gearhog

Oops... https://x.com/TaskandPurpose/status/1854722364895834495https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-fires-commander-nuclear-missile/ https://x.com/TaskandPurpose/status/1854722364895834495

LOLWTF. Add this dipshit to the resignation list. "Air Force Col. Matthew N. McCall overturned a decision by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reversing three pretrial agreements signed by a senior retired general he put in charge of military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, saying Austin did not have the power to do so and that he had acted too late. " https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/us/politics/gitmo-plea-agreement.html

"I will ask for the resignations of every single senior military official who touched the Afghanistan disaster. I want their resignations immediately. And I want them on the desk of the Oval Office at twelve o'clock, Inauguration Day." https://x.com/Osint613/status/1853181484640735326

"Let's just get along and move forward" isn't going to happen. Trump has been prosecuted and ridiculed over his claims of a stolen election for four years. Is he the type of guy to shrug it off and focus on the future? He is going to turn the federal government inside out to resolve what happened in 2020. The biggest data destruction event in US history is going to take place in the next couple months. However, I believe there will be a lot of people that will retain evidence to protect themselves.

I doubt there is one yet. Putin knows Trump is going to impose one so he's signalling he's ready to negotiate. The solution has never been difficult. Divi up the territory that's been fought over, call it a draw, keep Ukraine neutral, and agree to hold elections free from Russian and USA influence.

Not even 24 hours later: Awesome.

Secretary of Agriculture: Thomas Massie. Great news. https://x.com/_Regenaissance/status/1854238840963428588

Whatever happens tomorrow, we all need to remember… it’s Russia’s fault. 🤪

Does that statement work conversely? "So, NATO wants everyone to be friends, and leave Russia vulnerable....I don't think that's going to go anywhere soon." All nations/organizations are motivated by some level of self-interest and preservation. Russia knew before hand it couldn't go toe to toe with the US and the rest of NATO in a conventional conflict. Apparently, that's the reason it proposed the above security guarantee in December 2021. "The Parties shall not create conditions or situations that pose or could be perceived as a threat to the national security of other Parties." All the restrictions in the language Russia proposed applies to Russia as well as NATO. On the surface, it appears to be a reasonable attempt at freezing the expansion of both parties and resolve disputes through diplomacy. I suppose one could make the claim that Russia proposed the agreement only so they could later break it, but ...why? One could also argue the US and NATO have reneged on as many treaties and agreements as Russia, but all agreements typically work for a while. Huh? They made an appeal for peace and it was rejected. They went with alternative. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-russia-united-states-moscow-72856781c3b92640d03c5e954488ba90 Russia sucks. It's a terrible country with terrible leadership. But what is our leadership really trying to achieve? Only the withdraw of Russian troops and safety/security of the noble Ukrainian people and it's democracy... or the collapse of Russia? That begs the question they often raise: "Should the world exist without Russia in it?" They don't want to answer that question and I don't think we should press them to. Negotiate an end.

The referenced 2014 recorded phone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt talking about how to manipulate the Ukrainian election and using Biden to endorse their choice.

There will be no clear winner.

Jeffrey Sachs answers questions about Ukraine and Russia at the Cambridge Union at the 1:05 mark. Nails it. The rest of his talk is good, also. The draft treaty he references that was put forth by Moscow (I hadn't seen this before): 17 December 2021 13:26 Agreement on measures to ensure the security of The Russian Federation and member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization The Russian Federation and the member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), hereinafter referred to as the Parties, reaffirming their aspiration to improve relations and deepen mutual understanding, acknowledging that an effective response to contemporary challenges and threats to security in our interdependent world requires joint efforts of all the Parties, determined to prevent dangerous military activity and therefore reduce the possibility of incidents between their armed forces, noting that the security interests of each Party require better multilateral cooperation, more political and military stability, predictability, and transparency, reaffirming their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the 1994 Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the Rome Declaration “Russia-NATO Relations: a New Quality” signed by the Heads of State and Government of the Russian Federation and NATO member States in 2002, have agreed as follows: Article 1 The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties. The Parties shall settle all international disputes in their mutual relations by peaceful means and refrain from the use or threat of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. The Parties shall not create conditions or situations that pose or could be perceived as a threat to the national security of other Parties. The Parties shall exercise restraint in military planning and conducting exercises to reduce risks of eventual dangerous situations in accordance with their obligations under international law, including those set out in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of incidents at sea outside territorial waters and in the airspace above, as well as in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of dangerous military activities. Article 2 In order to address issues and settle problems, the Parties shall use the mechanisms of urgent bilateral or multilateral consultations, including the NATO-Russia Council. The Parties shall regularly and voluntarily exchange assessments of contemporary threats and security challenges, inform each other about military exercises and maneuvers, and main provisions of their military doctrines. All existing mechanisms and tools for confidence-building measures shall be used in order to ensure transparency and predictability of military activities. Telephone hotlines shall be established to maintain emergency contacts between the Parties. Article 3 The Parties reaffirm that they do not consider each other as adversaries. The Parties shall maintain dialogue and interaction on improving mechanisms to prevent incidents on and over the high seas (primarily in the Baltics and the Black Sea region). Article 4 The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties. Article 5 The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties. Article 6 All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States. Article 7 The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia. In order to exclude incidents the Russian Federation and the Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct military exercises or other military activities above the brigade level in a zone of agreed width and configuration on each side of the border line of the Russian Federation and the states in a military alliance with it, as well as Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Article 8 This Agreement shall not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting the primary responsibility of the Security Council of the United Nations for maintaining international peace and security, nor the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations. Article 9 This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of deposit of the instruments of ratification, expressing consent to be bound by it, with the Depositary by more than a half of the signatory States. With respect to a State that deposited its instrument of ratification at a later date, this Agreement shall enter into force from the date of its deposit. Each Party to this Agreement may withdraw from it by giving appropriate notice to the Depositary. This Agreement shall terminate for such Party [30] days after receipt of such notice by the Depositary. This Agreement has been drawn up in Russian, English and French, all texts being equally authentic, and shall be deposited in the archive of the Depositary, which is the Government of … Done in [the city of …] this [XX] day of [XX] two thousand and [XX]. https://medium.com/@felixabt/newly-released-documents-prove-that-russia-preferred-peace-and-stability-over-war-73b9dde694fb

Sorry, I need to retract my earlier "14-15 years" response to this question. The rate of advance isn't linear according to today's issue of the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/31/world/europe/russia-gains-ukraine-maps.html

Watch and listen.

Trump: Old, loud, unsophisticated, shoots off at the mouth, takes enemy fire up close, they keep trying to get rid of him but he sticks around longer than anyone thought. Harris: Remote controlled, annoying to be around, a threat to US citizens. Goes down a lot.

For the record, I did say that analogy was bit of a reach. I might need to tweak it a little. In spite of what most here believe, I don't nail it every time. 😄 However... Your contention is that there is gigantic industry around tracking and analyzing election results and voter habits. You've been surveyed a dozen times, likely with the same spam text messages I get. Partial ballots are tracked. Ok. Fine. All of that means absolutely nothing. The proof is in the pudding. The science does not work. If you believe that it does, how would you explain the net result of this industrial sized effort is the US electorate consistently receiving poor quality options? You have a lot of faith in a voter feedback system that yields a presidential candidate with one of the lowest approval ratings in history and receiving zero votes in the primary and another who is a reality TV star who says crazy shit. Where was the science? I don't like the system, either. But you don't get to choose your choices. Hmmm... now that you mention it, I suppose I do vote to feel somewhat brave. It takes a little courage to commit yourself to a decision that isn't perfect isn't a guarantee, and may have drawbacks. Not making a decision is easy and takes zero courage. "I just vote for what I think is best" and in the very next line say Trump is the better candidate. A few words later, you accuse my position of being laughable. Huh? Simply put: Voters matter, non-voters do not.

Whatever. This thread needs pics.

LOL. You, however. I think you shouldn't vote.

How long will it take them to take Berlin? We're told both are strategic objectives of Moscow and thus necessitate us spending hundreds of billions to prevent it. Has Russia ever stated that is their intent? But say that is was... One answer to your question: 14-15 years, or not as long as it took us to abandon our interests in Afghanistan and Iraq. The website https://liveuamap.com/ shows the average distance to the front line from the Eastern border is around 70 miles.(Click on the polymeasure icon in the bottom left). Kiev is about 420 miles, give or take. A better answer to your question: Slightly longer than we're willing to remain committed. That is to say we're not in this for the long haul. They are. It's their backyard. US administrations change, budgets change, public perceptions change. I've said this since the beginning. The overall direction of the war continues since the beginning to go in one direction. I'd also submit that the conventional conflict on the ground in Ukraine is a small part of a much bigger war being waged on us by Russia. https://www.reuters.com/world/spurred-by-shared-grievances-brics-gathers-pace-2024-10-24/ The pace of advance by BRICS is also slow and fraught with problems. But it continues to trend in the direction of success.

Good post, but I don't understand your arbitrary hangup on age 65. Why not 69? Age is an immutable characteristic, even moreso than race or gender, that isn't necessarily and indicator in itself of future performance. Biden and Trump are roughly the same age, but why the cognitive disparity? Not one person will ever notice, nor even consider your reason for not voting for President. Here's an analogy: When we went through pilot training, it was challenging (probably more for you). We had a deeply seated personal interest in the outcome. It meant everything. One day the FLT/CC said, "Here's the drop." Would you have even considered saying: - "I don't like the choices. They all suck. I'm not filling out the dream sheet." - "Not interested. The C-130/KC-135/B-52 are too old." - "I trust all my classmates will make the right decision for me." - "If I don't fill out a dream sheet, the AF will understand that I'm not happy, and give me better opportunities in the future." And none of your classmates would have ever said "Wow, what brave and principled position. This guy is above the fray." The guy who would have gotten the AWACs is going to point and laugh at you. The choices are what they are, and the likelihood that the process by which we arrive at these alternatives is going to get better in the future is low. Everybody wishes they had a better menu from which to choose. It's just fantasy. Anyway, that analogy was a bit of a reach but I hope you vote, brother. Cheers

Great question. I've been busy building a house this summer, so I haven't been able to pay attention. I just did a quick google search for "Russia Ukraine advances". I just clicked the first article from the Independent. The first few lines. "Russian forces are making swift and “significant tactical advances” into the eastern Ukrainian city of Selydove, war monitors have said. Open source data suggests Russian forces advanced in September at their fastest rate since March 2022, despite Ukraine taking a part of Russia’s Kursk region. Those rapid advances have continued in the past week as Russian forces appear to be charging towards - or even into - the city of Selydove, which is less than 10 miles south of its main target, the larger city of Pokrovsk, a linchpin of the wider Donetsk region’s defences." I don't think many in the West have the ability to understand an adversary using a "dilatory tactic" in conflict. "Rapid Dominance, Shock and Awe, and Blitzkreig" are what the average American understands as the standard strategic winning tactics. Someone committed to the painfully slow grinding advance without regard to timeline, goal posts, achievements has always been a difficult problem for us. “If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by.”

Well, he wasn't wrong.

Anyone know this guy? I think me meant Hollywood but not sure. I can't get his video to load and would like to see it.

Last time I saw Israel drop a building that cleanly was 9/11.

He said he had a "feeling" they wouldn't make it... yet, I bet not one single solitary moment of self-reflection that perhaps that his absolutely rabid support and pressure to fund and intensify the war directly resulted in the death of these two pilots. God rest their souls. Adam is a pilot. Ukraine needs two more pilots. Just sayin.