you want a peek into the horror show you can see what the Russian propaganda shows say helpfully translated by Julia Davis (Daily Beast) and Francis Scarr (BBC).



Most of the advisors he listened to (especially by the end) most closely like Miller and Bannon and Flynn were decidedly pro-Russian - one of them, I think Miller, even claimed that within the administration they had put in place the plan to leave NATO near the beginning of the 2nd term ... which would have coincided perfectly with the full Russian invasion of Ukraine (I'm NOT saying they knew that's what would happen, but Ukraine would have been left adrift regardless). And if that wasn't enough, let's say that wasn't true, just Miller spouting off, his most fervent vocal base is pro-Russia and he both leads and follows them. Think vaccines, he tried to claim credit, which to be fair, it was a success! But his "people" hated that and now Trump is reportedly going to go after DeSantis for DeSantis' early positive, vaccine statements as each jockey for the fervent anti-vaccine crowd that make up the MAGA base.



Trump's personality is essentially the same Yankuvich (sic) and well we know how that turned out. While Y was always venal and corrupt he didn't initially kill the EU deal until he succumbed to Putin and agreed to one with the Russians instead setting off this whole shebang in the first place. Trump's personality is essentially perfect for manipulation by Putin. You are correct, for Trump it is flattery and self-service rather than some ideological support for Russia over Ukraine. But that's enough.



And yet, Trump was on the phone calling members of congress to vote for McCarthy and most of the holdouts listened to him. True Gaetz held out out for even longer until he personally got more and humiliated McCarthy further, but Trump still carries enormous influence within the Republican party. Supposedly there's a 30% always Trump crowd. That's big enough to swing things if not win outright.



He has to run. If anything else, he views it as a way to try to protect himself from jail.

I don’t think a peace deal would necessarily benefit Russia… that all depends on the terms of the peace deal. Presumably Ukraine would not agree without some meaningful concessions from Russia.

Most of media has taken an extreme position, as they often do these days, that anyone who suggests a peace deal is anti-Ukraine or pro-Russia. Actual peace deals with any merit will inherently make both sides win something and lose something.

Very early in the war Trump and some others conservatives were chastised largely by the media for calling Ukraine corrupt. This is despite Ukraine long having being rated one of the most corrupt places in Europe, let alone on earth. Members of “the squad” shortly before that wrote a letter to Biden promoting trying to make a peace deal- and got so much pushback they had to rescind it. I’m not sure why it’s not possible to promote a peace deal while also support Ukraine’s sovereignty and condemn Russians actions… and recognize Ukraine is far from a perfect place. We all know our government has corruption, we just pretend it’s not there because it’s usually more subtle.

At the outbreak of the Invasion, the west expected Ukraine to fall, therefore it’s not surprising we had very tacit support (which as only increased as Ukraine has proven themselves). My sentiment for some time was we either need to give them what we need, or push as hard as possible for peace. The decision to ship supplies at the last minute while also not pushing for peace is not particularly helpful to resolving the war one way or another. A peace deal might loose Ukranians territory, but it could have saved them hundreds of thousands of lives, homes, businesses etc. But after the atrocities uncovered at Bakmhut, my perception was there is no way Ukraine is going to make a deal after such heinous war crimes. And I can only assume many of the pro-Russian Ukrainians realized they were on the wrong side of history.

I will say pushing for peace NOW makes zero sense. Neither side is in a willing position to negotiate. Russia has never been a trustworthy negotiator and there is no negotiating with someone who has overseen the war crimes that have occurred.

I don’t believe Trump has any interest in the terms of the peace deal, merely being about to be the one who claims he brokered one. And I don’t see his volatile attitude and unpredictable being remotely useful in mediating.

To clarify, it’s not that Obama didn’t support Ukraine, rather he didn’t send lethal weapons. In addition to basic and medical supplies, he sent a bunch of humvees, some counter battery radars, and night vision goggles. The latter two can definitely aid in lethality, but they not lethal weapons. Obama refused to give Ukraine Javelins, which is what they had long been asking for.

In retrospect Obama should have ideally done more, but Crimea has a convoluted history. I don’t think there was much public pressure to involve ourselves in a country that no one had thought about since Chernobyl. And in 2014 Ukraine never had a chance at defending, let alone taking back Crimea. It probably didn’t help that the Obama admin had been trying to improve US-Russian relations earlier.

I’m not familiar with the internal workings of Trumps administration in regards to Nato. I know Trump had always been upset with our NATO partners because of their insufficient spending per the NATO guidelines and apparently expecting the US to care for any problems. I usually assumed threatening to leave NATO was all about getting them to increase their spending- though I’m sure many NATO member leaders obviously didn’t Trump, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was part of the calculus too. And wasn’t really wrong about many European nations militaries being completely unprepared. He was also highly critical of Germany’s domestic energy policies and decision to being overly reliant on Russian gas. He wasn’t wrong about the dangers involved, though that should have been obvious to everyone.

While I do think Trump has this weird man-crush on dictators, the mainstream media has loved this obsession trying to tie every motive to Russian interests and Putin, almost where it has become a trope. Frankly, I’m not sure there is overwhelming evidence of that.

Trump may have some sentimental love of Russia and Putin, but once again all I ever see Trump motivated by is his narcissism and childish pettiness. ie “the NATO countries won’t do what I tell them, they make fun of me behind their back, so I’ll just leave NATO”. And that’s how he often deals with situation- he assumes all power and threatens to walk away. It happens with the WHO, the Boeing Air Force 1 contract, probably every business deal ever,.. even 1/6 is similar. It seems in his anger and confision of losing the election, he refused to do what everyone needed him to do- make the rioters stop. Anyone who did something wrong that was close to Trump, Trump would try distance himself by saying something like “I never really thought too highly of hill (ie Mark Milley).

Trump was clearly more than happy for the Russians to smear Clinton and probably would have taken any dirt they offered, but the attempts and desire to constantly tie him to Russia has become so routine on the left and used against anyone that they don’t like.

Remember when Tulsi Gabbard was accused as a “Russian Agent” for being up concerns about the “Biolabs” in Ukraine given the invasion. Indeed, the US did provide funding to these labs, as we do in many countries. Russia twisted this fact into claims that the U.S. was funding “bioweapons” in Ukraine- which is a not the same thing… but despite Gabbard not making that point, she must be a Russian agent… despite one of the Biden admin Victoria Nuland bringing up this concern of lab safety up in a hearing AND the WHO mirroring these same concerns. No one would blink twice if she states concerns about Nuclear plant safety in a war zone.

I am merely suggesting everything is not about Russia all the time. Putin does make a great Bond Villain though.

 

[dada_dave]

I don’t think a peace deal would necessarily benefit Russia… that all depends on the terms of the peace deal. Presumably Ukraine would not agree without some meaningful concessions from Russia.

Most of media has taken an extreme position, as they often do these days, that anyone who suggests a peace deal is anti-Ukraine or pro-Russia. Actual peace deals with any merit will inherently make both sides win something and lose something.

Very early in the war Trump and some others conservatives were chastised largely by the media for calling Ukraine corrupt. This is despite Ukraine long having being rated one of the most corrupt places in Europe, let alone on earth. Members of “the squad” shortly before that wrote a letter to Biden promoting trying to make a peace deal- and got so much pushback they had to rescind it. I’m not sure why it’s not possible to promote a peace deal while also support Ukraine’s sovereignty and condemn Russians actions… and recognize Ukraine is far from a perfect place. We all know our government has corruption, we just pretend it’s not there because it’s usually more subtle.

At the outbreak of the Invasion, the west expected Ukraine to fall, therefore it’s not surprising we had very tacit support (which as only increased as Ukraine has proven themselves). My sentiment for some time was we either need to give them what we need, or push as hard as possible for peace. The decision to ship supplies at the last minute while also not pushing for peace is not particularly helpful to resolving the war one way or another. A peace deal might loose Ukranians territory, but it could have saved them hundreds of thousands of lives, homes, businesses etc. But after the atrocities uncovered at Bakmhut, my perception was there is no way Ukraine is going to make a deal after such heinous war crimes. And I can only assume many of the pro-Russian Ukrainians realized they were on the wrong side of history.

I will say pushing for peace NOW makes zero sense. Neither side is in a willing position to negotiate. Russia has never been a trustworthy negotiator and there is no negotiating with someone who has overseen the war crimes that have occurred.

I don’t believe Trump has any interest in the terms of the peace deal, merely being about to be the one who claims he brokered one. And I don’t see his volatile attitude and unpredictable being remotely useful in mediating.

We’re discussing those advocating for a “peace” deal and are not advocating for one where "Ukraine gets something" that they haven't or aren't likely to get on the battlefield. It is to try to force them to accept a bad one now. This also fits with Russia's behavior in Syria and other conflicts of using cease-fires to stabilize the lines when things go badly and then immediately attack once their forces are re-organized. This is why the Ukrainians have regularly voiced their concerns that the West would try to force a compromising peace on them if the West started feeling the pinch. Again the context matters: those who are pushing for a “peace” deal now who also have been at the forefront of arguing that we shouldn't arm Ukraine at all, should never have armed them, and even that Ukraine losing completely would be fine or even a good thing are not really arguing for peace in good faith.

We already discussed that letter previously in this thread and many of those who had signed it agreed that it shouldn't have been written the way it was (some claimed it was edited after they signed it) and shouldn't have been released when it was. The pushback and scorching was deserved and I say this as someone who likes most of those people, including members of the "squad". Let me put this in no uncertain terms as I think I did in our previous conversation on this topic: It was a terrible and stupid letter - a rare combination of both bad policy and bad politics. They screwed up. They got scorched for it and did the right thing and rescinded the letter and apologized (although blaming staff was not the right thing, even if accurate, if you run the shop, you run the shop). All those signers have generally been great on this topic and for times when some weren’t, they had mitigating reasons like on say oligarch asset seizure (though I think their reasoning was odd). So this one action doesn’t make the signers of the letter Russian assets or pro-Russia or even useful idiots but it was idiotic. Through context I can disambiguate what is being said and done and why - for instance between those signatories and those as above who are arguing for peace in bad faith.

To clarify, it’s not that Obama didn’t support Ukraine, rather he didn’t send lethal weapons. In addition to basic and medical supplies, he sent a bunch of humvees, some counter battery radars, and night vision goggles. The latter two can definitely aid in lethality, but they not lethal weapons. Obama refused to give Ukraine Javelins, which is what they had long been asking for.

In retrospect Obama should have ideally done more, but Crimea has a convoluted history. I don’t think there was much public pressure to involve ourselves in a country that no one had thought about since Chernobyl. And in 2014 Ukraine never had a chance at defending, let alone taking back Crimea. It probably didn’t help that the Obama admin had been trying to improve US-Russian relations earlier.

Obama didn't send lethal aid but did set up the program to do so before he left office. Again, a missed opportunity. Even if Crimea wasn't the red line (it should've been), the Donbas invasion definitely should have been. However, my very minor point here was that though the lethal aid, javelin to Ukraine program was late, it was set up by Obama, not Trump. It was then funded and shipments mandated by Congress. Trump tried to abuse those shipments for his own purposes.

I’m not familiar with the internal workings of Trumps administration in regards to Nato. I know Trump had always been upset with our NATO partners because of their insufficient spending per the NATO guidelines and apparently expecting the US to care for any problems. I usually assumed threatening to leave NATO was all about getting them to increase their spending- though I’m sure many NATO member leaders obviously didn’t Trump, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was part of the calculus too. And wasn’t really wrong about many European nations militaries being completely unprepared. He was also highly critical of Germany’s domestic energy policies and decision to being overly reliant on Russian gas. He wasn’t wrong about the dangers involved, though that should have been obvious to everyone.

While I do think Trump has this weird man-crush on dictators, the mainstream media has loved this obsession trying to tie every motive to Russian interests and Putin, almost where it has become a trope. Frankly, I’m not sure there is overwhelming evidence of that.

Trump may have some sentimental love of Russia and Putin, but once again all I ever see Trump motivated by is his narcissism and childish pettiness. ie “the NATO countries won’t do what I tell them, they make fun of me behind their back, so I’ll just leave NATO”. And that’s how he often deals with situation- he assumes all power and threatens to walk away. It happens with the WHO, the Boeing Air Force 1 contract, probably every business deal ever,.. even 1/6 is similar. It seems in his anger and confision of losing the election, he refused to do what everyone needed him to do- make the rioters stop. Anyone who did something wrong that was close to Trump, Trump would try distance himself by saying something like “I never really thought too highly of hill (ie Mark Milley).

Trump was clearly more than happy for the Russians to smear Clinton and probably would have taken any dirt they offered, but the attempts and desire to constantly tie him to Russia has become so routine on the left and used against anyone that they don’t like.

Remember when Tulsi Gabbard was accused as a “Russian Agent” for being up concerns about the “Biolabs” in Ukraine given the invasion. Indeed, the US did provide funding to these labs, as we do in many countries. Russia twisted this fact into claims that the U.S. was funding “bioweapons” in Ukraine- which is a not the same thing… but despite Gabbard not making that point, she must be a Russian agent… despite one of the Biden admin Victoria Nuland bringing up this concern of lab safety up in a hearing AND the WHO mirroring these same concerns. No one would blink twice if she states concerns about Nuclear plant safety in a war zone.

I am merely suggesting everything is not about Russia all the time. Putin does make a great Bond Villain though.

Again, context matters. And the lack of contextual analysis seems to be the crux of almost all of the disagreements you and I have on this forum. Two people can both seemingly say "X", but with outside context I can know that they mean very different things. I don't have to take what someone says at face value. It is possible to dig deeper, to take the gestalt of who someone is to gain greater understanding.

For instance, Trump criticizing German energy policies and other bloc allies military spending was never meant to actually strengthen NATO regardless of their response, but weaken it. His other contention was that we are suckers for being a part of it and indeed any multinational organization. Indeed for Trump-Russia in general: Flynn, Miller, Bannon, Stone, Trump himself, and Manafort (which has taken another interesting turn with the recent revelations FBI counterintelligence agent) all have espoused pro Russian, anti Ukrainian positions or had troubling links. Hell remember they took supporting Ukraine out of the 2016 Republican platform. Beyond Trump as the main man, Manafort is the most damning especially with his background in the lead up to the current war, but Flynn is a close second. Wait you say but some of those advisors were fired and thrown out? Yes and most were back in the fold in the end in some capacity regardless of how official or unofficial - eg Trump fumed at losing Flynn and his removal was forced back when the Republicans still tried to implement guardrails. And even those who temporarily lost favor, none were ever out of favor because of their positions on Russia. So no the media far from overplaying Trump-Russia connections largely underplayed them - especially in those early years.

Whereas previous American presidents had voiced similar concerns, they meant something very different: that NATO and Europe would be stronger with stronger European commitments to defense and more clear-eyed acknowledgement of the dangers of cheap Russian gas. These are the same criticisms with very different reasons behind them and very different, in fact opposite, preferred outcomes.

Similarly when Victoria Nuland voices concerns about lab safety I know what she's referring to. When Tulsi Gabbard does, I also know what she's referring to because she does regularly promote pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian talking points, she was "voicing her concerns" coincident with Russia spreading the bullshit about bio-weapons, and she regularly was a guest on shows like Tucker Carlson (even hosted) where people explicitly spread those conspiracy theories and as far as I can tell never said word one to dispute those conspiracy theories. Maybe I'm wrong about her not explicitly countering the bioweapon bullshit and I'm doing her a disservice but I don't think so. And yes, unlike Nuland, she would have to because of everything else I listed.

Reading into what people *really* mean when they say or do "X" is important. Am I always going to be right? No! My priors can of course lead me astray - I can lack information or indeed give outweighed importance to information I do have. The latter I believe is what you are complaining about people doing too often here.

But the solution isn’t to give up. Context is a necessary element of critical thinking to apply everything you know about a person, their past actions, their past statements, and use reasoning to deduce what is actually been said and done and why. Like when Michael Cohen discussed how Trump would issue commands, Trump would never explicitly say: "do this illegal thing for me". It would be "I need this taken care of" with the "the solution being illegal and you will do it" being understood given the context. This is similar to how mafia bosses interact with subordinates. People operate with context and understanding that context and applying it is vital to understanding people and their actions/statements (and sometimes the discordance between them). If you don’t, you’ll be continually surprised making utterances like “who could’ve predicted that?!” - a common refrain I heard from people especially in the media who didn’t apply context or didn’t do it very well during the Trump era. One of my goto examples here is those who said “Bill Barr is an institutionalist” when he was appointed and then distorted the Mueller report - the distortions which the media accepted at face value despite Barr having a history of doing this and writing a huge memorandum on exactly how to butcher the investigation and it’s findings. Without context, it is basically impossible to tell if someone is or will operate in bad faith until after the fact when it can be too late.

The Trump administration was replete with great examples of why analysis of context matters, especially for understanding bad faith actors. In my view, in your posts you consistently seem to contend that this is impossible to do despite the ability of people to analyze contextual evidence.

Sorry for ultra long post. Back to the topic at hand, the war? Have you and I exhausted this particular avenue of discussion? Edit: Not saying you can’t respond, but personally I think I’ve written all I can

 

[AG_PhamD]

Ukraine war: Elon Musk's SpaceX firm bars Kyiv from using Starlink tech for drone control

The firm says it has limited Kyiv's ability to use its Starlink satellite internet for military ends.

www.bbc.com

Starlink is apparently not happy with Ukraine using Starlink for offensive drones and is taking steps to prevent it from being used this way.

I’m not sure why this seems to have become an issue all of a sudden. It’s believe Ukraine used Starlink on their marine drones that attacked the Russian ships in the Black Sea.

I’m sure the automatic response will be it’s because Elon Musk doesn’t support Ukraine, but I tend to think things are usually more complicated.

I know there were concerns at one point about Russia jamming Starlink, so maybe that’s a factor to some extent. I wouldn’t think that jamming could extend particularly far. Perhaps they don’t want to become a bigger target than they likely already are for cyberattacks.

Starlink obviously has benefits in terms of latency and upload speeds, and I would assume antenna power demands, but hopefully there are other satellite providers who are able to provide service that can reasonably accommodate Ukraines long range weapons.

 

[leman]

In the last week there was an unusual activation of various anti-Ukraine messages (often following Russian talking points), both inside Ukrainian media space and internationally. Twitter is being steamrolled with pro-Russia trolls (any time you post anything about Ukraine, a bunch of either panicky or derogatory posts appear), Roger Waters cringy UN speech, the utterly ridiculous article claiming that US bombed Nord Stream, the Starlink statement, the trumpfet resolution of stopping Ukraine support. All timed exactly to the start of the new Russian offensive. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. It’s seems like Putin’s entire agent and lobby network has been activated. I hope this means that Russia is hurting more than they admit. Since these bastards are all about symbolism and numerology (tradition adopted from Soviet times), they will try to claim some big victory for the anniversary of the invasion.

 

[NT1440]

In the last week there was an unusual activation of various anti-Ukraine messages (often following Russian talking points), both inside Ukrainian media space and internationally. Twitter is being steamrolled with pro-Russia trolls (any time you post anything about Ukraine, a bunch of either panicky or derogatory posts appear), Roger Waters cringy UN speech, the utterly ridiculous article claiming that US bombed Nord Stream, the Starlink statement, the trumpfet resolution of stopping Ukraine support. All timed exactly to the start of the new Russian offensive. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. It’s seems like Putin’s entire agent and lobby network has been activated. I hope this means that Russia is hurting more than they admit. Since these bastards are all about symbolism and numerology (tradition adopted from Soviet times), they will try to claim some big victory for the anniversary of the invasion.

You think Sy Hersh is a propagandist? The guy that spent his career breaking stories (Mai Lai, Abu Graib, etc) that the US government denied but decades later are just openly acknowledged as true?

We did blow up the pipeline. But I guess we’ll all just be openly joking about it two decades from now when it’s officially ok to acknowledge the truth.

 

[leman]

You think Sy Hersh is a propagandist? The guy that spent his career breaking stories (Mai Lai, Abu Graib, etc) that the US government denied but decades later are just openly acknowledged as true?

We did blow up the pipeline. But I guess we’ll all just be openly joking about it two decades from now when it’s officially ok to acknowledge the truth.

I think Sy Hersh is a person who used to be a formidable investigative reporter, but now is just an old man who is most likely being handled and manipulated. Maybe he believes in this story. I mean, he has been at it for so long that the suspicion towards US government could became a pathological thing. Maybe he even has sources. But I suspect that even if these sources are real they were telling a carefully prepared story. He wouldn't be the first once impressive man to succumb to age-related mental degradation and he won't be the last. There are examples aplenty.

And it's not like I am simply saying these things because that's what I want to be true. Just look at Hersh's latest claims. I mean, he denies that Skripal was poisoned by Russia. While we have names and videos with Russian secret service agents who poisoned him. Or the conspiracy about bin Laden. Or his article on the Syrian war. There is a fairly clear trend here, don't you think? His article on Nord Stream 2 is an entertaining read and would make a great spy movie, but there is not a single solid argument in there. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. He doesn't present any evidence, just writes up an eloquent BS story.

Besides, no, I don't believe that USA blew up the pipeline. It's very unlikely that the europeans would have swallowed it up just like that, especially given the fact that it happened during the energy crisis. It would have been an extremely stupid thing to do to the allies, with extremely high risk. Biden's administration is not known for making risky moves. Ukraine definitely had a motive (but hardly the means). Could be Baltic countries (but then again very high risk). No, my bet is on Russia. Sounds like exactly a thing Putin would do. The reason why I think so is that Russias reaction to the explosion was surprisingly mild, with the main talking point being "well, now EU has no other choice but open up Nord Stream 2 B unless they want to freeze". Which by the way was the only line to survive. Why would USA conveniently leave a pipe for Russia to pipe gas?

In the end, the entire "it was USA" story is based on two things: Biden saying " there won't be a Nord Stream 2", and a Polish politician making a dumb joke on Twitter. And then of course Russia claiming that it was USA, but anything Russia says should be automatically disregarded as noise. None of this makes any sense whatsoever and neither does Hersh's "story". And of course, this publication conveniently comes out exactly at the same time as many other events or claims that benefit Russia and harm Ukraine, exactly at the time of a big Russian offensive, and amidst an unusual increase in activity from Russian internet bots. This is a page from Putin's playbook. Divide, misinform, overwhelm, confuse.

 

[lizkat]

You think Sy Hersh is a propagandist? The guy that spent his career breaking stories (Mai Lai, Abu Graib, etc) that the US government denied but decades later are just openly acknowledged as true?

We did blow up the pipeline. But I guess we’ll all just be openly joking about it two decades from now when it’s officially ok to acknowledge the truth.

We don't know. We knew Sy Hersh back when. We also knew fricken Rudy Giuliani back when.

 

[NT1440]

I think Sy Hersh is a person who used to be a formidable investigative reporter, but now is just an old man who is most likely being handled and manipulated. Maybe he believes in this story. I mean, he has been at it for so long that the suspicion towards US government became a pathological thing. Maybe he even has sources. But I suspect that even if these sources are real they were telling a carefully prepared story. He wouldn't be the first once impressive man to succumb to age-related mental degradation and he won't be the last. There are examples aplenty.

And it's not like I am simply saying these things because that's what I want to be true. Just look at Hersh's latest claims. I mean, he denies that Skripal was poisoned by Russia. While we have names and videos with Russian secret service agents who poisoned him. Or the conspiracy about bin Laden. Or his article on the Syrian war. There is a fairly clear thread here, don't you think? His article on Nord Stream 2 is an entertaining read and would make a great spy movie, but there is not a single solid argument in there. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. He doesn't present any evidence, just writes up an eloquent BS story.

Besides, no, I don't believe that USA blew up the pipeline. It's very unlikely that the europeans would have swallowed it up just like that, especially given the fact that it happened during the energy crisis. It would have been an extremely stupid thing to do to the allies, with extremely high risk. Biden's administration is not known for making risky moves. Ukraine definitely had a motive (but hardly the means). Could be Baltic countries (but then again very high risk). No, my bet is on Russia. Sounds like exactly a thing Putin would do. The reason why I think so is that Russias reaction to the explosion was surprisingly mild, with the main talking point being "well, now EU has no other choice but open up Nord Stream 2 B unless they want to freeze". Which by the way was the only line to survive. Why would USA conveniently leave a pipe for Russia to pipe gas?

In the end, the entire "it was USA" story is based on two things: Biden saying " there won't be a Nord Stream 2", and a Polish politician making a dumb joke on Twitter. And then of course Russia claiming that it was USA, but anything Russia says should be automatically disregarded as noise. None of this makes any sense whatsoever and neither does Hersh's "story". And of course, this publication conveniently comes out exactly at the same time as many other events or claims that benefit Russia and harm Ukraine, exactly at the time of a big Russian offensive, and amidst an unusual increase in activity from Russian internet bots. This is a page from Putin's playbook. Divide, misinform, overwhelm, confuse.

Skripal, the incident that was in the news for the super lethal novachock poison? The one where it’s so deadly that prior to the hazmat suits for the cameras people were just openly touching the supposedly poisoned door handle without protection?

OBL was a prisoner in Abbotabhad, which is the ISI’s (Pakistan CIA equivalent) equivalent to West Point. He’d been there for years.

The last 6 years of media has completely broken people’s critical thinking skills

We don't know. We knew Sy Hersh back when. We also knew fricken Rudy Giuliani back when.

Rudy Guiliana was always a complete piece of shit though. 9/11 just erased that from people’s memories. He engineered the literally rioting of cops in NYC as his stepping stone to power in the 80/90’s (forget when that was). Not to mention that somehow his company got the biohazard clean contracts after 9/11, a clear example of his cartoonishly morally bankrupt character.

Hersh on the other hand, spent his life making people in power in uncomfortable by digging up the *facts* that were deemed lies at the time. It was only when he undermined the official narrative on OBL’s assassination that he was deemed unworthy of being part of the mainstream press. He had to spend years writing in the London Review of Books because nobody would give him a platform in the US…because power has only gotten more out of control and dirty since the Bush II (an actually stolen election).

And to those who want to refer to sourcing, do yourself a favor and pay attention to how many times in these big geopolitical stories the likes of the NYT, WaPo, CNN, Etc use “according to those familiar”, “according to senior such and such”, “according to defense/intelligence officials”.

Anonymous sources were considered one of the most potent sins of journalism until the Watergate days. Then after 9/11 it became just accepted without a thought. Now, every major news agency has (“retired”) intelligence spooks right there out front. Something that in the 70’s would have been outrageous.

As news has been consolidated to 4 or 5 major companies, they’ve gotten directly in bed with power centers, which completely undermines the protections an informed public is supposed to provide in a “democracy”.

 

[lizkat]

Rudy Guiliana was always a complete piece of shit though. 9/11 just erased that from people’s memories. He engineered the literally rioting of cops in NYC as his stepping stone to power in the 80/90’s (forget when that was). Not to mention that somehow his company got the biohazard clean contracts after 9/11, a clear example of his cartoonishly morally bankrupt character.

OK I lived through some of then Mayor Rudy's other questionable moves in the city, like scheduling a benefits review in one borough and a simultaneous drug test in another borough for a person on welfare, hoping he could eventually say he had turned fully half the welfare rolls into workfaring taxpayers or some sh§t. We saw where that went, and it was no place good.

I was referring to the days when Rudy was a highly lauded prosecutor of organized criminals. Back then, butter wouldn't melt in the mouth of his later critics in the newspapers and general public. The only badmouthing of the work of Giuliani then was from mob lawyers and maybe a few citizens in some pockets of the city and northern Jersey...

If the praise for Rudy back then was for some engineered gloss-over of the kind of behavior he exhibited as time went on, he sure fooled a whole lot of politicians, judges, fellow prosecutors, juries, defense lawyers and defendants alike.

"Gimme a head to show to the citizens and I'll let ya slide on that other thing this time...: ​

​

?!! but no. No way.​

​

At that time, Rudy was the real deal. He should have stuck with that path and aimed at being a judge later on instead of getting into the gamier side of politics.​

Public recognition and praise can be drugs, aphrodisiacs... " there must be more out there somewhere."

Back to Seymour Hersh and the tale of the busted pipelines: I won't belie Hersh's good work in the past and I don't mean to categorize him as a peer of today's Giuliani. Still, he has fallen off from peak of his efforts to get the real story over the years... and people trying to run agendas on stellar AND mediocre investigative reporters are a dime a gross any more, with no reason for us to imagine that some deep-pocketed state sponsors are not among them.

On the other hand it's getting harder for a state sponsor to keep secrets. So it's not out of the question that Sy's source is a stateside Deep Throat and not a made-elsewhere Deep Fake put up by Vladimir or some other state with a grudge and some good divers.... whose boss was looking for a way to say hello world, Americans did this!

I'm not sold in... and still lean skeptical on this one. Put it down to my having grown up with a bunch of little brothers and it wasn't always the same damn one stole my rollerskate key every time it went missing.

With luck, science lags on some fronts and so I won't live 50 years to find out who has been wrong about this thing. In another ten years I'll be lucky if I know what a laptop is for when I see one on the coffeetable in the morning. Feel free to laugh if I backed the wrong horse.

I'd actually like to believe Biden had the brass to say just do it. I like that it was in Sy's piece.

I suspect his advisers would have talked him down.... or possibly did just that. If Sy knows that too. he sensibly left that little detail off his story, since it would have wrecked the lede and everything under it.

 

[NT1440]

OK I lived through some of then Mayor Rudy's other questionable moves in the city, like scheduling a benefits review in one borough and a simultaneous drug test in another borough for a person on welfare, hoping he could eventually say he had turned fully half the welfare rolls into workfaring taxpayers or some sh§t. We saw where that went, and it was no place good.

I was referring to the days when Rudy was a highly lauded prosecutor of organized criminals. Back then, butter wouldn't melt in the mouth of his later critics in the newspapers and general public. The only badmouthing of the work of Giuliani then was from mob lawyers and maybe a few citizens in some pockets of the city and northern Jersey...

If the praise for Rudy back then was for some engineered gloss-over of the kind of behavior he exhibited as time went on, he sure fooled a whole lot of politicians, judges, fellow prosecutors, juries, defense lawyers and defendants alike.

"Gimme a head to show to the citizens and I'll let ya slide on that other thing this time...: ​

​

?!! but no. No way.​

​

At that time, Rudy was the real deal. He should have stuck with that path and aimed at being a judge later on instead of getting into the gamier side of politics.​

Public recognition and praise can be drugs, aphrodisiacs... " there must be more out there somewhere."

Back to Seymour Hersh and the tale of the busted pipelines: I won't belie Hersh's good work in the past and I don't mean to categorize him as a peer of today's Giuliani. Still, he has fallen off from peak of his efforts to get the real story over the years... and people trying to run agendas on stellar AND mediocre investigative reporters are a dime a gross any more, with no reason for us to imagine that some deep-pocketed state sponsors are not among them.

On the other hand it's getting harder for a state sponsor to keep secrets. So it's not out of the question that Sy's source is a stateside Deep Throat and not a made-elsewhere Deep Fake put up by Vladimir or some other state with a grudge and some good divers.... whose boss was looking for a way to say hello world, Americans did this!

I'm not sold in... and still lean skeptical on this one. Put it down to my having grown up with a bunch of little brothers and it wasn't always the same damn one stole my rollerskate key every time it went missing.

With luck, science lags on some fronts and so I won't live 50 years to find out who has been wrong about this thing. In another ten years I'll be lucky if I know what a laptop is for when I see one on the coffeetable in the morning. Feel free to laugh if I backed the wrong horse.

I'd actually like to believe Biden had the brass to say just do it. I like that it was in Sy's piece.

I suspect his advisers would have talked him down.... or possibly did just that. If Sy knows that too. he sensibly left that little detail off his story, since it would have wrecked the lede and everything under it.

Thanks for the history lesson. I’ll admit I thought I was stretching the memory of people when referencing the cop riot of 92 (because I was 1 at the time).

I forget that there are still people like you who have *political* memory going back decades. It really seems like people of all age ranges have just forgotten recent history faster and faster these days (probably because the sheer quantity of daily information we’re bombarded with have increased exponentially).

I know that’s a flowery way of acknowledging you’re much older than I, but I don’t consider being older than someone negative in any way. Hopefully you get what I’m saying!

 

[lizkat]

Thanks for the history lesson. I’ll admit I thought I was stretching the memory of people when referencing the cop riot of 92 (because I was 1 at the time).

I forget that there are still people like you who have *political* memory going back decades. It really seems like people of all age ranges have just forgotten recent history faster and faster these days (probably because the sheer quantity of daily information we’re bombarded with have increased exponentially).

I know that’s a flowery way of acknowledging you’re much older than I, but I don’t consider being older than someone negative in any way. Hopefully you get what I’m saying!

My first political memory was being told to shush up when FDR's voice came out of a wooden box on a shelf in my grandmother's kitchen during "the war." I was barely a toddler.

"That's the president of our country, be quiet and listen now." ​

​

By time FDR had died and Truman had later made the decision to bomb Japan, I could read about it in the newspaper, although some of the words I still had to puzzle out and ask my grandmother or granddad about.

So yeah, I have a few years on ya. But there have been times I didn't pay much attention to history in the making. It's been interesting trying to catch up on those blanks from the times when school and work took precedence.

 

[dada_dave]

Whoever blew the pipeline, Seymour Hersh’s story just doesn’t hold water if you’ll pardon the expression. Here’s one blow by blow:

Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

On the surface Seymour Hersh's story looks passable, but as you dig deeper it has more holes than the Nord Stream pipeline.

oalexanderdk.substack.com

Basically many of the details of Seymour Hersh’s story are contradicted by what is known. And this post even misses a few others that people have brought up - like his salinity thing makes no sense. And unfortunately speaks to his recent history as a fabulist. @NT1440 you may not want to be so quick to criticize people’s critical thinking when you swallow and regurgitate such obvious bullshit both here and in other threads. The reason Hersh published this in a substack blog instead of the New Yorker isn’t because the New Yorker is more in bed with the government than it was 20 years ago.

Now the interesting part is that the US’s un/official position is that they don’t have evidence it was the Russians. Which is not what one would expect them to say if the Russians had done it (and we actually had the evidence) nor indeed if the US had done it and was trying to maintain its own innocence. Now this doesn’t mean that neither the Russians nor the Americans are responsible because indeed all the other suspects in the area have problems too - mostly as @leman (and the blog post above above) said risk vs reward. The pipelines were shut down, the EU was setting itself up for moving off of Russian gas, etc … making motivation for any actor difficult. The two countries with the most motivation are Russia and Ukraine, the ones at war. Russia obviously has more opportunity than Ukraine. The main reason to think it was the Russians was it fits their strategy of trying to freeze out Europe but they didn’t really need to blow it except to prove a point that they could (and could do so to other underwater infrastructure). So still possible. But we’ve basically said we don’t think it was them and it’s not clear that the Ukrainians possess the means. They’d have to get a team through multiple countries laden with explosives, rent a boat, do an underwater mission and get back with no one questioning. That would be … impressive. Constructing a reason why US intelligence would effectively exonerate Russia if Russia did do it requires US intelligence to either be wrong (possible but so far the Russians have been pretty well compromised) or worried about some escalation risk (which honestly doesn’t feel likely). So it’s an interesting question, but ultimately I’m not sure how important it is. Because 1. as I said the pipelines were already off, 2. not all of them were blown, 3. the EU was going to get off of Russian gas anyway by that point as Russia had already made impossible to do otherwise, see point 1. Which makes it more of a symbolic attack.

 

[leman]

Skripal, the incident that was in the news for the super lethal novachock poison? The one where it’s so deadly that prior to the hazmat suits for the cameras people were just openly touching the supposedly poisoned door handle without protection?

Are you sure you are in any position to judge other people’s critical thinking? Yes, people were touching the poisonous door handle without protection, many hours after the application of the agent where most of it has already evaporated. Most prominently, a police officer tasked with checking Skripals home was the first outsider to do that. He spent two weeks in a hospital. Other responders (who got there much later) exhibited minor respiratory symptoms consistent with Novichok poisoning. I mean, it’s good to be critical, but it’s something else to close your eyes and your ears.

But if your mental attitude is that of fundamental distrust towards authorities, why would you trust the authority of Hersh? Just because he paints the picture of a governmental conspiracy? Given that he provides zero proof, how can you claim that trusting him is critical thinking? To me this looks just like appeal to authority, just a different authority.

 

[NT1440]

Are you sure you are in any position to judge other people’s critical thinking? Yes, people were touching the poisonous door handle without protection, many hours after the application of the agent where most of it has already evaporated. Most prominently, a police officer tasked with checking Skripals home was the first outsider to do that. He spent two weeks in a hospital. Other responders (who got there much later) exhibited minor respiratory symptoms consistent with Novichok poisoning. I mean, it’s good to be critical, but it’s something else to close your eyes and your ears.

But if your mental attitude is that of fundamental distrust towards authorities, why would you trust the authority of Hersh? Just because he paints the picture of a governmental conspiracy? Given that he provides zero proof, how can you claim that trusting him is critical thinking? To me this looks just like appeal to authority, just a different authority.

Leman, I have pages and pages of Skripal notes. I didn’t even know Hersh reported on it until this thread.

News at the time were reporting that it’s a novel super secret poison that only Russia knows how to make, yet I have a book on my bookshelf from nearly twenty years ago discussing it amongst many other soviet era poisons and how the Soviet program worked from a defector.

If that was indeed novachik, both Skripals would be dead, it is *insanely* toxic. Unless they were somehow poisoned in the parts per billion, which neither a door handle nor the alleged perfume bottle sprayer that was the delivery method would be able to do. Frankly, an aerosolized application of it would have killed the person spraying it in minutes. I find it hard to believe that one of the most surveilled places on the planet (cameras) didn’t see a guy in a hazmat suit walking around towards the Skripal house, because if he wasn’t wearing that level of protection he’d be dead…if the spray bottle story has any merit.

I’m having friends over but if I remember to later I can expand on the Skripal incident, but in real time I was paying attention to how the story was rolling out. It didn’t add up to my eye and that assessment had nothing to do with Sy Hersh.

Attached is the super-secret-no-one-knows-about-it chemical composition of novichock.

 

[Yoused]

Frankly, an aerosolized application of it would have killed the person spraying it in minutes. I find it hard to believe that one of the most surveilled places on the planet (cameras) didn’t see a guy in a hazmat suit walking around towards the Skripal house, because if he wasn’t wearing that level of protection he’d be dead…if the spray bottle story has any merit.

Actually, like many nerve agents, there are novichoks that can be made binary. One person could have sprayed component A on a target, walked away, and the next person could have sprayed the B component on the same target, risking minimal exposure.

Navalny apparently survived it, so it must not be as insanely toxic as you suggest. Or perhaps the delivery method was less effective, or compromised.