From my perspective I ask this question: Should China be a competitor, adversary or friend to the US? I ran cross country in high school. You're better than some competitors, others are better than you. You do you best, and those better than you inspire you. "How is it that they
run better than you? Are they better disciplined? Do they have more a intense training regimen? And, as always, "May the best man win". Countries w/ their economies are like competitors. We should somehow acquire the ability to set aside ideological differences and make economic
competition the name of the game. When countries with different ideology or political systems build trust thru economic relations they learn how to make progress thru cooperation. USA should eye China first as an economic competitor and seek to make progress thru cooperation. The
more we cooperate, the less we'll be adversaries. The world is big enough for the US, EU, Russia, China & DPRK. We should set aside the "old enmity", turn the page of history and move forward into the 21st century leaving the Cold War in the rear view mirror. Lot's of work to do.
“Prior to 1991, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and had Soviet nuclear weapons in its territory.”
Nuclear weapons and Ukraine en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_w…
2/"On December 1, 1991, Ukraine, the second most powerful republic in the Soviet Union (USSR), voted overwhelmingly for independence, which ended any realistic chance of the Soviet Union staying together even on a limited scale. More than 90% of the electorate expressed their
3/"support for Ukraine's declaration of independence, and they elected the chairman of the parliament, Leonid Kravchuk as the first president of the country. At the meetings in Brest, Belarus on December 8, and in Alma Ata on December 21, the leaders of Belarus, Russia, and
Zelensky would have WW3 happen to save Ukraine. This conflict is b/t Ukraine & Russia. Zelensky aspired to have Ukraine join NATO and now wants a No Fly Zone where NATO forces must shoot down Russian fighter jets flying overhead, which could trigger nuclear war. Plus he does not
actually know what Putin’s end game is. Saying “Europe will fall if Ukraine falls” is dangerous. Putin, using his words, is conducting a “special military operation”. An “educated guess” is he wants a Ukraine divided along the Dnieper River & a coastal land strip connecting
Donbas to Crimea. West Ukraine remains a democracy under Zelensky, East Ukraine elects a pro-Russian President & Odessa stays in WU. Europe doesn’t “fall” in this scenario. That’s what this “special military operation” is. Nothing more. Nothing less. Imo. That’s the most rational
NATO rejects Ukraine's demand for no-fly zones
“Allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) said on Friday that they will increase support but will not grant Ukraine's request for the implementation of no-fly zones. "We are not part of this twitter.com/i/events/14832…
2/“conflict, and we have a responsibility to ensure it does not escalate and spread beyond Ukraine," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a news conference.”
It’s a heavy responsibility but Jens Stoltenberg is right. The conflict is a direct result of the Minsk Conundrum
3/left unresolved, Ukrainian nationalism fighting pro-Russian separatists in Donbas & Russia’s repeated requests for the US & NATO to fully address its national security concerns going unanswered or crassly ignored. It is at the core a Russian-Ukraine conflict.
Acquiring a strip of Black Sea coastland connecting the Donbas region to Crimea up to Odessa will increases the Russian Federations security 10-fold. By forcing the issue so that Ukraine will never join NATO a WW3 scenario is averted in any Russia-Ukraine conflict. The West
ignored Vladimir Putin, dismissed his concerns. There's a lesson to be learned here: NEVER IGNORE THE SECURITY CONCERNS OF YOUR ADVERSARY. ESPECIALLY A NUCLEAR ADVERSARY. The whole point of diplomacy is to avoid scenarios such as Russia invading Ukraine
- to borrow a Boltonian phrase - "in the name of self defense". In the same manner in which Bolton used the Carolina to argue his "legal case for striking North Korea first" you can argue that Putin has invaded Ukraine "in the name of self defense". And it's a valid argument.
“The ways we use “us against them”. Any time you feel threatened by something, you want to feel superior, stronger, and better than what you are up against.”
Example: US foreign policy is “us (NATO & Allies) against Russia & China”. webmd.com/mental-health/….
cold war = “a state of political hostility between countries characterized by threats, propaganda, and other measures short of open warfare”
The USA’s “us against them” mindset towards Russia & China naturally tends towards cold war.
Make no mistake: The US’s incapability or refusal to comprehend Russia’s security concerns (which Putin addressed in his 2007 Munich Speech) was the catalyst that led to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In a simplistic sense, if the Minsk Conundrum’s non-resolution ensured a military
Ukraine-Russia crisis: What is the Minsk agreement? | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera aje.io/ac8cdb “French President Emmanuel Macron has pointed to the 2015 Minsk Agreement between Kyiv and Moscow as the blueprint for a breakthrough in the Ukraine crisis.
2/“In general, Moscow and Kyiv interpret the pact very differently, leading to what has been dubbed by some observers as the “Minsk conundrum”.
What is the ‘Minsk conundrum’?
Ukraine sees the 2015 agreement as an instrument to re-establish control over the rebel territories.
3/“It wants a ceasefire, control of the Russia-Ukraine border, elections in the Donbas, and a limited devolution of power to the separatists – in that order.
Russia views the deal as obliging Ukraine to grant rebel authorities in Donbas comprehensive autonomy and