The contrast between Lavrov and his US counterpart Blinken is quite stark. Lavrov speaks pretty good English, is accommodating and polite, and is careful with his words. He doesn't seem to be given to rash statements or bellicose talk, or even the slightest hint of exaggeration. We all know what Blinken is, and thus we can't even have a dialog with the Russians.
Once again, projecting forward. Trump takes office on Jan 20th and immediately initiates talks with Putin about Ukraine. Russia comes to the table with the proposed New European Security Agreement that was tabled in Dec 2021 and offers that as a guide for negotiation. Hemming and hawing ensue accompanied by bluster and blather from the US/EU side of the table. The war drags on and AFU loses and desertions snowball as Russian forces march to the Dnieper. Trump eventually realizes that the only way he can save face while losing is to substantially agree to the Russian proposal with a few minor adjustments. The West claims "victory" and the killing in Ukraine stops. If this had happened in Jan 2022, millions of Ukrainian men would still be alive and healthy, and the West would still have had access to profitable resource development in that country. Unbridled greed has wrought disaster and mass death. Can we learn from this mistake?
The norms just keep on coming. "Russia, Russia, Russia!" wheeled out again to annul Romanian election of a "Romania First" type candidate. Per ZeroHedge (again, sorry):
"Apparently the 'smoking gun' is related to mere social media posts on platforms like TikTok. "The Constitutional Court’s unprecedented decision — which is final — came after President Klaus Iohannis declassified intelligence on Wednesday that alleged Russia ran a sprawling campaign comprising thousands of social media accounts to promote Calin Georgescu across platforms like TikTok and Telegram," The Associated Press details."
I'd seen more-nuanced plagiarism by the time I hit 4th Grade. Then again, the nuns were much more terrifying than anything served up by repercussions-free world in which our foreign-policy betters operate today.
Regarding the sanctions question, I see his answer more along the lines as to why would we want to dependent on you and your system, US which could again sanction us on any whim? And, given that you have already proved to be agreement incapable? Like Charlie Brown and the football, he sees the West as Lucy but doesn't want to play...
Yes, on the surface that's exactly how he replied. But recall that Tucker's question focused precisely on whether an end to sanctions would be a "precondition". There's more going on here. Putin will be happy to end sanctions, but he will wait for an American initiative. If that initiative doesn't develop, then negotiations may not develop--without the Russians ever mentioning sanctions. Hardball, but done softly.
Looks like. Trump’s inauguration is going to begin with the collapse of Syria and by default Hezbollah and kicking Russia out of the Middle East to boot.
It was a very easy listen, Lavrov explains things with great economy.
Approximately several times Tucker jumps in with "SO WOULD YOU ESCALATE?" to a nuclear exchange and Lavrov patiently redirects his attention to deeper issues than what Tucker wants to hear.
Near the end, Lavrov explains his last exchange with Blinken at the G20 in 2022 in which Blinken said there was a "need to de-escalate" in Ukraine. Lavrov pointed out "we don't want to escalate, you want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia." Blinken said "no, no, it is not strategic defeat, globally, it is only in Ukraine."
You know, some low-rent, no-account backwater of little strategic interest to Russia.
Tucker never says "Hmm, I see your point."
A little later Tucker asks, because he just won't quit, "SO HOW SINCERELY WORRIED ARE YOU, ABOUT AN ESCALATION IN THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES?" Lavrov patiently redirects.
A little later Lavrov points out that Kirby very recently said, about escalation and whether nuclear weapons could be employed, "we don't want escalation because if there is some nuclear element then our European allies would suffer."
Lavrov continues, "So mentally, he excludes that the United States could suffer. This makes the situation a bit risky, if this mentality prevails, some reckless steps [by the US would be taken] and this is bad."
Tucker says "So what I think you're saying is that American policy makers imagine there could be a nuclear exchange that doesn't directly affect the US and you're saying that's not true."
Lavrov pauses. "That's what I said, yes, but no... to speak of limited exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to disaster which we don't want to happen."
I dunno, maybe if Lavrov put their updated nuclear doctrine on a teleprompter Tucker could read it all the way through? Maybe he could have said "we have written down our doctrine; think of it as a flow-chart, but with Russian sovereignty not American hegemony."
I think what Tucker was doing here was basically prompting Lavrov to speak directly to the American public and to address the craziness that the American public is fed by the MSM mouthpieces for the regime. Giving Lavrov the prompt to tell anti-war Americans of all stripes: It's your government that's the problem.
The contrast between Lavrov and his US counterpart Blinken is quite stark. Lavrov speaks pretty good English, is accommodating and polite, and is careful with his words. He doesn't seem to be given to rash statements or bellicose talk, or even the slightest hint of exaggeration. We all know what Blinken is, and thus we can't even have a dialog with the Russians.
Once again, projecting forward. Trump takes office on Jan 20th and immediately initiates talks with Putin about Ukraine. Russia comes to the table with the proposed New European Security Agreement that was tabled in Dec 2021 and offers that as a guide for negotiation. Hemming and hawing ensue accompanied by bluster and blather from the US/EU side of the table. The war drags on and AFU loses and desertions snowball as Russian forces march to the Dnieper. Trump eventually realizes that the only way he can save face while losing is to substantially agree to the Russian proposal with a few minor adjustments. The West claims "victory" and the killing in Ukraine stops. If this had happened in Jan 2022, millions of Ukrainian men would still be alive and healthy, and the West would still have had access to profitable resource development in that country. Unbridled greed has wrought disaster and mass death. Can we learn from this mistake?
The norms just keep on coming. "Russia, Russia, Russia!" wheeled out again to annul Romanian election of a "Romania First" type candidate. Per ZeroHedge (again, sorry):
"Apparently the 'smoking gun' is related to mere social media posts on platforms like TikTok. "The Constitutional Court’s unprecedented decision — which is final — came after President Klaus Iohannis declassified intelligence on Wednesday that alleged Russia ran a sprawling campaign comprising thousands of social media accounts to promote Calin Georgescu across platforms like TikTok and Telegram," The Associated Press details."
I'd seen more-nuanced plagiarism by the time I hit 4th Grade. Then again, the nuns were much more terrifying than anything served up by repercussions-free world in which our foreign-policy betters operate today.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/romanian-court-annuls-vote-declares-presidential-election-do-over-after-far-right-pro
The Sirius Report @thesiriusreport
Sanctions clown show continues:
Russia has increased platinum exports to the US in October, reaching a two year high and accounting for almost one-third of all US platinum imports.
Regarding the sanctions question, I see his answer more along the lines as to why would we want to dependent on you and your system, US which could again sanction us on any whim? And, given that you have already proved to be agreement incapable? Like Charlie Brown and the football, he sees the West as Lucy but doesn't want to play...
Yes, on the surface that's exactly how he replied. But recall that Tucker's question focused precisely on whether an end to sanctions would be a "precondition". There's more going on here. Putin will be happy to end sanctions, but he will wait for an American initiative. If that initiative doesn't develop, then negotiations may not develop--without the Russians ever mentioning sanctions. Hardball, but done softly.
The questions should have involved Syria.
Looks like. Trump’s inauguration is going to begin with the collapse of Syria and by default Hezbollah and kicking Russia out of the Middle East to boot.
The topic was raised. I'll address that shortly.
It was a very easy listen, Lavrov explains things with great economy.
Approximately several times Tucker jumps in with "SO WOULD YOU ESCALATE?" to a nuclear exchange and Lavrov patiently redirects his attention to deeper issues than what Tucker wants to hear.
Near the end, Lavrov explains his last exchange with Blinken at the G20 in 2022 in which Blinken said there was a "need to de-escalate" in Ukraine. Lavrov pointed out "we don't want to escalate, you want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia." Blinken said "no, no, it is not strategic defeat, globally, it is only in Ukraine."
You know, some low-rent, no-account backwater of little strategic interest to Russia.
Tucker never says "Hmm, I see your point."
A little later Tucker asks, because he just won't quit, "SO HOW SINCERELY WORRIED ARE YOU, ABOUT AN ESCALATION IN THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES?" Lavrov patiently redirects.
A little later Lavrov points out that Kirby very recently said, about escalation and whether nuclear weapons could be employed, "we don't want escalation because if there is some nuclear element then our European allies would suffer."
Lavrov continues, "So mentally, he excludes that the United States could suffer. This makes the situation a bit risky, if this mentality prevails, some reckless steps [by the US would be taken] and this is bad."
Tucker says "So what I think you're saying is that American policy makers imagine there could be a nuclear exchange that doesn't directly affect the US and you're saying that's not true."
Lavrov pauses. "That's what I said, yes, but no... to speak of limited exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to disaster which we don't want to happen."
I dunno, maybe if Lavrov put their updated nuclear doctrine on a teleprompter Tucker could read it all the way through? Maybe he could have said "we have written down our doctrine; think of it as a flow-chart, but with Russian sovereignty not American hegemony."
I think what Tucker was doing here was basically prompting Lavrov to speak directly to the American public and to address the craziness that the American public is fed by the MSM mouthpieces for the regime. Giving Lavrov the prompt to tell anti-war Americans of all stripes: It's your government that's the problem.
It felt to me like Tucker was trying to get Lavrov to say the equivalent of "there is no hell".