There are 45 comments.

1. Member
   Steven Seward

   @StevenSeward

   5:22 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 2, 2022

   Nohaaj (View Comment):

   This just in from the ISW: Lyman is confirmed to have fallen, The Ukes regained control. However, the last sentence of the update is critical:

   “

   Social media footage and Ukrainian military officials confirmed that Ukrainian forces have entered Lyman and are likely clearing the settlement as of October 1.

   The Russian information space – composed of Kremlin propagandists, pundits, and milbloggers – registered the defeat as the result of the Russian military command’s failure to send reinforcements in a timely manner, while openly criticizing repeated bureaucratic failures during the mobilization.[2] Russian commentators overwhelmingly expressed their hopes that partial mobilization would generate enough force to resume offensive operations and regain the initiative. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, apparently devastated by the defeat in Lyman, called on Russia to continue to fight to ”liberate” the four annexed territories with all available means including low-yield nuclear weapons.[3]

   Interesting that only four people would give a like to this news of a Ukraine battle victory.

2. Thatcher
   Bryan G. Stephens

   @BryanGStephens

   

   5:31 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 2, 2022

   Steven Seward (View Comment):

   Nohaaj (View Comment):

   This just in from the ISW: Lyman is confirmed to have fallen, The Ukes regained control. However, the last sentence of the update is critical:

   “

   Social media footage and Ukrainian military officials confirmed that Ukrainian forces have entered Lyman and are likely clearing the settlement as of October 1.

   The Russian information space – composed of Kremlin propagandists, pundits, and milbloggers – registered the defeat as the result of the Russian military command’s failure to send reinforcements in a timely manner, while openly criticizing repeated bureaucratic failures during the mobilization.[2] Russian commentators overwhelmingly expressed their hopes that partial mobilization would generate enough force to resume offensive operations and regain the initiative. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, apparently devastated by the defeat in Lyman, called on Russia to continue to fight to ”liberate” the four annexed territories with all available means including low-yield nuclear weapons.[3]

   Interesting that only four people would give a like to this news of a Ukraine battle victory.

   Ah. Now people don’t affirmatively like the right things, there is something to condemn. 

    

3. Member
   Steven Seward

   @StevenSeward

   5:32 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 2, 2022

   BDB (View Comment):

   I also disagree with her prescription that “the more clear we make the consequences, the less likely” will be Russia’s use of nukes. We should be vague and ready, not committed. All that does is tie our own hands. As if Putin were stupid and somehow unaware that the most powerful country on the planet prefers he not nuke Ukraine. Or anywhere else, for that matter. If we promise/threaten specific responses, that gives Putin a roadmap to manipulate us. It’s breathtaking.

   I am of the opinion that a U.S. President should keep dictators like Putin guessing as to our next move.  I first learned of that strategy when Jimmy Carter publicly announced that he would not be opposing Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan with military force.   All the pundits castigated him for making Russia’s invasion easier by giving a clear stand-down order.  They suggested it would have been better to say “maybe yes, and maybe no.  You figure it out!”

4. Inactive
   BDB

   @BDB

   Post author

   5:33 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 2, 2022

   Steven Seward (View Comment):

   Nohaaj (View Comment):

   This just in from the ISW: Lyman is confirmed to have fallen, The Ukes regained control. However, the last sentence of the update is critical:

   “

   Social media footage and Ukrainian military officials confirmed that Ukrainian forces have entered Lyman and are likely clearing the settlement as of October 1.

   The Russian information space – composed of Kremlin propagandists, pundits, and milbloggers – registered the defeat as the result of the Russian military command’s failure to send reinforcements in a timely manner, while openly criticizing repeated bureaucratic failures during the mobilization.[2] Russian commentators overwhelmingly expressed their hopes that partial mobilization would generate enough force to resume offensive operations and regain the initiative. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, apparently devastated by the defeat in Lyman, called on Russia to continue to fight to ”liberate” the four annexed territories with all available means including low-yield nuclear weapons.[3]

   Interesting that only four people would give a like to this news of a Ukraine battle victory.

   Perhaps that is because the comment by Nohaaj is phrased to stress the “call for nukes” by Kadyrov.

   @stevenseward, please don’t read too much into a lack of likes.  Am I now a Putin stooge, too?

5. Member
   Steven Seward

   @StevenSeward

   5:34 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 2, 2022

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Steven Seward (View Comment):

   Nohaaj (View Comment):

   This just in from the ISW: Lyman is confirmed to have fallen, The Ukes regained control. However, the last sentence of the update is critical:

   “

   Social media footage and Ukrainian military officials confirmed that Ukrainian forces have entered Lyman and are likely clearing the settlement as of October 1.

   The Russian information space – composed of Kremlin propagandists, pundits, and milbloggers – registered the defeat as the result of the Russian military command’s failure to send reinforcements in a timely manner, while openly criticizing repeated bureaucratic failures during the mobilization.[2] Russian commentators overwhelmingly expressed their hopes that partial mobilization would generate enough force to resume offensive operations and regain the initiative. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, apparently devastated by the defeat in Lyman, called on Russia to continue to fight to ”liberate” the four annexed territories with all available means including low-yield nuclear weapons.[3]

   Interesting that only four people would give a like to this news of a Ukraine battle victory.

   Ah. Now people don’t affirmatively like the right things, there is something to condemn.

   Condemn?

    

6. Inactive
   BDB

   @BDB

   Post author

   5:36 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 2, 2022

   Steven Seward (View Comment):

   BDB (View Comment):

   I also disagree with her prescription that “the more clear we make the consequences, the less likely” will be Russia’s use of nukes. We should be vague and ready, not committed. All that does is tie our own hands. As if Putin were stupid and somehow unaware that the most powerful country on the planet prefers he not nuke Ukraine. Or anywhere else, for that matter. If we promise/threaten specific responses, that gives Putin a roadmap to manipulate us. It’s breathtaking.

   I am of the opinion that a U.S. President should keep dictators like Putin guessing as to our next move. I first learned of that strategy when Jimmy Carter publicly announced that he would not be opposing Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan with military force. All the pundits castigated him for making Russia’s invasion easier by giving a clear stand-down order. They suggested it would have been better to say “maybe yes, and maybe no. You figure it out!”

   Agree one hundred percent.

7. Member
   Steven Seward

   @StevenSeward

   5:56 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 2, 2022

   BDB (View Comment):

   Steven Seward (View Comment):

   Nohaaj (View Comment):

   This just in from the ISW: Lyman is confirmed to have fallen, The Ukes regained control. However, the last sentence of the update is critical:

   “

   Social media footage and Ukrainian military officials confirmed that Ukrainian forces have entered Lyman and are likely clearing the settlement as of October 1.

   The Russian information space – composed of Kremlin propagandists, pundits, and milbloggers – registered the defeat as the result of the Russian military command’s failure to send reinforcements in a timely manner, while openly criticizing repeated bureaucratic failures during the mobilization.[2] Russian commentators overwhelmingly expressed their hopes that partial mobilization would generate enough force to resume offensive operations and regain the initiative. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, apparently devastated by the defeat in Lyman, called on Russia to continue to fight to ”liberate” the four annexed territories with all available means including low-yield nuclear weapons.[3]

   Interesting that only four people would give a like to this news of a Ukraine battle victory.

   Perhaps that is because the comment by Nohaaj is phrased to stress the “call for nukes” by Kadyrov.

   @ stevenseward, please don’t read too much into a lack of likes. Am I now a Putin stooge, too?

   Who said anything about being a “Putin Stooge?”  Your post is about an informal opinion poll that shows a moderate majority for those who support Ukraine vs. those who don’t support.  I was noting that it was curious that so few gave a like to a Ukrainian victory when your poll showed otherwise.

   I thought the “call for nukes” was by a Russian Pundit.  It was not something advocated by Nohaj.

8. Inactive
   BDB

   @BDB

   Post author

   6:03 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 2, 2022

   Steven Seward (View Comment):
   I thought the “call for nukes” was by a Russian Pundit.  It was not something advocated by Nohaj.

   Agree.  And I don’t “like” it.  

9. Inactive
   BDB

   @BDB

   Post author

   6:05 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 2, 2022

   Steven Seward (View Comment):
   I was noting that it was curious that so few gave a like to a Ukrainian victory when your poll showed otherwise.

   By the same token, surely many who have an answer did not actually answer the poll.  It’s like that.

10. Inactive
    BDB

    @BDB

    Post author

    6:08 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 2, 2022

    Schake must have stock in “Duck and Cover!”

11. Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill

    @CarolJoy

    1:02 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 3, 2022

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    War is great business for lots of people that you and I and the families who provide the troops will never be allowed in the same room with. Likely Ms. Schake hangs with them (or is a hanger-on of them) and doesn’t actually give a CoC about our troops or Ukrainians.

    Yes. Yes. Yes.

    Rich men profit from war, while other men die for their profits.

    Last time we had a draft, rich sons got deferments, while the poor were sent to die.

    Anyone advocating troops sent to die should be willing to go themselves or send a loved one.

    No rich person in politics should send anyone to die if he is not wiling to fight himself.

    Washington fought in a war. He actually lead troops in battle as President.

     

    This is something that Israel has done correctly. When they have an out and out war, every able-bodied adult is thrown into the effort.

    There are no 35 year old buffed out guys playing racquetball while bragging about how their stock in Lockheed has risen exponentially.  They are donning uniforms and carrying weapons just like 19 year olds.

     

12. Member
    Paul Stinchfield

    @PaulStinchfield

    

    12:01 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 5, 2022

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Nohaaj (View Comment):
    Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, apparently devastated by the defeat in Lyman, called on Russia to continue to fight to ”liberate” the four annexed territories with all available means including low-yield nuclear weapons.[3]

    What is traditional Soviet/Russian doctrine on the use of tactical nukes? As best I recall the Soviets tended to think they could use battlefield nukes without triggering full-scale thermonuclear war, while NATO doctrine regarded any use of tactical nukes as far more likely to escalate.

    When Bush the Younger was President, I seem to recall various C Span televised presentations from this or that end of the American military “proving” that tactical nukes are fine.

    You may be right that NATO itself didn’t declare support for tactical nukes. But since at that time, the US was a major financial contributor to the NATO forces, what our military generals thought was of importance.

    I would not say that NATO did not support use of battlefield nukes, only that (as best I recall, and that is hazy) standard NATO doctrine was more reluctant than Soviet doctrine. But my limited reading was over 40 years ago, and I could be somewhat confused. (For instance: On the one hand, the Soviets saw tactical nukes as useful tools to blow holes in enemy defenses. But what about NATO worries about how to stop vast hordes of Soviet armored columns pouring through the Fulda Gap? How did tactical nukes figure into NATO planning? No first use? Last-resort use? Something in between?)

    My question about NATO and Soviet doctrines is, of course, separate from estimates of current Russian intentions.

13. Thatcher
    Percival

    @Percival

    

    2:41 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 5, 2022

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Nohaaj (View Comment):
    Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, apparently devastated by the defeat in Lyman, called on Russia to continue to fight to ”liberate” the four annexed territories with all available means including low-yield nuclear weapons.[3]

    What is traditional Soviet/Russian doctrine on the use of tactical nukes? As best I recall the Soviets tended to think they could use battlefield nukes without triggering full-scale thermonuclear war, while NATO doctrine regarded any use of tactical nukes as far more likely to escalate.

    When Bush the Younger was President, I seem to recall various C Span televised presentations from this or that end of the American military “proving” that tactical nukes are fine.

    You may be right that NATO itself didn’t declare support for tactical nukes. But since at that time, the US was a major financial contributor to the NATO forces, what our military generals thought was of importance.

    I would not say that NATO did not support use of battlefield nukes, only that (as best I recall, and that is hazy) standard NATO doctrine was more reluctant than Soviet doctrine. But my limited reading was over 40 years ago, and I could be somewhat confused. (For instance: On the one hand, the Soviets saw tactical nukes as useful tools to blow holes in enemy defenses. But what about NATO worries about how to stop vast hordes of Soviet armored columns pouring through the Fulda Gap? How did tactical nukes figure into NATO planning? No first use? Last-resort use? Something in between?)

    My question about NATO and Soviet doctrines is, of course, separate from estimates of current Russian intentions.

    The ambiguity probably helped to keep the Soviets from finding out.

14. Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill

    @CarolJoy

    5:33 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 5, 2022

    Best way to express my answer:

    

15. Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill

    @CarolJoy

    6:37 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 7, 2022

    Percival (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    mildlyo (View Comment):
    The Russians claim the timing of this war was driven by

    Biden is a gift to the the Russians, indeed, to all of America’s enemies. The timing of their invasion was based on the idea that they wanted to do it while a demented anti-American moron was in the white house. However, the Russians are not going to undermine their asset by stating that they wanted to achieve as much conquest as possible while FJB was in the white house. I am sure the Russians want to complete their conquest of the Ukraine before February 2025. If conventional war fails ( and it appears to be failing ) , Russian has the Chemical Biological and Nuclear means to win. I am sure that Russia is hoping they can pull out a conventional victory , but is anyone really willing to place bets on what the Russians would not do to avoid a loss?

    If our border agents saw women and children being raped by the “mules” who had taken their money to bring them across the border, and these crimes were committed within their eyesight, would anyone condemn them for deciding to stop the barbaric activities?

    Russian officials have watched various atrocities occur in the Ukraine since Dec 2013.

    Yes Russia knew how the USA covertly created the late 2013 Maiden Revolution to topple a legitimately elected Ukrainian president so the JohnKerry/BidenCrime Families could get their children great paying jobs at Burisma.

    By 2014, the Ukrainian troops bulldozed homes and lobbed mortars into communities inside the Eastern portion of the Ukraine. The carnage was such that 225,000 Ukrainians, most of them from that region, fled to Russia. Given that many of the troops which were set upon the Russian ethnic group in the Eastern portion of the nation were skin headed Nazis, I don’t blame the civilians for fleeing.

    From the archives of Consortium News, here is one account of what went on:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/16/ukraine-through-the-us-looking-glass/

    Who is Consortium News?

    Consortium News is one of the last refuges out there for journalists critical of the NATO/US State Department world outlook.

    Unfortunately, Consortium News’ founder died a few years ago.

    Robert Parry came from a dialectic approach. He had his opinions but news was news. And he placed the news above his opinions.

    Seeing some of the younger journalists whose articles are now published where his would have been still pains me a good deal. (Especially Caitlyn Johnstone.)