RE: [Haustus:77165] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

10 views
Skip to first unread message

s

unread,
Oct 10, 2022, 1:02:37 PM10/10/22
to Jim Doran, hau...@accoladegroup.com, hau...@googlegroups.com, Haustus2

Jim –

 

Regarding your statement:  “Russia acted in response to actions and statements made by the U. S” [emphasis added].

 

I am really tired of the misrepresentation in this statement by you.

 

Precisely WHAT actions or statements by the United States?

 

   ---   Has the U. S. let Ukraine into NATO???

 

   ---   Has the U. S. ‘sponsored’ Ukraine’s entry into NATO???

 

   ---   Has the U. S. ‘sought’ or even ‘approved’ Ukraine’s entry into NATO???

 

   ---   Has the U. S. said that the United States or any of its allies, in NATO or otherwise would retaliate against Russia if Russia made war on Ukraine????

 

The answer to all of these questions was a resounding NO!

 

SO EXACTLY WHAT ACTIONS OR STATEMENTS BY THE uNITED STATES BEFORE FEBRUARY L24, 2022, ARE YOU REFERRING TO??

 

You said this, so state exactly what you are referring to.

 

Indeed, immediately prior to Putin making war on Ukraine, Biden publicly stated that an attack on Ukraine by Russia would NOT lead to any retaliatory attack on Russia by the United States or any of its allies.  Biden actually said this, in public, to the world and most significantly to Putin – an open invitation to Putin to go to war against Ukraine.

 

So state exactly what action or statement that actually and factually occurred to which you are referring.

 

Please.  We all want to know just what the hell you are talking about.

 

Steve

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Jim Doran
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 3:11 AM
To: haustusst...@cox.net; hau...@accoladegroup.com
Subject: Re: [Haustus:77165] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

 

Steve,

 

" an unspoken or at least unaddressed part of your position is that  , , , and that the Soviets and then the Russians have never violated any of this history".

 

Are you accusing me of inconsistency and stupidity?

 

I have said from the beginning that it takes two to tango. That Russia acted in response to actions and statements made by the U. S. 

 

The question is who initiated the tango and what were the dance steps. The way that the various sources tell it, Baker and NATO chiefs repeatedly gave the assurance that NATO would not be expanded to Russia's borders. 

 

Did Russia consent to the reunification of Germany on the condition that NATO not be moved East of its Eastern border? 

 

Best,

 

Jim 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: haustusstevemcclure <haustusst...@cox.net>
To: hau...@accoladegroup.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 7, 2022 11:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Haustus:77165] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

I basically agree with the history. 

 

I find reason to disagree with what you make significant in that history.

 

By the way, an unspoken or at least unaddressed part of your position is that the United States was the first to go beyond the non-treatied part of that history and that the Soviets and then the Russians have never violated any of this history.

 

I am willing to work on such a premise if at least addressed and backed up with some history one way or the other. 

 

But I just note that I don't think you have ever addressed the issue of whether, and why, the other side was not also proportionately in violation of those alleged undertakings evidently based on the Cuban Crisi undertakings.

 

Steve

 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: 'Jim Doran' via Haustus <hau...@accoladegroup.com>

Date: 9/7/22 5:27 PM (GMT-07:00)

Subject: Re: [Haustus:77161] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

 

Have you read . .. ?

 

It's a long piece but you read books. 

 

Read the article and address the 'Western' perfidy. Our perfidy. 

"
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] "

 

 

Jim 


-----Original Message-----
From: haustusstevemcclure <haustusst...@cox.net>
To: hau...@accoladegroup.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 7, 2022 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Haustus:77159] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

Re: What would we have to lose by by withdrawing our missiles missiles from nato?  

 

To me, everything I have absorbed from history says this would be the end of NATO as a viable treaty structure.

 

So Jim is really saying that, in the face of Russian war on Ukraine and possibly elsewhere, our response is not simply to cancel the expansions of NATO in the past quarter of a century.....

 

.....But Jim's ideas imply that all NATO members should destroy that Treaty structure.

 

 

 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: 'George Brockway' via Haustus <hau...@accoladegroup.com>

Date: 9/7/22 1:55 PM (GMT-07:00)

Subject: Re: [Haustus:77153] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

 

in red, below

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Jim Doran' via Haustus <hau...@accoladegroup.com>
To: hau...@accoladegroup.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 7, 2022 4:41 pm
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Haustus:77151] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

 

  A Homeric simile has one point of comparison.

 

 Russia has indicated for over 30 years that it is defending itself from nato expansion.

 

I believe that that's correct. That there probably were other ways to do it. 

 

There are unknowns in this situation.

 

 What would we have to lose by by withdrawing our missiles missiles from nato?  Presumably you mean from those NATO countries east of what used to be East Germany.  What do we have to lose?  Possibly, their confidence that they really would be defended by NATO from any Russian incursion.  Puzzlement at being treated differently (as 2nd. class citizens?) from the other NATO nations. Possibly it would be seen, by Russia, as an invitation to do in those countries what they have already done in Georgia, Crimea and Chechnya?  And, of course, it does nothing to really enhance Russia's security.  But sure, go ahead and try it.  With consultation and agreement from all NATO members.  (Or are you excluding their right to a say?)

 

Jim

 

 

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 4:35 PM, 'George Brockway' via Haustus

This response apparently got lost somewhere.  Here's a second try.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: George Brockway <gbro...@verizon.net>
To: hau...@accoladegroup.com <hau...@accoladegroup.com>
Sent: Wed, Sep 7, 2022 10:42 am
Subject: Re: [Haustus:77132] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

One last time.

 

The U.S. and NATO went back on their word and expanded east of East Germany's borders.

 

        Road rage incident: you pulled back in front of me too quickly after passing me.

 

This provocation may be a partial explanation for the actions of Putin's Russia in Ukraine.  (As JD so often says: we cannot really know the motivations / what's in the heart of another person.)

 

        Because you pulled back in front of me too quickly, I'm very upset and angry with you.

 

And as a result of your thus provoking me (us, Russia), I (we) are going to invade, kill and destroy Ukraine.

 

        And because you pulled back in front of me too quickly, I'm going to bump your car from behind and force it

        into that ditch.  F U !!

 

Conclusion:   Even if the facts as presented are accurate, the response of the provoked is so out of proportion as                           to be wholly inexcusable and ought to be condemned in the strongest possible terms and remedied                           as quickly as possible.

 

Puzzlement:  Jim seems more concerned with the provocation than with the over-reaction.

 

 

 

George

 

                       

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Jim Doran' via Haustus <hau...@accoladegroup.com>
To: haustusst...@cox.net <haustusst...@cox.net>; hau...@accoladegroup.com <hau...@accoladegroup.com>
Sent: Wed, Sep 7, 2022 10:17 am
Subject: Re: [Haustus:77132] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...


Clearly Ukraine is not the aggressor.

 

But you and I differ on who has actually provoked this special operation.

 

Compare it to road rage. Someone may be provoked to road rage but that person is still expected to control it.

 

But, as in road rage, our attention should be on both the unacceptable action and the provocation.

 

 

I ask you and George. Have you read this?

 

Best,

 

Jim 

-----Original Message-----
From: haustusstevemcclure <haustusst...@cox.net>
To: hau...@accoladegroup.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 7, 2022 9:52 am
Subject: Re: [Haustus:77130] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

Further....

 

[Have you ever known me to be able just to stop and be quiet?]

 

One cannot do "both at the same time" by ignoring or downplaying the vast difference between the victims and the aggressors.

 

If any call to also see our common humanity means we are somehow to deny the difference between victims and aggressors, then our empathy and our compassion are really a lie.

 

 

 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: haustusstevemcclure <haustusst...@cox.net>

Date: 9/7/22 6:38 AM (GMT-07:00)

Subject: Re: [Haustus:77125] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

 

Ok, George, I do agree with you.  I really do.

 

But it is kind of the job of the pope to do that.

 

If we cannot or at least don't see the humanity of our adversaries.....we become blind to the realities of what we confront.

 

I even at times have found myself sadly contemplating the weak narcissism of Trp's struggles to endlessly push himself out there as the greatest.

 

I often think about the upbringing and follow on experiences that took the youthful potentialities of a Hitler or a Himmel and mourn what they eventually became.

 

When I look at them, and Putin, and so many others, and mourn my felliw human beings, am I speaking of the victim and the aggressor in the same categories?

 

Caught up as they are in the struggle of their lives, I don't condemn the obsessive definitional focus I see with Ukraine’s Myrotvorets Hit Squad.

 

We must always remember the vast moral gap between the victims and the aggressors.

 

But should we not, at the very same moment we Remer this vast difference, also remember our common humanity?

 

Hard to do -- but I kinda think it is the pope's job to call us to do that.

 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: 'George Brockway' via Haustus <hau...@accoladegroup.com>

Date: 9/7/22 5:28 AM (GMT-07:00)

Subject: Re: [Haustus:77125] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

 

Whereas I am inclined to think that this, with proper qualification, is absolutely right.

 

"it is a mistake to speak about the “aggressor” and the “victim” in “the same categories.”

 

 

George

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Jim Doran' via Haustus <hau...@accoladegroup.com>
To: hau...@accoladegroup.com <hau...@accoladegroup.com>; hau...@googlegroups.com <hau...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Sep 7, 2022 7:32 am
Subject: [Haustus:77124] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

GOH,

 

Pope Francis is from the global South.

 

He looks at the world from a different angle, than, say, Joe Biden.

 

Best,

 

Jim

 

WIIL THE POPE BE NEXT? Pope Francis Is the Latest Target of Ukraine’s Myrotvorets Hit Squad

Aug. 31 (EIRNS)—On Aug. 28, the website of the fascist Myrotvorets (“Peacemaker”) hit squad in Ukraine attacked Pope Francis for his comments in a general audience about the assassinated Russian journalist Darya Dugina. Although they did not place His Holiness on their official hit list (at least not yet), the Myrotvorets site warned: “The Myrotvorets Center is closely following statements by the Pope. We note with astonishment that Francis of Rome is voicing Kremlin talking points and belittling the blood-letting of the fascist Russian invaders of Ukraine.”

The remarks by Pope Francis that were considered offensive were made while addressing his Wednesday general audience at the Vatican on Aug. 24: “I think of so much cruelty, so many innocents who are paying for madness, the madness of all sides, because war is madness and no one in war can say: ‘No, I am not mad.’ The madness of war.

“I think of that poor girl blown up by a bomb under her car seat in Moscow [Darya Dugina].

“The innocent pay for war, the innocent! Let us think about this reality and say to each other: war is madness.

“And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity....

“But today in a special way, six months after the beginning of the war, we think of Ukraine and Russia, I consecrated both countries to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. May she, as Mother, turn her gaze on these two beloved countries: may she look upon Ukraine, look upon Russia, and bring us peace! We need peace!”

His prayer quickly led to a protest by Ukraine’s envoy to the Vatican Andrii Yurash, who called the remarks “disappointing,” because it is a mistake to speak about the “aggressor” and the “victim” in “the same categories.” Then Kiev summoned the Vatican envoy, Archbishop Visvaldas Kulbokas, to lodge a formal complaint, which Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba revealed to the media on Aug. 25. Kuleba also said “Ukraine’s heart was torn by the Pope’s words,” calling them “unjust.”

The Pope has been considering a trip to Ukraine, but has made it clear that he will only go, if he can also travel to Russia. This is a standard Vatican diplomatic effort to maintain neutrality in such conflicts. The Zelenskyy government in Kiev has made it clear they are totally opposed to such a Russia trip by the Pope.

May be an image of 3 people and people standing

 

 

--
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Haustus" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to hau...@accoladegroup.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/accoladegroup.com/group/haustus

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com.

--
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Haustus" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to hau...@accoladegroup.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/accoladegroup.com/group/haustus

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com.

--
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Haustus" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to hau...@accoladegroup.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/accoladegroup.com/group/haustus

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com.

--
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Haustus" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to hau...@accoladegroup.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/accoladegroup.com/group/haustus

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com.

--
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Haustus" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to hau...@accoladegroup.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/accoladegroup.com/group/haustus

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com.

--
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Haustus" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to hau...@accoladegroup.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/accoladegroup.com/group/haustus

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com.

--
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Haustus" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to hau...@accoladegroup.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/accoladegroup.com/group/haustus

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com.

--
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Haustus" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to hau...@accoladegroup.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/accoladegroup.com/group/haustus

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com.

--
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Haustus" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to hau...@accoladegroup.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/accoladegroup.com/group/haustus

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com.

--
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Haustus" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to hau...@accoladegroup.com
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/accoladegroup.com/group/haustus

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to haustus+u...@accoladegroup.com.

 

Jim Doran

unread,
Oct 10, 2022, 2:20:32 PM10/10/22
to haustusst...@cox.net, hau...@accoladegroup.com, hau...@googlegroups.com, mem...@haustus2.com

Jim Doran

unread,
Oct 10, 2022, 4:10:59 PM10/10/22
to hau...@accoladegroup.com, haustusst...@cox.net, hau...@googlegroups.com
Steve,

Did you read?

What do you have to say to Matlock and others? Not as 'experts' but for the facts that they call attention to. And are you considering the documentation that has recently become available?

haustusstevemcclure

unread,
Oct 10, 2022, 8:20:48 PM10/10/22
to Jim Doran, hau...@accoladegroup.com, hau...@googlegroups.com, mem...@haustus2.com
So, it had nothing to do with Ukraine entering NSTO.

It is all about East Germany, Hungary and Poland.

This is like you saying you can beat up your next door neighbor's wife because I had an affair with your friend's wife six blocks away.

Russia does have a complaint about expanding NATO.

But tgst complaint has nothing to do with NATO.

So that complaint does NOT JUSTIFY A WAR ON UKRAINE in "response."

So just stop your nonsense about the West provoking or causing Putin’s war on Ukraine.  This nonsense demeans your intelligence and makes you look like you are just trying to excuse Putin’s war on Ukraine in any stupid, nonsensical and irrational way you can.

Or explain just how you are entitled to beat up your next door neighbor's wife because I have an affair with your friend's wife who lives six blocks away.  Beating up your next door neighbor's wife is NOT A "RESPONSE" to my having an affair six blocks away with someone else.

haustusstevemcclure

unread,
Oct 10, 2022, 8:54:08 PM10/10/22
to hau...@accoladegroup.com, hau...@googlegroups.com
Yes, I read them.  And these articles do not, not, not in any way answer the question I will restate in the final paragraph of this instant post of mine..

Using NATO as an excuse to make war on a non-NATO- member is nonsense, unless Putin is, in response to losing his any ability at all to threaten Poland, Hungary et al militarily into kowtowing to Russia [for that is all Putin lost vis-a-vis Poland, Hungary by their entry into NATO], Putin wants at least to recreate the Soviet Union status for Ukraine as a Soviet-style satellite state.

And that war aim of Putin's war on Ukraine -- if that indeed is his war aim for Ukraine --  would indeed be an obscene and unjustified evil.

I am actually trying to deal with the actual realities here.  The very limited scope, and in reality the non-threatening scope of the NATO Article V retaliation provision, and the reality that Ukraine does not have that protection, and how these realities excuse, justify the crazy response, or cause or are caused by each other.

It is clear that the admission of Hungary. Poland et al. gave Putin a justifiable complaint against a broken U.S. promise [a promise, by the way, that in international law and affairs, was non-binding because neither a treaty obligation or otherwise 'earned' -- what did Gorbachev give up to get tjis statement of policy? -- it had the status of a mere statement of policy at the time. 

Which policy changes when situations and facts on the ground change -- and the big chsnge in the situstion was the accesdion to power of the known threat of the narcissist named Putin -- which certainly justified our extending Article V's NATO 'obligation to retaliate' to these members of the prior Soviet Union -- whoch Putin was known to desire to re-establish in some limited way.

Such a grievance about "expanding" those who benefit from Article V guarantee may lead to a valid complaint ftom Putin, and thus to renegotiation. --  but not to a war on another country not involved in the grounds for that complaint.

[By the way, I have forgotten who the 'et al' was -- Lithuania? Latvia?  Estonia?]

So I repeat;  I cannot for the life of me figure out why letting Poland, Hungary et al. into NATO justifies Putin’s war on Ukraine as a "response" to Hungary, Poland et al. becoming members of NATO.  

Jim Doran

unread,
Oct 11, 2022, 8:42:57 AM10/11/22
to haustusst...@cox.net, hau...@accoladegroup.com, hau...@googlegroups.com
Steve, 

You write: 

"Such a grievance about "expanding" those who benefit from Article V guarantee may lead to a valid complaint ftom Putin, and thus to renegotiation. --  but not to a war on another country not involved in the grounds for that complaint.

[By the way, I have forgotten who the 'et al' was -- Lithuania? Latvia?  Estonia?]

So I repeat;  I cannot for the life of me figure out why letting Poland, Hungary et al. into NATO justifies Putin’s war on Ukraine as a "response" to Hungary, Poland et al. becoming members of NATO". 

"  . . . . renegotiation . . . "  With who?  Sullivan, Austin and Blinken?  He'd have a better chance of negotiating with Wynken, Blynken, and Nod! That's been the problem since Slick Willie reneged on our agreements and those of other NATO members. America is unwilling to negotiate about its prevarications. Has been for over three decades. 

Who was there to negotiate with when Victoria Nuland Kagan orchestrated the Maidan coup and got a government hostile to Russia in Kyiv? 

Who was there to negotiate when the hero of Baghdad was proposing NATO in Ukraine and Georgia?  You may not have taken that proposal seriously but Putin did, given America's relentless aggression that could in no way be construed as self-defense.

Now, according to Chomsky, nothing justifies this invasion. But we will never get situation resolved short of nuclear annihilation unless we understand the context and what we and some bellicose European leaders have contributed to it.

Best,

Jim 


-----Original Message-----
From: haustusstevemcclure <haustusst...@cox.net>
To: hau...@accoladegroup.com; hau...@googlegroups.com <hau...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 10, 2022 8:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Haustus:77497] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

Yes, I read them.  And these articles do not, not, not in any way answer the question I will restate in the final paragraph of this instant post of mine..

Using NATO as an excuse to make war on a non-NATO- member is nonsense, unless Putin is, in response to losing his any ability at all to threaten Poland, Hungary et al militarily into kowtowing to Russia [for that is all Putin lost vis-a-vis Poland, Hungary by their entry into NATO], Putin wants at least to recreate the Soviet Union status for Ukraine as a Soviet-style satellite state.

And that war aim of Putin's war on Ukraine -- if that indeed is his war aim for Ukraine --  would indeed be an obscene and unjustified evil.

I am actually trying to deal with the actual realities here.  The very limited scope, and in reality the non-threatening scope of the NATO Article V retaliation provision, and the reality that Ukraine does not have that protection, and how these realities excuse, justify the crazy response, or cause or are caused by each other.

It is clear that the admission of Hungary. Poland et al. gave Putin a justifiable complaint against a broken U.S. promise [a promise, by the way, that in international law and affairs, was non-binding because neither a treaty obligation or otherwise 'earned' -- what did Gorbachev give up to get tjis statement of policy? -- it had the status of a mere statement of policy at the time. 

Which policy changes when situations and facts on the ground change -- and the big chsnge in the situstion was the accesdion to power of the known threat of the narcissist named Putin -- which certainly justified our extending Article V's NATO 'obligation to retaliate' to these members of the prior Soviet Union -- whoch Putin was known to desire to re-establish in some limited way.

Such a grievance about "expanding" those who benefit from Article V guarantee may lead to a valid complaint ftom Putin, and thus to renegotiation. --  but not to a war on another country not involved in the grounds for that complaint.

[By the way, I have forgotten who the 'et al' was -- Lithuania? Latvia?  Estonia?]

So I repeat;  I cannot for the life of me figure out why letting Poland, Hungary et al. into NATO justifies Putin’s war on Ukraine as a "response" to Hungary, Poland et al. becoming members of NATO.  




Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device


-------- Original message --------
From: 'Jim Doran' via Haustus <hau...@accoladegroup.com>

Jim Doran

unread,
Oct 11, 2022, 9:02:15 AM10/11/22
to haustusst...@cox.net, hau...@accoladegroup.com, hau...@googlegroups.com
Steve,
This article has a bit of a slant of American propaganda. 

If I were Putin I would have existential fear of a nation as powerful, aggressive and mindlessly ideological as America in his lifetime and in the history before he was born.
Yahoo News

'A very dangerous road': Putin and the U.S. navigate a new round of nuclear brinkmanship

Alexander Nazaryan
Alexander Nazaryan
·Senior White House Correspondent
·12 min read
In this article:
  • Vladimir Putin
    Vladimir Putin
    President of Russia
WASHINGTON — After the Soviet Union decided to remove nuclear missiles from Cuba in October 1962, President Kennedy praised Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev for his “statesmanlike decision,” which he believed would prove “an important and constructive contribution to peace.”
A half-century later, President Biden and Russian president Vladimir Putin find themselves in a similar scenario, with nuclear fears growing and diplomatic solutions seemingly unattainable. The Russian Embassy in Washington has warned of a “Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0,” though it blames the West for the escalation.
It was that perilous moment in history, when nuclear war suddenly became a real possibility, that President Biden also invoked last Thursday, when he unexpectedly addressed Putin’s nuclear brinkmanship during a fundraiser in New York. “We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis,” Biden said. He added that, in his view, Putin “is not joking when he talks about the potential use of tactical and nuclear weapons.”
Joe Biden
President Biden speaking in Hagerstown, Md., on Friday (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Biden dismissed the idea of a so-called limited nuclear strike that uses a smaller, or tactical, nuclear weapon — perhaps against battlefield positions instead of cities — to frighten the enemy into subservience. As the 1983 American military simulation known as Proud Prophet showed, a limited nuclear engagement is wishful thinking.
“I don’t think there’s any such thing as an ability to easily lose a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon,” Biden said last Thursday, reinforcing the point Proud Prophet made nearly four decades ago. Biden, in effect, was asking Putin which Khruschev he intended to be when histories of the present moment are written: the one who nearly started a nuclear war, or the one who averted it?
As with Biden’s recent assertion that the U.S. would defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression, the president’s bluntness seemed out of step with U.S. policy, under which defense and diplomatic officials downplayed the threat of a nuclear war in recent days. At the same time, Biden put the situation into a bracing historical context that left little room for ambiguity.
“I think it’s good that the administration has made some tougher threats recently,” said the Matthew Kroenig, director of studies at the Atlantic Council who served in high-level national security roles for several administrations prior to the current one. But, Kroenig told Yahoo News, “the ‘Armageddon’ piece could have been presented in a more helpful way."
Kyiv under attack from Russian missiles
Kyiv under attack from Russian missiles on Monday. (Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters)
The White House says that Biden was doing nothing more than clarifying the moment’s soaring stakes, which no one but Putin has worked harder or more recklessly to raise. “The president’s comments reinforce how seriously we take these threats about nuclear weapons,” a senior administration official told Yahoo News.
“The kind of irresponsible rhetoric we have seen is no way for the leader of a nuclear armed state to speak,” the senior administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “If the Cuban missile crisis has taught us anything, it is the value of reducing nuclear risk, not brandishing it.”
And while the “Armageddon” comments may have been off the cuff, they were informed by Biden’s own experience. He was a carefree University of Delaware student when the world seemed on the cusp of a nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the U.S., while Putin was a young boy playing in the courtyards of a Leningrad still recovering from World War II. Five decades later, the two men are locked in a geopolitical struggle whose contours mirror all too closely those of the Cold War.
“I think it’s psychological,” says Nikolai Sokov, a nuclear nonproliferation expert who once worked for the Soviet Foreign Ministry, of Biden’s message to Putin. In a phone conversation, Sokov told Yahoo News that Biden’s stark warning was an attempt to persuade Putin that his frequent contemplations about a nuclear strike were already a step too far, especially since the West would respond accordingly. “The ongoing conflict may escalate.” Sokov said. “And once you're locked into that dynamic, it's very, very hard to stop,"
Russian President Vladimir Putin
Vladimir Putin addresses a rally marking the annexation of four regions of Ukraine, Sept. 30. (Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images)
Biden’s remarks came almost a week after Putin delivered a vitriolic speech from the Kremlin, at a ceremony annexing four Ukrainian territories. In his remarks, the Russian leader cast the conflict as one far more significant than a dispute over territory — which Russia continues to lose to a determined Ukrainian counteroffensive. Putin depicted his war of aggression against a much smaller neighbor as an existential struggle between Russia and the West, whose sins he dutifully enumerated, finally alighting on the use of atomic weapons during World War II.
“The United States is the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons twice, destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan,” Putin said. “And they created a precedent.”
To his supporters, Putin may have just been stating historical fact, while also highlighting the hypocrisy of Western leaders whose countries have made plenty of territorial grabs of their own (the speech was rife with references to the bloody legacy of colonialism). But to many observers in the West, the combination of context and innuendo was chilling.
The headline of a Wall Street Journal op-ed put the matter bluntly: “Putin’s Nuclear Threat Is Real.”
Ukrainian civilians in the city of Kupiansk evacuate after an explosion on a bridge over the Oskil River, Sept. 24
Ukrainian civilians in the city of Kupiansk evacuate after an explosion on a bridge over the Oskil River, Sept. 24. (Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP via Getty Images)
"This is something we have not seen before, which is a nuclear state making a direct threat to use nuclear weapons,” John Erath, senior policy director for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told Yahoo News. Biden “is reminding the Russians that they are taking us down a very dangerous road,” one that has rarely been traveled — and could lead, Erath says, to a nuclear exchange.
But in the days after Putin’s speech, officials in Washington worked assiduously to reassure that, in fact, nothing had changed. “We're watching this as closely as we can, and we’ve seen nothing to make us change our strategic deterrence posture,” National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said on CNN.
Russia, for its part, says that it is Washington, not Moscow, that is escalating nuclear rhetoric. “Any military confrontation between nuclear powers would inevitably result in catastrophic consequences,” the Russian Embassy in the United States stated after Putin’s annexation speech, even as it reiterated that the U.S. “should not doubt our determination to defend Russia’s national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and people by all weapon systems available to us.”
The White House also says that Biden’s intent on Thursday was to further isolate Putin in the eyes of other world leaders, to keep him from normalizing nuclear threats as part of his discourse. While the likes of North Korea and Iran issue hyperbolic threats of destruction, Russia is not only a superpower but the most nuclear-capable superpower in the world.
Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles on display in Red Square during the nation&#39;s Victory Day parade, commemorating the end of World War II
Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles on display in Red Square during the nation's Victory Day parade, commemorating the end of World War II, May 9, 2009. (Natalia Kolesnikova/AFP via Getty Images)
“We are not yet at the level of risk that we saw during the Cuban missile crisis, when events began to slip out of control. But the trajectory is not good,” Reid Pauly, a Brown University expert on nuclear policy, told Yahoo News. “I expect we will continue to see Putin return to nuclear threats whenever the war is going poorly.”
The question is whether those threats are anything more than rhetoric. What does their frequency, or intensity, say about Putin’s state of mind?
“I think they are prepared to follow through on the threat. I don’t think they want to,” Erath told Yahoo News. “What the president is saying is, ‘Hey, be careful. This is a road nobody wants to go down.’”
The senior Biden administration official told Yahoo News that before delivering his remarks to the United Nations General Assembly last month, the president personally rewrote the speech to include a condemnation of Putin’s “reckless disregard for the responsibilities of the nonproliferation regime.” He did so for the same reason that he warned last Thursday about “Armageddon”: to keep the pressure on a Kremlin regime whose rhetoric has turned deeply embittered.
After setbacks by Russian forces in Ukraine, Chechen warlord and Putin ally Ramzan Kadyrov urged the Kremlin to use a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield. Doing so would have little military value, and the Kremlin seemed to discount Kadyrov’s provocative advice. “There can be no other considerations when it comes to this,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said when asked about Kadyrov’s suggestion.
Ramzan Kadyrov
Head of the Chechen leader and Putin ally Ramzan Kadyrov. (Chingis Kondarov/Reuters)
As Putin doubtlessly knows, using a nuclear weapon against Ukrainian military positions or cities would have devastating ramifications for Russia that would almost certainly include a military response from the United States and its allies. And any attack on a NATO member such as Poland or one of Baltic states would trigger the alliance’s collective defense doctrine, leading to a wider European conflict in which Russia would be unlikely to prevail.
There would be geopolitical consequences too. “I would say that even China and India will have a quite harsh response, at least rhetorically, in case Russia detonates a nuclear bomb. Putin will risk losing his only friends if he does that,” Estonia’s outgoing spy chief Mikk Marran recently told Yahoo News.
None of this has stopped Putin from brandishing the possibility of nuclear annihilation several times during the war in Ukraine, despite the fact that several weeks before the invasion, five nuclear-armed states — including both Russia and the U.S. — issued a joint statement affirming that “nuclear weapons — for as long as they continue to exist — should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war. We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented.”
As Russian troops swept into Ukraine and the West rose to denounce the Kremlin, Putin put the nation’s nuclear forces on high alert and warned the nations allied against him of “consequences that you have never encountered in your history.”
A man walks his dog in front of a residential block hit by an early morning missile strike Feb. 25 in Kyiv,.
A man walks his dog in front of a residential block hit by an early morning missile strike Feb. 25 in Kyiv,. (Chris McGrath/Getty Images)
At the time, Biden downplayed the threat. Asked if there were reasons to worry about nuclear war during a February event at the White House, Biden answered with a single word: “No.”
In April, after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the threat of nuclear war as “serious,” Biden issued a more firm denunciation. “No one should be making idle comments about the use of nuclear weapons or the possibility of the need to use them,” he said.
Throughout the summer, Russia made few advances on the battlefield, as Western weapons continued to flow to Ukraine. Then, last month, a devastating Ukraine counteroffensive saw Russian forces retreat from occupied regions in the country’s war-torn eastern borderlands.
Even top Kremlin propagandists began to worry about the state of an invasion that was supposed to last a few days, but now had Putin dispatching hundreds of thousands of new soldiers to the frontlines. And some observers worried that an increasingly desperate Putin could salvage the invasion with the most terrifying weapons in his arsenal — weapons that had never been used before, except (as Putin himself is fond of reminded) by the United States against Japanese cities in World War II.
In a mid-September “60 Minutes” interview, Biden had a simple message for the Kremlin about a nuclear strike: “Don’t. Don’t. Don’t. It would change the face of war unlike anything since World War II.”
An image of Russian President Vladimir Putin is displayed as President Biden speaks at the White House,
An image of Russian President Vladimir Putin is displayed as President Biden speaks at the White House, June 22. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
The reality is that Biden can only do so much, other than meeting Putin’s rhetoric with his own. The White House knows that Russia is unlikely to leave Ukraine anytime soon but it hopes that, at the very least, the Kremlin can be convinced that the conflict does not have to devolve into unconventional, world-imperiling warfare.
“Putin seems to be more interested in not blinking than in getting out of the crisis," says Nina Khrushcheva, a granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev who teaches at the New School in New York and recently returned from a stay in Moscow of several months. “The story is driven by its own sensationalism,” she said of the threatening rhetoric emanating from the Kremlin.
She says that Khrushchev “understood the human terms” of a potential conflict with the United States and never wanted the Cold War to lapse into mutual assured destruction.
“Putin is a direct descendant of Stalin,” Khrushcheva said, and described his apparent quest to reestablish a Russian empire as “insane.”
Indeed, the shift in Biden’s own tone has come as Putin’s ambitions have taken on increasingly dark and grandiose overtones. Putin and his top advisers now depict the war as a struggle between a morally upright Russia and a colonial, war-hungry West.
“We’re past Khrushchev,” Khrushcheva said, and poined out that the Cuban missile crisis lasted only 13 days. The war in Ukraine is now in its 8th month.
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: haustusstevemcclure <haustusst...@cox.net>
To: Jim Doran <jrbdo...@aol.com>; hau...@accoladegroup.com <hau...@accoladegroup.com>; hau...@googlegroups.com <hau...@googlegroups.com>; mem...@haustus2.com <mem...@haustus2.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 10, 2022 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Haustus:77496] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

So, it had nothing to do with Ukraine entering NSTO.

It is all about East Germany, Hungary and Poland.

This is like you saying you can beat up your next door neighbor's wife because I had an affair with your friend's wife six blocks away.

Russia does have a complaint about expanding NATO.

But tgst complaint has nothing to do with NATO.

So that complaint does NOT JUSTIFY A WAR ON UKRAINE in "response."

So just stop your nonsense about the West provoking or causing Putin’s war on Ukraine.  This nonsense demeans your intelligence and makes you look like you are just trying to excuse Putin’s war on Ukraine in any stupid, nonsensical and irrational way you can.

Or explain just how you are entitled to beat up your next door neighbor's wife because I have an affair with your friend's wife who lives six blocks away.  Beating up your next door neighbor's wife is NOT A "RESPONSE" to my having an affair six blocks away with someone else.

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device


-------- Original message --------
From: Jim Doran <jrbdo...@aol.com>
Date: 10/10/22 11:20 AM (GMT-07:00)

Jim Doran

unread,
Oct 11, 2022, 9:04:40 AM10/11/22
to haustusst...@cox.net, hau...@accoladegroup.com, hau...@googlegroups.com
And I guess you won't listen even to George Kennan, Steve,

"Yet America’s regard for its own security interests in the Americas has not stopped it from encroaching on Russia’s core security interests in Russia’s neighborhood.  As the Soviet Union weakened, US policy leaders came to believe that the US military could operate as it pleases.  In 1991, Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz explained to General Wesley Clarkthat the US can deploy its military force in the Middle East “and the Soviet Union won’t stop us.” America’s national security officials decided to overthrow Middle East regimes allied to the Soviet Union, and to encroach on Russia’s security interests.   
In 1990, Germany and the US gave assurances to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that the Soviet Union could disband its own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact, without fear that NATO would enlarge eastward to replace the Soviet Union. It won Gorbachev’s assent to German reunification in 1990 on this basis.  Yet with the Soviet Union’s demise, President Bill Clinton reneged by supporting the eastward expansion of NATO. 
Russian President Boris Yeltsin protested vociferously but could do nothing to stop it.  America’s dean of statecraft with Russia, George Kennan, declaredthat NATO expansion “is the beginning of a new cold war.”   

https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/d2hlnp24c7hyewetypd6rjgfesszm4

-----Original Message-----
From: haustusstevemcclure <haustusst...@cox.net>
To: hau...@accoladegroup.com; hau...@googlegroups.com <hau...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 10, 2022 8:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Haustus:77497] Francis: “And those who profit from war and the arms trade are criminals who kill humanity...

Yes, I read them.  And these articles do not, not, not in any way answer the question I will restate in the final paragraph of this instant post of mine..

Using NATO as an excuse to make war on a non-NATO- member is nonsense, unless Putin is, in response to losing his any ability at all to threaten Poland, Hungary et al militarily into kowtowing to Russia [for that is all Putin lost vis-a-vis Poland, Hungary by their entry into NATO], Putin wants at least to recreate the Soviet Union status for Ukraine as a Soviet-style satellite state.

And that war aim of Putin's war on Ukraine -- if that indeed is his war aim for Ukraine --  would indeed be an obscene and unjustified evil.

I am actually trying to deal with the actual realities here.  The very limited scope, and in reality the non-threatening scope of the NATO Article V retaliation provision, and the reality that Ukraine does not have that protection, and how these realities excuse, justify the crazy response, or cause or are caused by each other.

It is clear that the admission of Hungary. Poland et al. gave Putin a justifiable complaint against a broken U.S. promise [a promise, by the way, that in international law and affairs, was non-binding because neither a treaty obligation or otherwise 'earned' -- what did Gorbachev give up to get tjis statement of policy? -- it had the status of a mere statement of policy at the time. 

Which policy changes when situations and facts on the ground change -- and the big chsnge in the situstion was the accesdion to power of the known threat of the narcissist named Putin -- which certainly justified our extending Article V's NATO 'obligation to retaliate' to these members of the prior Soviet Union -- whoch Putin was known to desire to re-establish in some limited way.

Such a grievance about "expanding" those who benefit from Article V guarantee may lead to a valid complaint ftom Putin, and thus to renegotiation. --  but not to a war on another country not involved in the grounds for that complaint.

[By the way, I have forgotten who the 'et al' was -- Lithuania? Latvia?  Estonia?]

So I repeat;  I cannot for the life of me figure out why letting Poland, Hungary et al. into NATO justifies Putin’s war on Ukraine as a "response" to Hungary, Poland et al. becoming members of NATO.  




Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device


-------- Original message --------
From: 'Jim Doran' via Haustus <hau...@accoladegroup.com>

Jim Doran

unread,
Oct 11, 2022, 9:11:52 AM10/11/22
to haustusst...@cox.net, hau...@accoladegroup.com, hau...@googlegroups.com
GOH,

I don't see a transcript in this one but there is some text in the video.


Best,

Jim 


haustusstevemcclure

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 1:34:58 PM10/12/22
to Jim Doran, hau...@accoladegroup.com, hau...@googlegroups.com
So, getting negotiations going is tough so let's gmake war on some other country???

Crazy inanity!!!



Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device


-------- Original message --------
From: Jim Doran <jrbdo...@aol.com>
Date: 10/11/22 5:42 AM (GMT-07:00)

haustusstevemcclure

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 1:37:43 PM10/12/22
to hau...@accoladegroup.com, hau...@googlegroups.com
Yes,I have read Kennan with interest and learned a lot -- although his thinking is a bit trapped in the past, but son was Kant's -- and he can teach a lot.

But it does not answer my question, and neither do.you.



Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device


-------- Original message --------
From: 'Jim Doran' via Haustus <hau...@accoladegroup.com>

Jim Doran

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 2:23:12 PM10/12/22
to hau...@googlegroups.com, haustusstevemcclure, hau...@accoladegroup.com


 Be specific. How have I not answered your question?

Best,

Jim

Jim Doran

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 5:13:38 PM10/12/22
to hau...@accoladegroup.com, haustusstevemcclure, hau...@googlegroups.com
If you have some reason to be concerned that that your country's existence may be injeopardy because of the relentless aggressive behavior of your adversary Bishop I think that's a little different than an inanity.

When that relentlessly aggressive adversary refuses to negotiate

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 1:34 PM, haustusstevemcclure
So, getting negotiations going is tough so let's gmake war on some other country???

Crazy inanity!!!



Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device


-------- Original message --------
From: Jim Doran <jrbdo...@aol.com>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages