We the United States have the smartest and oldest politicians and ruling families that are still breathing.And if you don't like it to bad. This is Joes,Chuck, Nancy, Hillary and know one has ever asked Maxine Waters what she thinks about that Russian White Guy Putin .The answer would go down in history.

The Ukraine has a lot of American Politicians secrets. War it will be to keep those secrets.Ukraine asked Joe Biden the now American President if they could join NATO. They did not ask or bring themselves to Nato just Joe Biden. How many other countries on this planet would like that Privilege ? Before you start the Democrats are America.And they have your countries by the Bals Birds of a feather flock together. Politicians sworn oath.

And they will have to fight maybe to their last breath. Will all of America's and Britain's immigrants be willing to fight. Damn they just got to the land's of milk and honey.

"Truss challenged Lavrov directly over his assertion that Russia is not threatening anyone with its buildup of troops and weaponry near Ukraine’s borders. “I can’t see any other reason for having 100,000 troops stationed on the border, apart from to threaten Ukraine. And if Russia is serious about diplomacy, they need to remove those troops and desist from the threats,” she said.

Away from the cameras, Truss allegedly confused the Russian regions of Voronezh and Rostov with Ukrainian territory when Lavrov asked her whether she recognised Russia’s sovereignty over them. She repeatedly told Lavrov that the UK would never recognise Moscow’s claim, until the British ambassador was forced to step in to correct her, the Russian business daily Kommersant reported."

Please :doh:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...uss-talks-open

So is there a diplomatic way out, an exit from this confrontation that is peaceful and durable?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60341966

Markus wrote that Putin must have deicded peace or war alreadsy logn time ago, and he is right, such operations, bluff or real, take time and preparation ahead of the execution of plans. It ode snit matter what the West thinks it can or cannot do to "influence" Putin. The only question is whatr Putin has decided it will be, and decided in the past. The West will not influence him. If Putin said "let it be war, and until we are ready, bluff the West and pour sweet words into their ears" (thats how I would do it in his place), then so it will be. The West has not really any option to prevent war. It can only react to it once it broke out.
And I do not believe for one second that the German-US relations are as good as Scholz and Biden said. The Americans have noticed Scholz' endless weaseling, and they take his language, that avoids to say anything binding, quite queer, I think, are alientated by it. So are many Germans. If a couple so often and ambitiously points out how much they love each other and how close they are to each other, and do this endlessly and at every opportunity - then some serious things are broken in this relation.

President Joe Biden issued a warning Thursday to any Americans who remain in Ukraine as Russia continues to threaten an invasion: Leave.
"American citizens should leave now," Biden said in an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt.
“It’s not like we’re dealing with a terrorist organization. We’re dealing with one of the largest armies in the world. It’s a very different situation, and things could go crazy quickly,” he said.
Holt asked Biden what scenario could prompt him to send troops to rescue Americans fleeing the country. Biden replied: “There’s not. That's a world war when Americans and Russia start shooting at one another.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...-war-rcna15781

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung writes:


Will there be a big war? And how can it be averted? These questions are becoming increasingly urgent as more and more Russian troops are massing on Ukraine's borders. But they are linked to a third question that has governments and ordinary citizens scratching their heads. What does Putin want?

That in the 21st century a European leader would hunt down half his army on a neighboring country was beyond imagination not long ago. Certainly, the Russian president is a repeat offender: His path to power is paved with war crimes in Chechnya, later he invaded Georgia and brought the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea "home to the empire" in a coup d'état. But the invasion now feared would have a very different dimension.

It would be the first interstate campaign of conquest in Europe since World War II. Putin could neither hide behind separatists as in the eastern Ukrainian Donbass nor behind disguised special forces as in Crimea. In the event of a major attack on Ukraine, he would be recognizable to the whole world as the aggressor. What could motivate a soon-to-be 70-year-old politician to consider such a risky course?

Two explanations stand out so far. One school of thought argues that the Kremlin is indeed primarily concerned with Ukraine. It wants to bring it back into its sphere of influence once and for all, it says. The small-scale war in the Donbass instigated by Moscow has only weakened the neighboring country, but not made it compliant. In fact, it has been counterproductive because it has reinforced Ukraine's westward orientation. Hopes for a more Moscow-friendly course under the Russian-speaking President Selensky were finally dashed in 2021.

Against this backdrop, it seems plausible to some observers that Putin feels compelled to blackmail Kiev militarily-and, if necessary, to take warlike action before Ukraine drifts fully into the Western camp. The Kremlin may see an opportune moment, given the domestic political divisions in the United States, the debacle in Afghanistan and Europe's lack of leadership after the end of the Merkel era.

But while such considerations play a role in Moscow, this attempted explanation also has weaknesses. The Kremlin's painting of Ukraine's NATO membership as a threat to Russia is a propaganda fiction, not a realistic prospect for this decade. The Ukrainian membership application has long been buried deep in a Brussels drawer. When Putin recently warns of the scenario of a war with NATO over Crimea, he is creating a horror story for his own audience. For neither does NATO want to be drawn into such a conflict, nor is Ukraine foolish enough to attack the Russian Goliath.

If the Kremlin's primary concern was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, it is not clear why it needs the threat of an invasion to do so. The Ukrainians themselves are more relaxed about the danger than Western governments and remain steadfast. A permanent occupation of large parts of the country would exceed Russia's capabilities. Moscow would have other, less risky means to put pressure on Kiev - from boosting the information war against Selensky to sabotage and cyberattacks against infrastructure facilities to halting the transit of natural gas.

A second school of thought therefore sees Putin's behavior in a different light. Its supporters argue that Ukraine is just a pawn and is being used by the Kremlin to fight a power struggle with the West. In this perspective, Putin wants nothing less than a shake-up of the European security order. Europe's cornerstones - including the transatlantic defense alliance NATO and the EU, which is built on liberal principles - are displeasing to the Russian leadership. It sees itself confined to the role of a fence-sitter and claims an exclusive sphere of interest in its Eastern European forecourt.

Moscow rightly sees the U.S., which opposes this great power claim and has won many countries of the former communist Eastern bloc as allies, as the main obstacle. The counterstrategy must therefore be to loosen transatlantic ties, sow strife in Europe, and render the West as a collective incapable of action.

This second explanation makes Russia's demands in the current crisis understandable: Putin is not only aiming at Ukraine, but also at a general reduction of NATO. NATO would no longer be allowed to accept new members and would have to withdraw the troops stationed in the Eastern European member states.The latter, of course, runs diametrically counter to the purpose of an alliance. In this view, the Russian deployment serves to tempt the West into a panic reaction and far-reaching concessions.

But there are several catches to this explanation as well: it does not become plausible why Russia is suddenly demanding a new security architecture with such urgency. The major NATO expansion eastward into Russia's neighborhood took place 18 years ago. It has not posed a threat to Putin's empire. For a long time, NATO refrained from stationing any troops in the new member states. It was only after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 that it decided to establish a certain presence in the Baltic States and Poland. But this is symbolic in nature. It is ludicrous to stylize the 10,000 or so soldiers from the United States and other Western states as a threat to Russia's armed forces in the region, which are at least twenty times as large.

The claim that NATO could station ballistic missiles or other offensive weapons on Russia's borders is also made up out of thin air. The Western alliance has never pursued such plans. Russia need not fear an attack if only because its nuclear arsenal gives it a formidable deterrent potential.

The threat to Russia is an invention - a fairy tale that the Kremlin has been telling in various forms for years. It is meant to make the Russian people believe that their homeland is a besieged fortress. America is intent on dismembering the country. This does not exclude the fact that large parts of the Russian elite now firmly believe this and act accordingly. But this view of the world is also extremely useful politically. It is the best argument for why Russia needs a strong man at the top and a monstrous security apparatus. The Kremlin has not been able to legitimize its economic successes for a long time.

Putin's behavior in the current crisis is therefore not solely a matter of geostrategy, but has much to do with domestic political calculations. The preservation of his own power overrides everything. The popular uprising against Belarusian dictator Lukashenko a year and a half ago and the ousting of Kazakhstan's long-term ruler Nazarbayev in January must have been frightening alarm signals for him. Both are countries whose autocratic regimes seemed to have everything under control - until they suddenly began to falter.

Conjuring up an external enemy is therefore more important than ever for Putin as a means of maintaining power. But it is also a matter of aggressively fighting the dangerous democracy virus. In Ukraine, which has already experienced two pro-Western revolutions, it is particularly rampant. Even if Ukrainian democracy is still full of flaws, it radiates far to the east. In this sense, Ukraine is indeed a danger - but not to Russia, only to the Kremlin regime.

Putin has every interest in weakening the democratic seedling in the neighboring country and destabilizing the government in Kiev. However, he will not blindly plunge into a warlike adventure. The chances and risks are in the most favorable ratio for him if a mere demonstration of power suffices and he extracts concessions in the war of nerves with Kiev and the West without having to fire a single shot.

It is therefore obvious how war can be prevented. First, Putin must face the highest possible costs in the event of an invasion. For lack of unity, the West has not done this concretely enough so far. For another, a face-saving way out must be shown. The Western proposals for negotiations on arms control and confidence-building measures serve this purpose. It would be an illusion, on the other hand, to believe that the West could appease the Russian bear by sacrificing fundamental interests. It is in the nature of the Putin regime to depend on the external enemy. Moscow will therefore remain a disruptive factor in Europe's east for the foreseeable future.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/ukraine-e...and-ld.1669254

The NZZ is a quite 'conservative' paper and certainly has its bias, but some fair points made.

meanwhile in real life:
https://www.barrons.com/news/global-...591607?tesla=y

So tory leadership is more important than diplomacy, who would have thunk.

One ERW?
No more Russian Army in the area.
May as well go all in.

A bit of collateral damage among your ukrainian friends will be no problem for the US :03: And after this you have the other meaning of ERW ..

So you believe 130,000+ Soldiers invading a Country will have NO collateral damage?
:hmmm:

I got news for you. In ANY WAR? There is collateral damage.
Always has been. Always will be.

True, but there will also be some radioactive residuals which will spoil the region for some time, and if you use an ERW there would be a bit more pollution than with those 'depleted' uranium bullets spread everywhere in the middle east and in the Kosovo. Or maybe clean up 'conventional' rests in Laos first.
Also you will not get all of the soldiers (or civilians) at once, some will be vomiting and knowing to die, and who knows what they will do with that knowledge.

Hope I do not sound to cold blooded when I write

If the war stay in Ukraine and it's only the Ukrainian who got a disadvantage in a Russian invasion then it's fine by me-It wouldn't let me lay sleepless in the night.

However I fear a lot that NATO slowly will get involved as the war goes on in Ukraine-´cause the Ukrainian will put up af fight for each square meter they lose.

Well shall we leave the Ukrainian by them self ? Of course not-We shall send them weapon and provide them with passive help-such as AWACS, Satellite a.s.o.

Edit
Breaking news here in Denmark.

The Minister for foreign affairs has recommended that Danish citizen visiting, working or living to leave Ukraine as fast as possible-They've done so as USA has done. They expect that an invasion could come within a week or within the next two days.
End edit

Markus

NATO will not get engaged in fighting, dont worry. Biden made that clear, saying that Americans needing rescue form Ukraine because they had not left in time, will not trigger any kind of rescue operation and are on their own, and that US troops shooting at Russians would translate into world war. Bidenwill stay out of any combat action, so will the rest of Europe, the latter for not having the capacity to do so, but also no will. Its a deeply corrupt, failed state, nobody will accept risks and losses for such political construction.



Well, maybe the Germans will send Tante Käthe from the German defence ministry, she lightens the mood of the Ukrainians with homemade bread and butter, and fresh, still warm appel pie from the tray, and grandma's homemade stew served from 5000 German steel helmets. With a full and warm belly the warfighting already feels twice as good.