Regular readers will know that I regularly insist that the former American republic has been transformed, since WW2, into a National Security state. The Deep State and political establishment have been industriously expanding the reach of the concept of national security to include all aspects of national and personal life—notably including public health. From the Russia Hoax to the fake impeachments of President Trump, from the Covid Regime to the engineered J6 “insurrection” and subsequent inquisitions, from the opening of the borders to the Mar-a-Lago raid to the FTX blowup and the Twitter File revelations—the fingerprints of the National Security state are all over these events. And always in the background is Ukraine.
"Now, I’m with those people who are saying that, from any rational military perspective, the provision of Patriots—missiles, I mean—to Ukraine is not going to change the outcome of the conflict. Probably not even by a little. The real question is, will it provoke a response from Russia such that new control measures over the American people can be invoked, citing “national security” once again. That’s speculation, but stranger things have happened."
The question you pose is worth asking. My view is that tehe real problem here isn't a potential "response from Russia". There is a nonzero possibility if such, but I'll point out that we never seriously considered a military response against Russia back when they were supplying SAMs to North Vietnam. But if in fact the Patriots aren't going to change the outcome, then what's the next step? If Ukraine starts to collapse, are we going to send troops? Because Lindsey Graham says we should be "all in" on Ukraine. Does "All in" mean divisions? I'll point out that we have troops in Poland and that any NATO column moving east would require surface to air missile cover, so we'd need to have Patriots in the general vicinity. And the Russians aren't invading Poland, or even deployed in a manner that would facilitate such.
In other words, I'm not worried about "Russian response". I'm not saying that you're wrong to be, but what has me worried is that these people make me think of a poker player who doesn't understand pot odds. Yeah, there's a lot of chips in that pot, but the guy put too many of them in there himself and he didn't think about the chances of actually making his hand.
And one more thing. General Surovikin has thought of this. That Russian troop concentration in Western Belarus might not be aimed at Lvov. It might be there to provide a defensive hard shoulder for his main axis of advance just in case.
Hopefully all of this has been the alcohol talking
Any military move from Poland into Ukraine would be a recipe for disaster. For starters, there are nowhere near enough Patriots in Poland to protect any such offensive move. Worse, Patriot batteries are large and slow to deploy and redeploy--and they offer no protection whatsoever against hypersonic missiles. IOW, they're sitting ducks. Meanwhile, not only does Russia have plentiful hypersonic and other missiles in Russia, it also has the armed camp known as the Kaliningrad oblast right on the Polish Baltic border, with a full array of advanced weapons systems. Belarus has also deployed Russian S-400 systems. I wouldn't want to send NATO planes into the teeth of those air defenses (supplemented by those in Kaliningrad).
Given those dynamics, would the Russians be tempted to respond to escalations with preemptive strikes into Poland at some point? I agree that the Russians are overwhelmingly unlikely to invade Poland, but with so much in their favor in that theatre they could decide to put an end to the cat and mouse pinprick nonsense and decisively cut the lines of supply.
This takes on added importance given Putin's recent trip to Belarus--which dealt precisely with the S-400 systems--and the simultaneous travel of Putin's Security Council Deputy, Medvedev, to Beijing to meet with Xi personally. There can be little doubt that Medvedev was there representing Putin, otherwise Xi would not have met with anyone less than Putin.
"Any military move from Poland into Ukraine would be a recipe for disaster."
On this we agree.
"Belarus has also deployed Russian S-400 systems. I wouldn't want to send NATO planes into the teeth of those air defenses (supplemented by those in Kaliningrad)."
I listened to The Duran this morning. Like me, they take the Putin/Medvedev meetings with Belarus and China to indicate that something big is in the offing.
I have not had time to listen to that yet but will. At the moment I am caught up in Christmas prep and family coming over this evening. Merry Christmas to you and yours and God grant we live to see another one.
So where do we go to find redress of our grievances? Or is that now considered “fomenting an insurrection? Hold on a second, someone’s at the door, be right…………………,
Yes, Mark, all of your weaving and unweaving of the Nat Sec reveals that Ukraine is the crucible of Deep State corruption and the billions committed is simply hush money to protect Zhou and Co. Hence the utter shutdown of the topic on Twitter and FB, and the rest of the media henchmen. And, it explains everything else…including, is it possible, November 22, 1963. Cry, the beloved country…
It's a kafkatrap, isn't it? Kamala is preaching to her choir.
Setting aside for a moment the insurmountable problem for the uniparty that we are a constitutional republic,
A democracy with inalienable rights to free speech for the minority as well as the majority... is the means by which each of us has a say in how we are governed; if we don't protect "our democracy" we won't have a say in how we are governed and we will lose our vaunted freedoms and die a miserable death.
Per Kamala, the only way to protect "our democracy" right now in this terrible, terrible crisis is to restrict the inalienable right of the minority to criticize restricting an inalienable right. An independent judge, call him a custodian, will decide what information is true and helpful and what is false and harmful to "our democracy", and will restrict false criticisms of "our democracy" in order to protect it.
Thus we are herded into a box canyon in which the only correct answer is "to preserve our say in how we are governed, some must give up their say in how we are governed." Plato was right.
By citing a small snippet of this paragraph you are missing the larger context and meaning of his point. The paragraph in it's entirety:
"What actually occurred because of these programs was the not-so-gradual destruction of the black family, the women having been financially induced via handouts to marry the state instead of the men who normally would have been their husbands. The statistics on the decline of the black family and the rise of single-parent households are well known, as are the results that the black community and the rest of us live through on a daily basis. What becomes of a man, black or white, who no longer has the responsibility of being a father? LBJ was in many ways the godfather of Black Lives Matter, not to mention the hugely sad violence in the streets of our biggest cities, most notably Chicago."
It's pretty clear he is referring to the increasing dysfunction of the black culture due to Johnson's "Great Society" policies and created what Reagan referred to as "Welfare Queens. Why marry a shiftless man when the state makes for a more reliable partner. Your going to get screwed either way so, why not be paid for it legally. For some, perhaps, welfare queen was a better term than hooker.
"Now, I’m with those people who are saying that, from any rational military perspective, the provision of Patriots—missiles, I mean—to Ukraine is not going to change the outcome of the conflict. Probably not even by a little. The real question is, will it provoke a response from Russia such that new control measures over the American people can be invoked, citing “national security” once again. That’s speculation, but stranger things have happened."
The question you pose is worth asking. My view is that tehe real problem here isn't a potential "response from Russia". There is a nonzero possibility if such, but I'll point out that we never seriously considered a military response against Russia back when they were supplying SAMs to North Vietnam. But if in fact the Patriots aren't going to change the outcome, then what's the next step? If Ukraine starts to collapse, are we going to send troops? Because Lindsey Graham says we should be "all in" on Ukraine. Does "All in" mean divisions? I'll point out that we have troops in Poland and that any NATO column moving east would require surface to air missile cover, so we'd need to have Patriots in the general vicinity. And the Russians aren't invading Poland, or even deployed in a manner that would facilitate such.
In other words, I'm not worried about "Russian response". I'm not saying that you're wrong to be, but what has me worried is that these people make me think of a poker player who doesn't understand pot odds. Yeah, there's a lot of chips in that pot, but the guy put too many of them in there himself and he didn't think about the chances of actually making his hand.
And one more thing. General Surovikin has thought of this. That Russian troop concentration in Western Belarus might not be aimed at Lvov. It might be there to provide a defensive hard shoulder for his main axis of advance just in case.
Hopefully all of this has been the alcohol talking
Any military move from Poland into Ukraine would be a recipe for disaster. For starters, there are nowhere near enough Patriots in Poland to protect any such offensive move. Worse, Patriot batteries are large and slow to deploy and redeploy--and they offer no protection whatsoever against hypersonic missiles. IOW, they're sitting ducks. Meanwhile, not only does Russia have plentiful hypersonic and other missiles in Russia, it also has the armed camp known as the Kaliningrad oblast right on the Polish Baltic border, with a full array of advanced weapons systems. Belarus has also deployed Russian S-400 systems. I wouldn't want to send NATO planes into the teeth of those air defenses (supplemented by those in Kaliningrad).
Given those dynamics, would the Russians be tempted to respond to escalations with preemptive strikes into Poland at some point? I agree that the Russians are overwhelmingly unlikely to invade Poland, but with so much in their favor in that theatre they could decide to put an end to the cat and mouse pinprick nonsense and decisively cut the lines of supply.
This takes on added importance given Putin's recent trip to Belarus--which dealt precisely with the S-400 systems--and the simultaneous travel of Putin's Security Council Deputy, Medvedev, to Beijing to meet with Xi personally. There can be little doubt that Medvedev was there representing Putin, otherwise Xi would not have met with anyone less than Putin.
"Any military move from Poland into Ukraine would be a recipe for disaster."
On this we agree.
"Belarus has also deployed Russian S-400 systems. I wouldn't want to send NATO planes into the teeth of those air defenses (supplemented by those in Kaliningrad)."
And this.
I listened to The Duran this morning. Like me, they take the Putin/Medvedev meetings with Belarus and China to indicate that something big is in the offing.
I have not had time to listen to that yet but will. At the moment I am caught up in Christmas prep and family coming over this evening. Merry Christmas to you and yours and God grant we live to see another one.
Thanks. Same to you--Merry Christmas. Getting ready to shovel. Temp 10 °F and falling.
So where do we go to find redress of our grievances? Or is that now considered “fomenting an insurrection? Hold on a second, someone’s at the door, be right…………………,
United we stand, divided we fall. So much for diversity is our strength; but at least we now know why.
Can't recall what led me to look this up. Maybe it's a parable for modern life and politics. Laughed till I cried:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnlIWpZSPXU
Yes, Mark, all of your weaving and unweaving of the Nat Sec reveals that Ukraine is the crucible of Deep State corruption and the billions committed is simply hush money to protect Zhou and Co. Hence the utter shutdown of the topic on Twitter and FB, and the rest of the media henchmen. And, it explains everything else…including, is it possible, November 22, 1963. Cry, the beloved country…
Who's really running the US Government? The Father of Lies.
It's a kafkatrap, isn't it? Kamala is preaching to her choir.
Setting aside for a moment the insurmountable problem for the uniparty that we are a constitutional republic,
A democracy with inalienable rights to free speech for the minority as well as the majority... is the means by which each of us has a say in how we are governed; if we don't protect "our democracy" we won't have a say in how we are governed and we will lose our vaunted freedoms and die a miserable death.
Per Kamala, the only way to protect "our democracy" right now in this terrible, terrible crisis is to restrict the inalienable right of the minority to criticize restricting an inalienable right. An independent judge, call him a custodian, will decide what information is true and helpful and what is false and harmful to "our democracy", and will restrict false criticisms of "our democracy" in order to protect it.
Thus we are herded into a box canyon in which the only correct answer is "to preserve our say in how we are governed, some must give up their say in how we are governed." Plato was right.
I do wonder what would happen were Putin to nuke, let's say, Berlin, if provoked badly enough.
I don't think our clown show in D.C. has even thought this sort of scenario through to even a beginning point, much less an endpoint.
It's improv.
By citing a small snippet of this paragraph you are missing the larger context and meaning of his point. The paragraph in it's entirety:
"What actually occurred because of these programs was the not-so-gradual destruction of the black family, the women having been financially induced via handouts to marry the state instead of the men who normally would have been their husbands. The statistics on the decline of the black family and the rise of single-parent households are well known, as are the results that the black community and the rest of us live through on a daily basis. What becomes of a man, black or white, who no longer has the responsibility of being a father? LBJ was in many ways the godfather of Black Lives Matter, not to mention the hugely sad violence in the streets of our biggest cities, most notably Chicago."
It's pretty clear he is referring to the increasing dysfunction of the black culture due to Johnson's "Great Society" policies and created what Reagan referred to as "Welfare Queens. Why marry a shiftless man when the state makes for a more reliable partner. Your going to get screwed either way so, why not be paid for it legally. For some, perhaps, welfare queen was a better term than hooker.
No doubt you have your reasons for deliberately misunderstanding Simon and unfairly characterizing him. Another very unimpressive comment.
Not impressed with this comment.
That's the last time I'll waste my time.
Superbly stated