Trump puts Putin on ‘Double Secret Probation’ for not ending Ukraine war

49 Comments

1. Too many non sequiturs eg. ‘Send in American troops to replace the rapidly disappearing Ukraine soldiers filling up numerous freshly dug Ukraine cemeteries? Nope.’

   Making excuses for and/or deflecting from Russia with glib one liners?

   While ignoring civilian targets in Ukraine now about 1 million Russian casualties, dominated by poorer citizens who are mostly ethnic minorities?

2. There is no doubt that Trump’s policies on absolutely everything are chaotic.
   But he has finally realised what rational people have known for over 3 years- Putin has no interest in peace.
   Nonetheless, Trump has proposed targeting Russian trading partners with tariffs and sanctions. This is likely to cause some careful consideration by a range of countries, such as India, Brazil and Indonesia.
   The author seems to ignore exactly what Trump has proposed.
   Trump provides enough choas with his erratic policies to provide endless criticism.
   When his administration comes up with something that might have a chance of putting additional pressure on Putin’s brutal, expansionist fascist regime, there’s no reason to specifically overlook it.

3. Andrew and AC,

   I let this one through, publishing it under the “Your Say” category. It’s not a piece I agree with, but let it through anyway as the author has a right to have a say.

   As you also have a right to have a say.

   Sometimes when the author presents an argument nobody agrees with, it can encourage interesting discussion.

4. Roswell, agree and allows rebuttal/counter to show how flimsy narratives masquerading as informed analysis, from the US, can be; see RW MSM….

5. “Sometimes when the author presents an argument nobody agrees with, it can encourage interesting discussion.”
   Crikey Roswell, you certainly know how to push my buttons. 🙂

   AC refers to “Putin’s brutal, expansionist fascist regime” in line with Mr Smith’s “Making excuses for and/or deflecting from Russia”.
   They both know that NATO and Ukraine conspired to force Russia to invade, (NATO to weaken Russia, Ukraine to join NATO and ultimately the EU) but they have trouble processing the fact that they were sucked in by cheap Western propaganda that a kid could see through.
   And I see that Mr Smith has positioned himself as an authority on “flimsy narratives masquerading as informed analysis,” Oh dear.

   I’ve explained the facts behind that provocation several times, and neither AC or AS have effectively disputed them. Although, AC did quibble bravely over Article 51 of the UN Charter once, without success.

   They’ve had plenty of time to consider a response, so why the delay?
   Instead, they choose to fire off cheap shots rather than face up to the fact that Ukraine was deceived, used by NATO to further its geopolitical ambitions.
   And the really disgusting thing here is that they are both happy to see Ukraine decimated, the flower of its youth rotting in the ground just to further the aims of a brutal empire that is determined to exercise control over the entire globe, and which cares nothing for how many die for that satanic cause.

6. Steve made the following statement-They both know that NATO and Ukraine conspired to force Russia to invade, (NATO to weaken Russia, Ukraine to join NATO and ultimately the EU) 
   Which is absolute nonsense. No one forced Russia to invade Ukraine.
   On what basis are you able to make that (false) claim?
   You have previously used a (discredited) narrative put out by Jeffrey Sachs to support your claim.
   We’ll deal with articles 51 (once again) once you have demonstrated you can support your claim “they both know”

7. Oh dear, AC is going with vague, woolly and nebulous again.
   One day he’ll surprise me with something of substance.

   I have a problem with nonsense like this — You have previously used a (discredited) narrative put out by Jeffrey Sachs to support your claim because in his usual style he provides no link.
   There’s nothing I can refute.
   Just as AC likes it.

   As for ”they both know”, it’s just a couple of months ago at Roswell’s Zelensky vs Putin that in reply to an AC comment I posted this — Even more significant is that the label “unprovoked” that has been used incessantly since 2022 to describe Russia’s action is clearly not appropriate. Yet no-one has tackled the matter of the Arestovich interview. The interview puts to bed forever that allegation, yet no-one has disputed it, or better still, stated that it is a significant factor that makes them re-assess.
   Of course, in his reply to me, AC somehow overlooked the issue of the interview, just as he’s trying to do now.
   For about the fourth or fifth time, for those who are interested, it’s here —
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xNHmHpERH8&t=449s

   The Arestovich interview is just a link in quite a chain of factors that Russia had to consider, and probably a minor link from Russia’s point of view, but it shows how pathetic the Western media were with their constant references to an “unprovoked invasion.”
   The interview took place 3 years prior to the invasion.
   This was no state secret.
   And it shows how pathetic those are, who when advised of the clip, persist with promoting imperialist propaganda.

8. I’m still waiting for you to justify your claim- “They both know that NATO and Ukraine conspired to force Russia to invade…”
   I’ve just again watched that interview. You seem to ignore that Arestovich specifically says Russia started the war, that Russia has ambitions beyond Ukraine, weaker nations will be picked off with the defeat of ukraine, that Putin seeks to recreate the Soviet Union.
   “Russias policy of winning the cold War and the collapse of the EU and NATO…”
   Seriously?
   Your comment is typical of your misrepresentation and cherry picking
   I still laugh about your statement- economic facts, information and data is “irrelevant” in a discussion about economics

9. Oh dear.
   Yes, I’m saying Oh dear a lot in this discussion because, well, dear oh dear.

   AC says “You seem to ignore that Arestovich specifically says Russia started the war.” Oh dear.
   Arestovich would say that wouldn’t he, because that was the NATO/Ukraine intention, but 3 years before the invasion?
   The use of brevity to avoid being pinned down comes with a price.
   AC is struggling to maintain coherence.

   Or is AC referring to THE WAR?
   You know, the one where Russia got Ukraine to start shelling Ukraine’s Russian speaking citizens?
   Who can tell?

   AC stated “Arestovich specifically says Russia has ambitions beyond Ukraine, weaker nations will be picked off with the defeat of ukraine, that Putin seeks to recreate the Soviet Union.”
   All of which is a diversion by AC from the issue of NATO and Ukraine conspiring to provoke an invasion.
   When you go on national television to tell the world that you intend to provoke an invasion, you have an obligation to at least try to appear to be rational. Even when your talking points are not backed by evidence.

   Then, in true AC style, this is plucked out of the air with no indication of where it came from — “Russias policy of winning the cold War and the collapse of the EU and NATO…” Seriously
   Seriously indeed.
   Brevity bites again.
   Is this another instance of AC repeating a conversation that only took place in his head?
   Is it something I said elsewhere and is presented here out of context?
   Is it linked to the little green men that AC once sprung on us without justification or explanation?
   Who can tell?

   And AC says he’s still waiting for me to justify my claim that he knew NATO and Ukraine conspired to provoke an invasion. O dear.
   It was obviously just an informed guess based on my having referred to the Arestovich interview in several discussions in which AC was involved. A guess that no-one sensible would die in a ditch to dispute, but any diversion at all will do when AC is struggling. After demanding evidence, he immediately admitted this “I’ve just again watched that interview.”
   Is evidence straight from the horse’s mouth good enough?
   With AC, who can tell?

   For those readers who, like me, are not fond of video clips about serious political matters, here is part of Jacques Baud’s summary of the interview. Baud, you will recall, was employed by NATO and Ukraine during the Donbass rebellion.
   “In an interview with the Ukrainian channel Apostrof’ on March 18, 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky’s advisor Oleksei Arestovitch cynically explains that, because Ukraine wants to join NATO, it will have to create the conditions for Russia to attack Ukraine and be definitively defeated.”
   “The strategy devised by Zelensky and his team was revealed before his election in March 2019 by Oleksei Arestovitch, his personal advisor, on the Ukrainian media Apostrof’. Arestovitch explained that it would take an attack by Russia to provoke an international mobilization that would enable Ukraine to defeat Russia once and for all, with the help of Western countries and NATO. With astonishing precision, he described the course of the Russian attack as it would unfold three years later, between February and March 2022. Not only did he explain that this conflict was unavoidable if Ukraine is to join NATO, but he also placed this confrontation in 2021-2022!”

   But keep in mind that the interview, as I said earlier, is just a small link in the chain of circumstances that contributed to Russia’s decision to carry out a pre-emptive strike.
   It might not have even played a role in Russia’s calculations.
   It’s value lies in that it confirms with great clarity, an intention, carried out faithfully, to provoke Russia.

   And still I see no link to my reference to Jeffrey Sachs.
   Why am I not surprised?
   Will AC come good with a link?
   Who can tell?

10. I knew you would be unable to justify your claim. – ““They both know that NATO and Ukraine conspired to force Russia to invade…”
    It remains yyour tactic- make a big claim you cant justify, then slowly qualify under challenge. You’ve done this dozens of times.
    And I used a comment make by in YouTube video you posted.
    It was in context. Didn’t you watch the video you posted?

11. Brevity strikes again.
    I have no idea as to what AC is talking about with his reference to the video.
    But I’ve learned one thing.
    He has no idea about the meaning of the word “context”.
    Which explains a lot.

    And perhaps AC will show us all a little respect by checking comments before posting. His latest is almost incomprehensible.
    And that’s after correcting it just in the nick of time.
    I had to delete a reply on seeing the correction, then found that the corrected version was little better.

    More advice.
    When quoting from a video, give the minute mark for the quote.
    I have no intention of sitting through a lengthy video to check a quote that has most likely been misquoted.

    And does AC expect us to believe that he fails to read responses to his comments?
    He is fabricating once again.
    He was made aware of the Arestovich interview at Who Are the Narcissists, at Conveniently Forgotten and Ignored, at President Trump Pauses Military Aid to Ukraine, and at Zelensky v Putin. Now he claims ignorance.

    Well, I suppose that claiming ignorance is not a bad option, but the evidence so far is that the ignorance is general.
    But still no refutation of Arestovich.
    Not even a “Gee I might have been misled on that.”
    Or a “Let me think about it for a while.”
    Because I suspect that AC has been thinking about it for quite a while.

    And still I see no link to my alleged reference to Jeffrey Sachs.

    The bottom line to all this is that Russia had a range of concerns that led to the decision to make a pre-emptive strike.
    The conspiracy to provoke was probably the least of their worries.
    But now we are straying into big picture territory.
    Will AC have the courage to follow me into the Big Picture?
    With AC, who can tell?

12. A Commentator ……………..

    Give it up. Your responses aren’t working.

    Steve Davis has nailed it whether you like it or not.

13. Steve, I’m still wait for you to demonstrate your claim-
    “They both know that NATO and Ukraine conspired to force Russia to invade…”

    You can’t. What exactly did we “both know”?
    ••••••
    Simba, I haven’t started to debated the substantive question at this stage, because Steve claimed I knew “Ukraine and NATO conspired to force Russia to invade”
    Once he proves or retracts that claim, I might deal with other issues
    Steve has a proven history of making exaggerated and outrageous claims. He tries to move on, and post largely irrelevant and verbose responses.
    On this occasion he can prove I knew Russia was forced to invade Ukraine
    Alternatively he can own up to misrepresenting, exaggerating, inventing

14. What exactly did we “both know”?
    Is there a comprehension problem here?
    It was stated from the start.

    AC knew that Nato and Ukraine conspired to force Russia to invade because he was advised of it at least four times.
    Now he claims ignorance.
    Was he not paying attention?

    He knows exactly what’s going on.
    What we see now is a reluctance to move on.
    Word games to put off the inevitable.
    Because AC has two problems.

    Even if we concede that there is a tiny chance that he knew nothing of the video, he now knows about it and has to refute it, or do the right thing and reconsider his position on the provocation.
    But then a problem still remains.
    The big picture.
    Really scary stuff.
    Let’s do it.

15. Hilarious! Apparently you’re now a mind reader
    I know you’ve made this allegation, I know it is repeated incessantly by the pro Putin brigade.
    Personally, what I know is that the claim is crap and your particular expertise is misrepresentation
    And to illustrate your credibility, I’ll continue to point out your statement that economic information, facts and data is “irrelevant” in a discussion about economics

16. Russia invoked the UN Charter Article 51 to justify its attack on Ukraine.

    Article 51 is rather vague, and so opinions have varied on whether the Article supports the Russian action.
    It will surprise many, as it surprised me, that despite being involved in a needless and bloody prolonging of the war, the UK supports the Russian position. The Australian Att. General in 2017 supported the UK on this. Needless to say, they have been quiet on this matter since 2022.

    The following by Daniel Bethlehem QC in 2012, from the UN and The American Journal of International Law, is instructive.
    He states — Article 51 of the charter provides that, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.
    It is argued by some that the language of Article 51 provides for a right of self-defence only in response to an actual armed attack. However, it has been the consistent position of successive United Kingdom Governments over many years that the right of self-defence under international law includes the right to use force where an armed attack is imminent. It is clear that the language of Article 51 was not intended to create a new right of self-defence.
    Article 51 recognises the inherent right of self-defence that states enjoy under international law. That can be traced back to the “Caroline” incident in 1837. . . . It is not a new invention. The charter did not therefore affect the scope of the right of self-defence existing at that time in customary international law, which included the right to use force in anticipation of an imminent armed attack.”

    “The Government’s position is supported by the records of the international conference at which the UN charter was drawn up and by state practice since 1945. It is therefore the Government’s view that international law permits the use of force in self-defence against an imminent attack …”

    Bethlehem is stating there that pre-emptive self-defence was already recognised under international law before the arrival of the UN Charter, and that Article 51 of the charter did not override or extinguish existing law.
    His paper was written in response to attacks by non-state actors, but it is clear from his language in the quoted piece, (no reference to non-state actors) and the history of the use of force against imminent threats, that the right to pre-emptive action is a general one.

    But of course imminent threats have to be justified.

    We can assume that Russia formed the view of an imminent attack based on two factors.
    In 2021 the Ukraine National Security and Defense Council Decree no. 117/2021, committed Ukraine to take back Crimea.
    The decree to retake Crimea was in effect a declaration of war against Russia, because Ukraine had no legal claim on Crimea. Its annexation of Crimea in 1995 was not legal, but was tolerated by Russia who relied on the Friendship Agreement and the State of Forces Agreement to maintain a stable relationship. Ukraine at that time had good relations with Russia, as the far-right groups fostered by the West did not exist at that time.

    The next factor was the troop build-up in the Donbass and the sudden increase in shelling of rebel held areas in the third week of February 2022. Russia most likely assumed that this was the beginning of the previously decreed operation to re-take Crimea.
    Donbass had to be re-taken to reach Crimea. Hence the need for a pre-emptive strike by Russia.
    There is also the defence of the Donbass republics, which, although not members of the UN, enjoyed the status of states under the Montevideo Convention On The Rights and Duties Of States.
    Ukraine’s attack on the Donbass breached Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, so the republics had the right to appeal to Russia for help.

    Article 2.4 of the UN Charter states — “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
    So, as Ukraine and NATO were illegally using force against the republics, Russia’s right to protect was and is protected by law. Article 2.4 clearly applies to “any state”.

17. Jeffrey Sachs is one of the go to experts for the Putin apologists. He is articulate and seems plausible.
    His main narrative about the war between Russia and Ukraine is that Russia was provoked into invading. This is mainly based on a verbal exchange between US Bush Administration Secretary of State James Baker and USSR’s Mikhail Gorbachev. Records indicate Baker said NATO would not expand eastwards.
    There are a number of points that undermine the attempt to portray this as an enduring policy, debunk the Sachs narrative and therefore eliminare a significant plank in Putin’s rationale for invading Ukraine.
    1/. The verbal exchange was with the Soviet Union, not with Russia. Russia is not synonymous with the Soviet Union, which was made up of 16 nations. All were recipients of this verbal exchange.
    A number of those 16 countries have specifically sought to release NATO from that verbal commitment. This is their right. They took this decision as sovereign nations because they sought to join NATO.
    Jeffrey Sachs, and those that use the same narrative, make.the fundamental mistake of using Russia as the only recipient of the exchange, when in fact there were 15 other countries. They apparently sought to join NATO because they understood that Russia was an unreliable neighbour.
    2/. The verbal exchange never intended to endure. Otherwise it would have been committed to writing, a treaty of even a signed Memorandum (such as the Budapest Memorandum)
    3/. The parties to the exchange were likely to have been intelligent enough to understand that a verbal exchange cannot bind a future administration. For example does Putin agree to being held to the verbal comments of Yeltsin? Or even Yeltin’s signed commitments (such as the Budapest Memorandum)?
    4. I see Steve has decided to to even try to justify his claim that I knew Russia was forced to invade Ukraine. Fine.

18. AC’s latest comment is misleading at best.
    Deliberately so?
    With AC, who can tell?

    The negotiations about NATO expansion were documented.
    The negotiations were not only about NATO, they were about the re-unification of Germany.
    No mention of that in AC’s account, because AC cannot stand context.

    From Jacques Baud — Today we assume that the USSR, having “lost the Cold War”, no longer had the right to speak. This is incorrect. She had de jure veto power over German reunification as the victor of World War II. Western countries were therefore obliged to obtain her agreement, in exchange for which she asked for a commitment on the non-expansion of NATO.
    We must not forget that, at this stage, the USSR still exists! The March 1991 referendum will show that there is no question of dismantling it. She is therefore not in a weak position and has no reason not to demand compensation for her agreement to reunification.
    This is what Hans-Dietrich Genscher, German Minister of Foreign Affairs, expressed during his speech on January 31, 1990, in Tutzing (Bavaria), reported by the American Embassy in Bonn:
    Genscher warns, however, that any attempt at [NATO’s] military expansion into the territory of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) would block German reunification.
    German reunification had two major consequences for the USSR: the withdrawal of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany (GFSA), the most powerful and modern contingent outside its territory, and the disappearance of a significant part of its “protective glaze”.
    Clearly, this meant that NATO was ipso facto approaching the Soviet border.
    With the Warsaw Treaty still in force and NATO doctrine remaining unchanged, it was legitimate for the USSR to fear for its security.
    This is why Genscher clarifies: The changes in Eastern Europe and the process of German unification must not “damage Soviet security interests”. Therefore, NATO should exclude an “expanding of its territory towards the East, that is to say, to move closer to the Soviet borders”
    .
    Mikhail Gorbachev therefore very quickly – and very legitimately – imposed conditions on his agreement, prompting James Baker, US Secretary of State, to immediately begin discussions with him.
    On February 9, 1990, in order to calm his concerns, Baker declared:
    Not only for the Soviet Union but also for other European countries, it is important to have guarantees that, if the United States maintains its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of military jurisdiction NATO’s current will not spread eastward.
    Promises were therefore formulated simply because the West had no other alternative than to obtain the approval of the USSR, and because without promises Germany would not have been reunited.

    Gorbachev thus accepted German reunification, only because he had received assurances from President George HW Bush and James Baker, from Chancellor Helmut Kohl and his Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher, from British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, of his successor John Major and their Minister of Foreign Affairs Douglas Hurd, of President François Mitterrand but also of the Director of the CIA Robert Gates and of Manfred Wörner, then Secretary-General of NATO .

    Thus, on May 17, 1990, in a speech in Brussels, Manfred Wörner declared:
    The fact that we are prepared not to deploy a NATO army beyond German territory gives the Soviet Union a solid guarantee of security.

    In February 2022, in the German magazine Der Spiegel , Joshua Shifrinson, American political scientist, reveals a document of March 6, 1991, classified SECRET, drawn up at the end of the meeting of the political directors of the ministries of Foreign Affairs of the United States, of Great Britain, France and Germany. He reports the words of the German representative, Jürgen Chrobog:
    We made it clear in the 2+4 negotiations that we would not expand NATO beyond the Elbe. So we cannot offer NATO membership to Poland and others.
    Representatives of other countries also accept the idea of not offering NATO membership to other Eastern countries. Raymond Seitz, US Representative says:
    We have made it clear to the Soviet Union – in the 2+4 talks and elsewhere – that we will not profit from the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe.
    Then, paper trail or not, there was a deal simply because a deal was inevitable. However, in international law, a “promise” is a valid unilateral act that must be respected (“promissio est servanda”).
    Those who deny it today are simply individuals who do not know the value of the given word. But it is true that such principles are not worth much in front of a New York lawyer.

    In June 1994, against public opinion, the Russian government joined NATO’s newly created Partnership for Peace. In 1997, in order to give the illusion that it wanted to develop cooperation with Russia, NATO laid the foundations of the NATO-Russia Council (COR), created in 2002. The purpose of the NRC was to maintain a dialogue with Russia so that NATO expansion is not seen as a threat. In fact, as summarized by Bill Clinton, it is a way of not applying the promises made to the leaders of the former USSR: What the Russians get out of this exceptional agreement that we are offering them is the opportunity to sit in the same room with NATO and join us whenever we all agree on something, but they have no possibility of preventing us from doing something that they do not accept. They can show their disapproval by leaving the room. And as a second great advantage, they get our promise that we are not going to put our military affairs with their former allies, who will now be our allies, unless we wake up one morning and decide to change our minds.
    ….………………………………………………………..
    But it turns out there was a paper trail.
    From the National Security Archive site — Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner.
    The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. 
    The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
    https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
    Links are provided to 30 official documents.
    ….……………………………………………………..
    But the overriding factor here is that it is irrelevant as to whether agreements were documented.
    Russia has a truckload of evidence to show that the Western powers cannot be trusted.
    Its decision to take pre-emptive action in self-defence was not based solely on events that occurred in the 1990s.
    Russia’s action was based mainly on current issues that are ignored now, just as Russia’s concerns were ignored in the past.
    Is it any wonder that Russia sees a pattern to all this?

19. When pressed on specifics, Steve always resorts to disingenuity, misrepresentation and obfuscation. Examples-
    • his claim that economic facts, information and data is “irrelevant” to a discussion about economics
    • his current claim that I knew Russia was “forced” to invade Ukraine
    Under challenge he always seeks to blur the issue or change the subject.
    His proven history is that he will make a provocative, unqualified, over the top statement or claim, then amend, modify and qualify it when challenged.
    It is notable that Steve thinks a verbal exchange is binding
    He neglects to address the following-
    • There were 16 countries in the Soviet Union. Russia was only one of them.
    • But Steve’s position is that one former Soviet country (Russia) is entitled to veto the right of 15 other fomer Soviet countries in releasing NATO from a verbal exchange (should they choose)
    • These sovereign nations were entitled to release a verbal, non binding, unenforceable commitment/exchange they received. A number did this. Which is entirely understandable¹
    • Demonstrably Gorbachev wasn’t President of Russia, and the USSR wasn’t Russia.
    • The exchange was verbal- because it was intended to be incapable of binding future governments and administrations.

    • if NATO is to be held to this, it is reasonable to trawl through the various exchanges of Yeltsin and hold Putin to them

    Note ¹. It is understandable that many former Soviet countries seek to shun Russia.
    • It has proven to be expansionist and unreliable
    • it has Europe’s worst outcome on the Gini coefficient (ie wealth distribution)
    • it devotes a greater proportion of its GDP to the military than any NATO country
    • it ranks 112th for life expectancy
    • none of the former Warsaw Pact signatories support Russia

20. This linked article from yesterday’s Guardian, ‘Self-termination is most likely’: the history and future of societal collapse, might be of interest to AC’s interlocutor, given his ongoing interest in social futures and the deeply negative global consequences of the capitalistic economic monolith and its inherent support of gross inequalities along with unsupportable modes of exploitation of resources, people & capital.

21. Thanks for that Kanga– looks fascinating.

    I’ll get back to you on that one.
    Cheers

22. I asked if AC’s misleading info was deliberately so, and suggested Who can tell?
    We now have an answer.
    Let’s consider AC’s comment just for the fun of it, tiresome though it is to plough over old ground.

    Months back, I stated that the US had lost the economic war against Russia because the sanctions by the West that were intended to turn the ruble into rubble had failed to bring Russia to its knees.
    Unable to accept this obvious reality, AC trotted out a series of stats that he assumed supported the ruble-to-rubble line, while ignoring the awful truth that Russia was doing fine. Just as he does here now.
    Even Western financial experts such as Statista and Forbes confirmed Russia’s strength, hence my statement that presenting stats out of context was meaningless.
    But in AC’s world of fantasy, he knows more about economics than Statista and Forbes.

    So you can see what I’m having to deal with here — a person willing to argue over trivialities that are not just meaningless, but wrong as well.
    A person willing to continue a line of reasoning that has been shown to be false.
    But a problem arises when presenting misleading information becomes habitual. The absence of truth impacts on logic. The misrepresentations can lead to contradictions.

    For example, AC has made much, in two comments now, of the fact that Russia is not the USSR. That is certainly true, but isolated facts are meaningless when out of context, a concept that is difficult for some to understand.
    In his attempt to extract some leverage out of this isolated fact, AC argues that of the nations that made up the USSR, “A number of those 16 countries have specifically sought to release NATO from that verbal commitment. This is their right. They took this decision as sovereign nations because they sought to join NATO.”
    Oh dear.
    Habitual misrepresentation strikes again.
    AC’s two comments on this have focused on the meaningless of verbal commitments, the same despicable reasoning of his favourite superpower, but his statement that “other countries have specifically sought to release NATO from that verbal commitment” shows that those other countries know and NATO knows, that verbal commitments are legitimate, have meaning, have weight, have standing in international law.
    There is no need to seek release from meaningless agreements.

    And of course the moral foundation of those who argue this line comes into stark relief when we see revealing statements like this — “It is notable that Steve thinks a verbal exchange is binding.”
    What sort of a person says things like that?
    What sort of world would we live in if our social relations and international relations were based on the kind of thinking that encourages deceit and manipulation?
    We all know the answer to that.
    We would end up living in Trumpworld, where trade agreements are tossed aside, where promises are made with no intention of abiding by them, where tariffs are used as a weapon.

    And for those who might assume that Trumpworld began with Donald Trump, Trumpworld is just US culture.

    Trumpworld was on full display in the 2002 comment from Bill Clinton above — “What the Russians get out of this exceptional agreement that we are offering them is the opportunity to sit in the same room with NATO and join us whenever we all agree on something, but they have no possibility of preventing us from doing something that they do not accept. They can show their disapproval by leaving the room. And as a second great advantage, they get our promise that we are not going to put our military affairs with their former allies, who will now be our allies, unless we wake up one morning and decide to change our minds.”
    We see from this a commitment from NATO, to Russia specifically, to not arm the former Soviet states, with a clear warning that the commitment meant nothing. It could be reversed at any time.

    So the history of security threats did not end in the 1990s.
    NATO simply made the threat more specific.
    The threats to Russia’s security are a continuation of the threats to Soviet Union security.
    The right of Russia to pre-emptively act to control those threats is protected by customary international law.

23. Kanga, the linked article is very good, but I have some disagreements as I think you would also. But to comment at length would be too far off topic.

    I’ll have to go back to find a similar theme, to make a comment worthwhile.

    Unless you want to present a review as an article, then we can go for it big-time! 🙂

24. Hilarious Steve!
    You didn’t make the statement you claim, your comment is wishful thinking.
    This is typical of your misrepresentation (even of your own position).
    You claimed the Russian economy was succeeding despite the sanctions, you (typically) didn’t qualify this.
    I pointed out some pretty standard economic indicators, to indicate that Russia’sgrowth was due to unsustainable military expenditure and there were plenty of economic problems. Among the information I posted were-
    • Russia’s high (double digit) rate of inflation
    • The punishingly high interest rates
    • Indicators of economic confidence such as the exchange rate, businsess investment and the share market index
    • the demographics of the Russian population, particularly those of working age, pointing to a chronic labour shortage.
    • the percentage of the GDP devoted to military expenditure (compared to NATO) countries.
    Steve, now that you’ve had time to reflect, which of that economic information is “irrelevant”
    ••••••••••
    Also, perhaps you can address yourself to a specific issue.
    When Putin asked – when will Russia be invited to join NATO?, he wasn’t too bothered about steadfastly standing in the way of NATO’s eastward expansion.
    Was he willing to encourage NATO’s expansion right into Russia? Was he seeking to exercise an option for Russia that he has brutally denied to other former Soviet countries?
    ••••••••••
    Later I’ll get back to your claim that I knew Russia was forced to invade Ukraine.

25. Crikey — I was wrong!!!

    AC DOES know more about economics than Statista and Forbes!!

    How could I make such a ghastly mistake? 🙂

26. That’s good progress Steve. I’ve often found that you back off when challenged. It’s often just a matter of whether I’m willing to persevere in challenging you.
    In future I won’t point that you said – economic indicators, facts, data are irrelevant to a discussion about economics.
    From here on, I’ll say- for almost a year Steve maintained that economic indicators, facts and data are irrelevant to a discussion about economics, then he finally acknowledged he was wrong.
    ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    How about you now deal with your assertion that I knew Russia was “forced” to invade Ukraine
    ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    And…perhaps you can address yourself to this issue.
    When Putin asked – when will Russia be invited to join NATO?, he wasn’t too bothered about steadfastly standing in the way of NATO’s eastward expansion.
    Was he willing to encourage NATO’s expansion right into Russia? Was he seeking to exercise an option for Russia that he has brutally denied to other former Soviet countries?
    ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    Nonetheless, it’s great that you’re finally making some progress

27. Oh dear.
    Is it too late to add to the list of what I have to deal with in discussions with AC?
    I now have to add — “One who is completely devoid of a sense of humour.”

    I was going to close the list off, but something tells me to keep it going. 🙂

28. Here’s an insight Steve, I share humour with people I don’t consider to be bulls*** artists.
    In any event, I’m entirely comfortable with you wanting to maintain that interest rates, inflation, business investment, share market index, labour market demographics, currency devaluation, military expenditure as a proportion of GDP etc are “irrelevant” to a discussion about economics.
    It’s hilarious (for me) either way.
    ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    And would you like to deal with your assertion that I knew Russia was “forced” to invade Ukraine
    ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    And… this issue-
    When Putin asked – when will Russia be invited to join NATO?, he wasn’t too bothered about steadfastly standing in the way of NATO’s eastward expansion.
    Was he willing to encourage NATO’s expansion right into Russia? Was he seeking to exercise an option for Russia that he has brutally denied to other former Soviet countries?
    ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    By the way, may I suggest you have a look at definitions of humour, sarcasm and irony.
    They aren’t synonymous

29. “It’s hilarious (for me) either way.”

    That’s actually rather telling.

30. Yes, your acceptance or denial of economic indicators as… economic indicators, is really hilarious (either way)

31. Readers will have noticed that AC has never given the exact quote for my reference to his economic indicators, or a link to the quote so it can be checked for veracity.

    Hmmm…

32. Steve, it was almost a year ago.
    When I posted the economic information (interest rates, inflation, labour market, exchange rate etc), are you denying you said it was “irrelevant”?
    Now you’ve asserted I knew Russia was “forced” to invade Ukraine, no evidence for that either.
    When you invent and post nonsense you should be prepared to be reminded of it.

33. Allegations without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    AC knows when this exchange took place but cannot give the details?

    AC is hiding something and we all know what it is.

    Context is his greatest fear.

34. Hilarious Steve
    You’ve spent almost a year posting extracts of the way you qualified your comment (economic indicators are “irrelevant”)
    I accept you qualified your claim, but it was well after the event snd under pressure.
    I’ve acknowledged that this is your continual practice- make an unqualified provocative comment, then amend and qualify it under pressure.
    …after a year of qualifying and amending your comment, you now demand a link to it!!!
    You really are weirdly entertaining

35. “I accept you qualified your claim,…”

    Give the details.
    Assertions without evidence, yet again.

36. With the greatest of respect Steve, you’re embarrassing yourself now.
    You’ve spent almost a year saying you objected to irrelevant economic information.
    (Which of the following is irrelevant economic information- interest rates? currency devaluation? labour market demographics? inflation?)
    To now equivocate about this is either demonstrating a (convenient) case of memory loss, or a more serious health and cognitive decline.
    I’ll presume it’s the former, and continue to demonstrate that you are hooked on making deliberately provocative and exaggerated claims that you modify and qualify under challenge/pressure…and the current example is- I knew Russia was “forced” to invade Ukraine
    •••••••••••••
    You haven’t replied to this either (which is directly related to this thread…
    When Putin asked – when will Russia be invited to join NATO?, he wasn’t too bothered about steadfastly standing in the way of NATO’s eastward expansion.
    Was he willing to encourage NATO’s expansion right into Russia? Was he seeking to exercise an option for Russia that he has brutally denied to other former Soviet countries?

37. Why will AC not produce the requested information?

38. Steve, on this thread you said- “AC trotted out a series of stats that he assumed supported the ruble-to-rubble line, while ignoring the awful truth that Russia was doing fine. Just as he does here now.”
    You’ve acknowledged I used the information and it was interest rates, exchange rate, labour market demographics, business investment etc
    Are you so eager to to reply that you overlook what you have already acknowledged?
    ••••••••••
    And a year on, let’s see who has been more accurate about Russia’s economic performance.
    ° Annual growth has fallen to less than 1% (it is now generally acknowledged that Russia’s previous growth was due to unsustainable military expenditure, as i said a year ago)
    ° Inflation is double digit
    ° Interest rates are over 20%
    ° The chronic labour shortage continues
    ° Military expenditure consumes more of its GDP than any NATO country
    ° But surely the crowning glory of Putin’s 3 decades of rule is that Russia now ranks 112th for life expectancy. Yes, 112th
    ••••••••••
    You haven’t replied to this either (which is directly related to this thread…
    When Putin asked – when will Russia be invited to join NATO?, he wasn’t too bothered about steadfastly standing in the way of NATO’s eastward expansion.
    Was he willing to encourage NATO’s expansion right into Russia? Was he seeking to exercise an option for Russia that he has brutally denied to other former Soviet countries?

39. And by the way, just to complete the report on the current state of the Russian economy
    • the ruble was worth 2 cents before Russia invaded Ukraine, it remains down by about 40%
    ▪︎ the Russia share market remains down by about 50%
    Can anyone seriously suggest that this information is a sign of economic success?

40. Something is really troubling AC.
    Can it be the reality that Russia’s pre-emptive action is protected by law?
    Maybe so, because he denied that for 3 years.

    But we must ask the question that I’m sure is on everyone’s lips — why this fascination with absolutely meaningless statistics?

    A pretty good guess would be that in trying to show that the West did not lose the economic war they began against Russia, AC is trying to shield himself from another reality — the West also lost the military war they began against Russia.

    Russia did not crumble through economic weakness, it has become basically economically independent now, an autarchy, and it’s Europe and the US that are now struggling with economic reality.

    But when the dust settles in Ukraine, when millions of its people have been killed to support US global ambitions, when the US starts looking for another official enemy with which to frighten the gullible, when AC realises that he backed a loser, he’ll turn up here saying “But look at the Russian inflation rate!”

41. Steve demonstrates economic ignorance, among a range of forms of it.
    In what world are the following “absolutely meaningless statistics” relating to economics?
    • growth down by 75% in a year (from 4% to less than 1%)
    • currency down by 40%
    • share market down by 50%
    • interest rates up (now about 20%)
    • inflation up (now about 10%)
    Add to this (that after about 30 years of Putin’s rule) Russia has Europe’s worst outcome on the Gini coefficient (wealth distribution) and it ranks 112th for life expectancy,
    This is the state of the economy and society Steve is admiring/advocating.
    Remember this when Steve posts his support for Russia’s economic strength, and his trenchant criticism of the democratic and economic systems of Australia.
    In a discussion about economics, Steve thinks economic statistics are “absolutely meaningless”?
    ••••••••••
    And another example of Steve’s commitment to making provocative and fact free comments is- I knew Russia was “forced” to invade Ukraine.
    That’s a prime example of Steve’s disingenuity.
    ••••••••••
    Note also that Steve has constantly declined to address this following inconsistency/hypocrisy-
    When Putin asked – when will Russia be invited to join NATO?, he wasn’t bothered about steadfastly standing in the way of NATO’s eastward expansion.
    Was he willing to encourage NATO’s expansion right into Russia? Was he seeking to exercise an option for Russia that he has brutally denied to other former Soviet countries?

42. It’s high time AC looked into the price of tomatoes in Volgograd.
    It’s a bloody scandal!

43. Nothing to see here, it’s all going swimmingly…
    Russia’s largest bank Sberbank announced on Friday an increase in basic mortgage rates by 3.5 percentage points, bringing the minimum rate to 28.1 percent.
    Sberbank said that starting Friday, its basic mortgage rates will rise due to an increase in the central bank’s key rate and the rising cost of government bonds.
    The minimum interest rate for primary market mortgages on Sberbank’s Domclick platform will now be 28.4 percent, while the rate for secondary market mortgages will be set at 28.1 percent.

44. It’s not just the price of tomatoes at Volgograd, how about the potato blight around Lukoyanov?!!
    Where will we get our vodka from now?
    This is a matter of great import! (D’yer see the pun AC? Huh? Huh? D’yer see it?) 🙂

45. The most hilarious part of this is that Steve thinks economic facts are “absolutely meaningless” in a discussion about economics.
    I also recall with great hilarity the occasion Steve claimed to have been proven right in a debate, because less than a handful of people here agreed with him!
    If I observe that Steve has the attitude and standards of a 12 year old, is that being too disparaging of 12 year olds?
    Yes, hilarious!

46. I just put AC’s absolutely meaningless Russia stats into Grok and asked “Does this mean anything?”
    The answer came back — “Sorry, Russia’s still winning the war.”

47. So I asked Grok — OK, how significant are stats about Russia’s economy?
    And the answer came back — “Why do you listen to that clown?”
    Which was rather rude, I thought.

48. So to get around what was obviously a technical hitch, I reworded the question — What gives economic statistics meaning?

    The answer came back “Context is everything — without context, stats are just fibs, lies, distortions, misrepresentations, manipulations, fabrications, deceptions, and equivocations.
    Those who use statistics that way should be treated with great caution, kept at arm’s length, disregarded, ignored, dismissed, repulsed, spurned, shunned and scorned.”

49. Steve, now your replies are as lame as your claim that you won a debate because someone agreed with you.
    12 – a convergence of emotional age and IQ