This country will still have to make major reforms, despite having already brought its military up to the bloc’s average standards after serving as its anti-Russian proxy since February 2022, so the latest development is just symbolic.
"...serving as its anti-Russian proxy since February 2022..."
OK, I understand why you don't go straight to the core of the matter and state, 'since 1949'. Not a lot of people would get that, so you would effectively be shooting yourself in the foot before they've even got beyond the first paragraph, the first sentence, even already!. Fair enough, I get it.
What I don't understand is why you haven't more accurately reported this as, 'since 2014'. OK, strictly speaking that's not really quite right, either: 2010 would be OK — most people are aware of the Vampires' interests and can relate to Russia closing down oil companies and their oligarchs' 1990's sprees; but, hey, who's gonna roll up their sleeves to get all down and dirty with nuances like that, right? But 2014, everybody knows 2014, right — mass shootings of protesters by snipers on high, the President doing a flying runner to Russia, Vicky and some devout sycophant blissfully chattering away on an FSB-tapped line, "Yats is our man!" 'Let's get him installed.' Who could miss it? John-the-Moron McCain himself even turned up. Nobody's going to be able to find any way around facing up to the fact that the Ukraine has been a US-controlled vassal state since Obama's Great Coup of 2014.
Personally, I'd trace it back to "...the financial warfare launched by the city of London against victim states (speculative volatility, usury, cheap dumping, cash cropping, and drug running)." in answer to Sergei Witte (Finance Minister and Minister of Transportation from 1892-1903) (https://www.globalresearch.ca/bolshevik-color-revolution-1917-prighozin-2023-gambit-trotsky-russell-war-civilization/5824087) but, hey, I'm a pedant, alright? (Great maps and pictures and stuff in the article at that link; you don't even need to do any real reading at all: 'a picture's worth a thousand words'.)
Anyway, the point is, what's with this 'since February 2022' thing?
"...brought its military up to the bloc’s average standards..."
OK, splitting hairs... Let's move on.
"...far-reaching “democratic, security sector, and economic reforms”..."
What, like BlackRock doesn't own enough already?
"... “to provide various forms of military assistance, intelligence and information sharing, cyber support and other forms of material support” for a presently undetermined period of time."
In other words, the only way for Russia to survive is to nuke its way to Lvov and keep its Western borders as secure as Stalin made them, when he saw this coming at the Yalta Conference, in '45?!. (I don't know if it should be a full-stop, question mark or some combination at the end of this last sentence — mystery —мистика; the not knowing...)
"...“the sort of weapons, training, and diplomatic support already being given to Kyiv are sufficient to meet NATO’s Article 5 mandate, meaning it is not necessary to also promise or deploy military forces.”..."
Good point.
"The US’ “Israel-style security assurances” would therefore formalize the support that’s already being provided..."
So, the only way for Russia to survive is to nuke its way to Lvov and keep its Western borders as secure as Stalin made them, when he saw this coming at the Yalta Conference, in '45.
"...in a state of hot conflict with Russia, which disqualifies it from membership until the conflict ends..."
So, the only way for Russia to survive is to nuke its way to Lvov and keep its Western borders as secure as Stalin made them, when he saw this coming at the Yalta Conference, in '45.
"...the US is working with the UK, France, and Germany to create a so-called “umbrella” under which they can multilaterally manage their military aid to Ukraine..."
So, they're intent on forcing Putin into the same position they forced Stalin into in 1945, with the Ukraine playing the role of East Germany.?! Yeah, I can see how that works for them: they've won (almost) all of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.
Problem is, though, China; and the rest of the world: it's a much more slippery world for dividing and ruling that it was when the Bretton Woods Conference was a great innovation. Nothing ever lasts forever.
"...its enemies will employ armed force against it on Kiev’s behalf..."
Duh!
Nobody gives a shit about Kiev.
"...it could be tempted to preempt this by carrying out a first-strike against NATO..."
You invoke the idea of temptation here as if Russia had a choice, almost as if to say 'it would be weak to succumb to temptation'.
But it's not the same as the temptation to drop A-bombs on Japan was.
"...the latest development is just symbolic."
Just like the Yalta Conference.
Well, thank you for this analysis. It's certainly done much for me to revisit questions which have been bothering me for quite some time. I feel I'm much closer to understanding the mystery — Мистика! — than I was before embarking on the exercise: the only way for Russia to survive is to nuke its way to Lvov and keep its Western borders as secure as Stalin made them, when he saw this coming at the Yalta Conference, in '45. I've suspected that was the case for a long time.
I get your point about 2014 being the initial moment when Kiev began functioning as the West's anti-Russian proxy, but I meant to draw attention to when the conflict between those reached its latest phase of direct hostilities.
The aid and coordination between Ukraine and NATO prior to then was much less and weaker than everything that's unfolded in the past sixteen and a half months, which is what accelerated that country's armed forces interoperability with this bloc.
Since my analysis was about Ukraine joining NATO and what must be done for that to happen, I didn't want to distract from that by devoting a paragraph clarifying the difference in their relationship between 2014-2022 and 2022-present.
I felt it was much easier to remain on topic than digress with the risk of further sidetracking and thus broadening the analysis to the point where it just becomes a general assessment as opposed to a detailed reaction to this particular development.
"...serving as its anti-Russian proxy since February 2022..."
OK, I understand why you don't go straight to the core of the matter and state, 'since 1949'. Not a lot of people would get that, so you would effectively be shooting yourself in the foot before they've even got beyond the first paragraph, the first sentence, even already!. Fair enough, I get it.
What I don't understand is why you haven't more accurately reported this as, 'since 2014'. OK, strictly speaking that's not really quite right, either: 2010 would be OK — most people are aware of the Vampires' interests and can relate to Russia closing down oil companies and their oligarchs' 1990's sprees; but, hey, who's gonna roll up their sleeves to get all down and dirty with nuances like that, right? But 2014, everybody knows 2014, right — mass shootings of protesters by snipers on high, the President doing a flying runner to Russia, Vicky and some devout sycophant blissfully chattering away on an FSB-tapped line, "Yats is our man!" 'Let's get him installed.' Who could miss it? John-the-Moron McCain himself even turned up. Nobody's going to be able to find any way around facing up to the fact that the Ukraine has been a US-controlled vassal state since Obama's Great Coup of 2014.
Personally, I'd trace it back to "...the financial warfare launched by the city of London against victim states (speculative volatility, usury, cheap dumping, cash cropping, and drug running)." in answer to Sergei Witte (Finance Minister and Minister of Transportation from 1892-1903) (https://www.globalresearch.ca/bolshevik-color-revolution-1917-prighozin-2023-gambit-trotsky-russell-war-civilization/5824087) but, hey, I'm a pedant, alright? (Great maps and pictures and stuff in the article at that link; you don't even need to do any real reading at all: 'a picture's worth a thousand words'.)
Anyway, the point is, what's with this 'since February 2022' thing?
"...brought its military up to the bloc’s average standards..."
OK, splitting hairs... Let's move on.
"...far-reaching “democratic, security sector, and economic reforms”..."
What, like BlackRock doesn't own enough already?
"... “to provide various forms of military assistance, intelligence and information sharing, cyber support and other forms of material support” for a presently undetermined period of time."
In other words, the only way for Russia to survive is to nuke its way to Lvov and keep its Western borders as secure as Stalin made them, when he saw this coming at the Yalta Conference, in '45?!. (I don't know if it should be a full-stop, question mark or some combination at the end of this last sentence — mystery —мистика; the not knowing...)
"...“the sort of weapons, training, and diplomatic support already being given to Kyiv are sufficient to meet NATO’s Article 5 mandate, meaning it is not necessary to also promise or deploy military forces.”..."
Good point.
"The US’ “Israel-style security assurances” would therefore formalize the support that’s already being provided..."
So, the only way for Russia to survive is to nuke its way to Lvov and keep its Western borders as secure as Stalin made them, when he saw this coming at the Yalta Conference, in '45.
"...in a state of hot conflict with Russia, which disqualifies it from membership until the conflict ends..."
So, the only way for Russia to survive is to nuke its way to Lvov and keep its Western borders as secure as Stalin made them, when he saw this coming at the Yalta Conference, in '45.
"...the US is working with the UK, France, and Germany to create a so-called “umbrella” under which they can multilaterally manage their military aid to Ukraine..."
So, they're intent on forcing Putin into the same position they forced Stalin into in 1945, with the Ukraine playing the role of East Germany.?! Yeah, I can see how that works for them: they've won (almost) all of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.
Problem is, though, China; and the rest of the world: it's a much more slippery world for dividing and ruling that it was when the Bretton Woods Conference was a great innovation. Nothing ever lasts forever.
"...its enemies will employ armed force against it on Kiev’s behalf..."
Duh!
Nobody gives a shit about Kiev.
"...it could be tempted to preempt this by carrying out a first-strike against NATO..."
You invoke the idea of temptation here as if Russia had a choice, almost as if to say 'it would be weak to succumb to temptation'.
But it's not the same as the temptation to drop A-bombs on Japan was.
"...the latest development is just symbolic."
Just like the Yalta Conference.
Well, thank you for this analysis. It's certainly done much for me to revisit questions which have been bothering me for quite some time. I feel I'm much closer to understanding the mystery — Мистика! — than I was before embarking on the exercise: the only way for Russia to survive is to nuke its way to Lvov and keep its Western borders as secure as Stalin made them, when he saw this coming at the Yalta Conference, in '45. I've suspected that was the case for a long time.
I get your point about 2014 being the initial moment when Kiev began functioning as the West's anti-Russian proxy, but I meant to draw attention to when the conflict between those reached its latest phase of direct hostilities.
The aid and coordination between Ukraine and NATO prior to then was much less and weaker than everything that's unfolded in the past sixteen and a half months, which is what accelerated that country's armed forces interoperability with this bloc.
Since my analysis was about Ukraine joining NATO and what must be done for that to happen, I didn't want to distract from that by devoting a paragraph clarifying the difference in their relationship between 2014-2022 and 2022-present.
I felt it was much easier to remain on topic than digress with the risk of further sidetracking and thus broadening the analysis to the point where it just becomes a general assessment as opposed to a detailed reaction to this particular development.
Yes, I know you did; and I agree with you: it's very well written, serving just the purposes
you intended.
I was just using you to make my points, which was somewhat disingenuous of me. I trust you'll excuse me (рассчитываю на вашу снисходительность).