Yopez ( Йопез :)

Kite - Фев. 22, 2022, 11:24 amЯ выше,уже этот вариант(может быть не так в лоб) предполагал.
Очень похоже на нечто такое. Он  не может не понимать,что на каком то этапе,вынужденно вмешается США.(или НАТО,если так больше нравится).
Тем более,что он просто провоцирует на ответные шаги..
Нормальный и адекватный человек это не сделает..

Так про то и речь. Чем дальше в лес, тем больше дров. А где гарантия, что у него не появится видение, что ракеты уже нацелены на Россию и полетели, как в его интервью выше? По-моему люди ещё не совсем поняли, что мы оченнь близки сегодня к Карибскому кризису.  С той разницей, что Никита был куда более адекватен, как я вижу, чем сегодняшний путин. Да и команда политбюро ЦК КПСС была куда адекватнее и ещё прекрасно помнила WWII.

Piker - Фев. 22, 2022, 11:33 amТак про то и речь. Чем дальше в лес, тем больше дров. А где гарантия, что у него не появится видение, что ракеты уже нацелены на Россию и полетели, как в его интервью выше? По-моему люди ещё не совсем поняли, что мы оченнь близки сегодня к Карибскому кризису.  С той разницей, что Никита был куда более адекватен, как я вижу, чем сегодняшний путин. Да и команда политбюро ЦК КПСС была куда адекватнее и ещё прекрасно помнила WWII.

К сожалению,похоже,что ты прав..

Я никого не хочу пугать и стращать,но думаю,что будет не лишнее,если вы проверите где поблизости от вас nuclear(bomber) shelter.
Их полно,как на Восточном побережье


Так и на Западном

Я знаю, Кайт не любит этот источник, но может прокомментирует?

America Can Defend Both Ukraine and Taiwan

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-can-defend-both-ukraine-and-taiwan-200745

ЦитатаIn a February 13, 2022, essay that was published in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Ukraine Is a Distraction From Taiwan," Elbridge Colby and Oriana Skylar Mastro argue that the United States will increase the danger of prompting an opportunistic Chinese attack on Taiwan if it deploys military forces to deal with Russia's threat to Ukraine.

To support this argument, the authors assert that "...China poses an increasingly imminent [emphasis added] threat to Taiwan," and, given its huge military power, "reasonably doubt that the U.S or anyone else would mount a meaningful response to an invasion of Taiwan." In addition, the authors assert that any additional U.S. ground troop deployments to Europe will weaken the U.S. capacity to defend Taiwan, and hence will indeed tempt China to attack.

To make this perceived threat even direr, the authors argue that Taiwan must be kept from China because it is "a vital link in the first island chain in the Western Pacific" the loss of which will make it harder for the U.S. "...to defend critical allies like Japan and the Philippines...," and allow China to "project its naval, air, and other forces close to the U.S. and its territories...."

The authors present these assertions as if they are truisms, rather than shaky speculations derived from worst-case assumptions or untested theories about Chinese and American intentions and capabilities. The U.S. policy framework for managing its interests with regard to Taiwan has never treated the island as a strategic asset against mainland China. Nor are U.S. defense commitments to its Asian allies dependent on the use of Taiwan for this purpose. There is a low probability that Beijing doubts the likelihood of U.S. involvement in some fashion in response to a mainland invasion of the island, given the language of the Taiwan Relations Act, and the many recent Congressional bills expressing the sense of Congress on the matter.

The U.S. "One China policy" has always rested on the conviction that the future of Taiwan, whether independent from or unified with Mainland China, must be determined peacefully in a manner consistent with the freely expressed wishes of the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. For the United States to treat Taiwan as a strategic asset would take that peaceful resolution out of the hands of the peoples directly involved, thus undermining the logic of the U.S. One China policy that has helped preserve the peace across the Taiwan Strait for decades.

Increased Chinese saber-rattling and verbal warnings toward both Taiwan and the United States are certainly raising alarm bells, reflecting Beijing's unwavering assertions, over many decades, that it will use force to prevent the permanent separation of Taiwan from mainland China. They clearly reflect Beijing's concern that Washington is only paying lip service to its One China policy and is in fact moving toward a One China, One Taiwan policy that would foreclose the possibility of unification as a potential outcome of a peaceful resolution.

Beijing attaches much greater significance than does Washington to Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen's refusal to acknowledge any aspect of a One China framework. It is also disturbed by Washington's gradual dismantling of the political and diplomatic limits it had previously placed on relations with Taipei. These factors, taken together with Chinese president Xi Jinping's recent reaffirmation that China will continue to strive for peaceful unification, suggest that Beijing's recent threatening behavior towards Taiwan is designed to strengthen deterrence against permanent separation of Taiwan from the mainland rather than a harbinger of an imminent intention to use force to achieve unification.

Nevertheless, Beijing's efforts at military intimidation must be taken seriously. Prospects for peacefully resolving the cross-strait relationship do not exist at present, and Mainland Chinese efforts in recent decades to increase support in Taiwan for peaceful unification have failed miserably. At the same time, support in Taiwan for maintaining the status quo remains strong.

Given these circumstances, it is disturbing that Xi has on several occasions displayed impatience over the lack of progress on unification. The reality is that Mainland Chinese impatience to achieve unification within a wholly unrealistic time frame can be as disruptive a factor in East Asia as would be further erosion of Washington's One China policy. There would be no winners from a conflict over Taiwan, which would involve two major nuclear powers. To pretend otherwise would be to court disaster. If East Asian countries do not wish it, China can no more dominate the region than Russia can dominate Europe if the Europeans choose otherwise.

In contrast to what the authors contend, our impression, derived from decades of experience interacting with Chinese military and civilian scholars and officials, is that Beijing assumes the United States has the capacity and the will to meaningfully intervene in a conflict over Taiwan This is supported by simulations and research indicating that Beijing has not concluded that it can successfully seize and hold Taiwan if the United States intervenes militarily. Media claims that simulations show a consistent pattern of Chinese victories in a Taiwan conflict are misleading, according to some participants.

Given the realities of modern warfare, especially at the nuclear level, China's leaders are unlikely to assume the huge risks involved in a conflict over Taiwan unless deliberately provoked by persistent and willful ignoring of Beijing's warnings and redlines regarding the permanent separation of Taiwan from Mainland China. Any Chinese government that displayed weakness in the face of such a challenge would risk a destabilizing domestic backlash that would likely threaten the nationalist legitimacy of the People's Republic of China regime as the defender of Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity. Beijing's determination on this score was made clear in its passage in 2005 of an Anti-Secession Act, its domestic equivalent of the U.S. Taiwan Relations Act.

In their other writings, Colby and Mastro, along with others in the Washington policy community, seem to assume that only a coalition of East Asian nations along the first island chain, acting in lockstep with the United States, can save the region from Chinese ambitions to dominate Asia and threaten American interests. If China is allowed to have any undue influence over Taiwan, their argument apparently goes, then nearby Asian states will waver, China will then move to subjugate them, the dominoes will fall, and all will be lost.

East Asian countries do indeed want a robust U.S. economic and security presence in the region to balance Beijing's growing influence. However, they all have major economic and trade ties with China and are resistant to joining a zero-sum anti-China coalition that would put their economic interests in opposition to their security concerns. They also value their trade and investment links with Taiwan but do not regard it as the strategic key to Asian stability.

.

America Can Defend Both Ukraine and Taiwan

ЦитатаColby and Mastro's contention that the deployment of several thousand U.S troops to Ukraine will deplete U.S. capabilities in Asia, thereby encouraging Beijing to attack Taiwan, ignores the fact that any U.S. deployments in Europe would be primarily ground forces, whereas Taiwan is located in a primarily air and naval theater. Some overlap does exist between the U.S. capabilities needed in the two contingencies, as the authors contend, but it is not enormous.

Moreover, the Biden administration has made it abundantly clear that it is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine, which limits the scale of possible future supplementary European deployments. In contrast, Washington is constrained by the language of the Taiwan Relations Act from making a comparable pledge of non-involvement regarding Taiwan and is obligated under the Taiwan Relations Act to maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion against Taiwan.

Given the above, it is doubtful that Beijing is poised to invade Taiwan or that it would assume that the deployment of sizable U.S. ground forces to Europe provided an opportunity to strike the island. The Ukraine and Taiwan situations are in most respects apples and oranges, involving different interests, obligations, and stakes for the United States. The only lesson that the Ukraine situation poses for the United States regarding Taiwan is that brushing aside firmly stated redlines by powerful countries worsens the available options.

In the case of Taiwan, U.S. obligations to the island are not a function of its strategic importance but of the U.S. commitment, in establishing diplomatic relations with Beijing, to promoting a peaceful resolution acceptable to both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The framework established in 1979 served this purpose and permitted Taiwan to democratize and prosper, assisted in no small measure by the development of vibrant cross-strait trade, investment, and transportation links. No friend of Taiwan can endorse policies that make conflict more likely.

The best U.S. policy approach would be to make every effort to restore a stable status quo across the Taiwan Strait, one that can be sustained for an indefinite period. This would require Washington to maintain the integrity of its One China policy, all parties to avoid provocative actions and words, and confidence-building measures to reduce the likelihood of conflict

Ну что там, ещё не всплыли идеи начёт "а не ё@нуть ли нам по этой рашке, да и дело с концом"?

интересное начинание, между прочим(с)

Луиджи - Фев. 23, 2022, 11:57 amинтересное начинание, между прочим(с)

Ну а чё? 
Если "диванные эксперды" рунета под руководством телевизора уже давно составили планы "Америка в пепел", то и с другой стороны должны быть серьёзные военно-технические разборы такого сценария. Или "другая сторона" ещё крышей не поехала, как я надеюсь?

Lor - Фев. 23, 2022, 12:09 pmНу а чё? 
Если "диванные эксперды" рунета под руководством телевизора уже давно составили планы "Америка в пепел", то и с другой стороны должны быть серьёзные военно-технические разборы такого сценария. Или "другая сторона" ещё крышей не поехала, как я надеюсь?

если применительно к руководству, то там определенно крыша набок, но есть, надеюсь, кто-то, кто думает...

Луиджи - Фев. 23, 2022, 12:11 pmесли применительно к руководству, то там определенно крыша набок, но есть, надеюсь, кто-то, кто думает...

Вот и Запад наивно надеется уже 20 лет. Но жизнь демонстрирует обратное. И, судя по всему, болезнь стремительно прогрессирует.

А если бы держали рашку на "голодном пайке" начиная с 99-го, то и не было бы проблем. Уже после того, как Путин просидел два срока и укоренился в Кремле, понятно было, что надо работать с Россией по принципу: "выполнил команду - получи косточку". А не устанавливать "тесные взаимоотношения". И за Европой надо было следить, а не доводить до состояния "все у Путина на зарплате".

Ну вот опять...


Time to Turn the Tables on Vladimir Putin

ЦитатаFor years, Vladimir Putin's detractors have been calling him a mere tactician, rather than the strategist that he is. How wrong they have been. He has positioned Russia in the eastern Mediterranean to an unprecedented degree. Russia now has a long-term lease on a Syrian airbase, Khmeimim, in addition to a new lease on the Tartus naval base, from which the Soviet Navy operated during the Cold War. He has maintained good relations with both Israel and Egypt; the former had no real relations with the USSR, the latter kicked the Soviets out in 1972. His oligarchs and others have flooded Cyprus with their ill-gotten gains. He has a friendly government in Greece.

And now he has consolidated Russia's position in Europe, with the promise of doing even more. He has added the Ukrainian provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk to the list of so-called independent states--Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria--that only Russia recognizes. He has effectively absorbed Belarus into Russia's orbit; it is now no more independent than Byelorussia was during the Cold War, its UN vote notwithstanding. Putin no doubt plans the same for Ukraine, which also had its own vote in the UN during the Soviet era.

It must be conceded that the manner in which Putin has gone about squeezing Kyiv is proving highly effective. In continuing to station some 300,000 troops around Ukraine's borders, including about 50,000 in Belarus for an exercise that seems to have no end, he can both maintain constant pressure on Kyiv and deter it from taking any action against Donetsk and Luhansk. Moreover, he can always create a new pretext for biting off more of Ukraine--beginning with Mariupol and Odessa--whenever he so chooses.

At some point as well, he will absorb the two provinces into Russia, no doubt at the request of their leaders. Americans, in particular, should find such behavior hardly surprising. Texas broke away from Mexico in 1836, declared itself a republic that the United States recognized in 1837, and became the twenty-eighth state eight years later.                 

Putin's "manifest destiny" clearly is to restore Russia's Czarist glory. To that end, not only Ukraine, but Finland, the Baltic States, and Poland have good cause for worry. They were all part of the Russian empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; and apart from Finland, until 1918. Putin's expansionist appetite differs from America's "manifest destiny" in one critical respect. Whether Texas, or California, or any other state that entered the Union, it was the will of the population to do so. Neither the Baltic States, Poland, nor Finland have any interest in rejoining Russia. Nor do the Soviet Union's former Warsaw Pact allies, all of whom are now well entrenched inside NATO.

The West is doing far too little to disrupt Putin's playbook, however.  His argument that he is merely seeking to protect the residents of the breakaway provinces from the predations of Kyiv echoes Adolf Hitler's demand for Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland, supposedly to protect the Sudeten Germans. And just as Britain's Neville Chamberlain and France's Eduard Daladier acquiesced to Hitler's demand, in order to achieve "peace in our time," the West, led by the United States, is doing little more than to impose sanctions not on Russia itself, but only on Luhansk and Donetsk. For Putin, such sanctions are little more than a mosquito bite.

Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has begged the West for far more weapons than he has received to date. Washington has thus far furnished Kyiv with Javelin anti-tank missiles, coastal patrol boats, Humvees, sniper rifles, reconnaissance drones, radar systems, and night vision and radio equipment. Other NATO countries have made smaller contributions; Britain has provided armored vehicles and some 2,000 short-range anti-tank missiles together with trainers. The Baltic States, who view themselves as most vulnerable to a future Russian assault, have provided Javelins as well as Stinger anti-air missiles, which Washington has yet to send. Poland is sending GROM anti-air missiles. Turkey has provided drones that were effective against Russian-backed forces in Libya and against Armenian unions in the latest flare-up in Nagorno-Karabakh. On the other hand. Germany refuses to provide any arms to Kyiv, sending only helmets and a military hospital.

The West and the United States should do more now. Washington fears that too deep involvement on the ground could bring on a war with Russia. Why should Putin not have the same fear? Biden should never have ruled out not sending forces to support Ukraine; surely its freedom is as important for Europe as ejecting Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 was important for international oil prices. Having determined not to aid Kyiv with American troops, the Biden administration should at least provide Ukraine with the additional arms it seeks. These include American helicopters, light armored vehicles, and communications systems; Norwegian SAMs; and Czech self-propelled artillery.

In addition, Washington, and NATO, should not only sanction the breakaway provinces but Russia itself. The current "wait and see" attitude leaves the initiative to Putin. Sanctions, especially on gas and oil supplies can always be lifted if Putin pulls back his forces. Such sanctions, coming on top of Germany's suspension of its approval of the Nord Stream II gas pipeline, would bite Putin now and force him to react, instead of the other way round. For the past fourteen years, ever since Russia seized Abkhazia and North Ossetia, Putin has been playing a game of chicken with the West, and up to now has succeeded. It is time to turn the tables on him once and for all.

Lor - Фев. 23, 2022, 12:24 pmВот и Запад наивно надеется уже 20 лет. Но жизнь демонстрирует обратное. И, судя по всему, болезнь стремительно прогрессирует.

А если бы держали рашку на "голодном пайке" начиная с 99-го, то и не было бы проблем. Уже после того, как Путин просидел два срока и укоренился в Кремле, понятно было, что надо работать с Россией по принципу: "выполнил команду - получи косточку". А не устанавливать "тесные взаимоотношения". И за Европой надо было следить, а не доводить до состояния "все у Путина на зарплате".

мы, похоже, про разное... я про наше руковоцво, в Белом доме

Что, уже на повестке дня в Белом Доме?!

Lawmakers urge Biden to get congressional approval before stationing US troops in Ukraine

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/russia-ukraine-us-allies-sanctions


U.S. Army trucks belonging to the 82nd Airborne Division are seen lining up at an operating base near Mielec, Poland, on Wednesday. (REUTERS/Bryan Woolston)

ЦитатаBipartisan lawmakers - ranging from members of the far-left Squad to the far-right Freedom Caucus - joined together Tuesday to call on President Biden to receive authorization from Congress before involving U.S. forces in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, and Rep. Warren Davidson, an Ohio Republican, led the diverse group of 43 members of Congress in a letter to Biden, urging him to follow the Constitution when considering deploying U.S. troops.

"The American people deserve to have a say before we become involved in yet another foreign conflict," DeFazio said in a tweet.

Biden on Tuesday announced sanctions against Russia after President Vladimir Putin declared the independence of two separatist regions in Ukraine and deployed military forces in what Biden said is the "beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine." Biden also authorized additional U.S. forces to the region, but maintained that the United States has "no intention" of fighting Russia.

Skylight - Фев. 23, 2022, 12:47 pmЧто, уже на повестке дня в Белом Доме?!

Заболтают.

Lor - Фев. 23, 2022, 12:24 pmВот и Запад наивно надеется уже 20 лет. Но жизнь демонстрирует обратное. И, судя по всему, болезнь стремительно прогрессирует.

А если бы держали рашку на "голодном пайке" начиная с 99-го, то и не было бы проблем. Уже после того, как Путин просидел два срока и укоренился в Кремле, понятно было, что надо работать с Россией по принципу: "выполнил команду - получи косточку". А не устанавливать "тесные взаимоотношения". И за Европой надо было следить, а не доводить до состояния "все у Путина на зарплате".

У нас тоже не всё так гладко складывалось за эти годы. Не говоря уже о последних двух. Полная анархия - мать порядка. Пришёл один, жмёт руку путину с кимом аж двумя руками и хвалит обоих. Пришёл другой, обозвал убийцей. Ну и как при такой непостоянности действовать?

Skylight - Фев. 23, 2022, 11:01 amЯ знаю, Кайт не любит этот источник, но может прокомментирует?

Слово "любит"по отношению к средствам массовой информации(каковым безусловно является упомянутый сайт), очевидно не правильное. Любить можно мороженное или женщину(да простят они меня за такое сравнение).
СМИ же есть правдивые и лживые,интересные и не очень, дружеские и вражеские и т д.
Я не хочу перечислять и вспоминать всуе,СМИ различного толка. Но в настоящее время,я бы весьма настороженно относился к разного рода источникам. Публикация на английском языке и регистрация в США,на ангажированность,как оказывается не влияет.

Не поленюсь повторить ещё раз Источник "The National Interest",является собственностью некого господина Саймонса (в девичестве Сименса), который,по утверждению людей,близких к теме,являлся креатурой опытного разведчика под крышей журналистики,Примакова..
Господин Саймонс,сбежал от прокуратуры США в Россию,где сейчас выступает в роли "экперта" на разного рода шоу.
 Публикации на его сайте, чаще всего носят пророссиский характер.
 
В данной публикации, со ссылкой на статью известного американского политолога-журналиста, рассказывается о трудной ситуации,которая якобы может постичь США,в случае,если одновременно с негативным разворачиванием событий в Украине, будет препринята атака Китая с целью захвата Тайваня. И что переброска военных сил на восток Европы,якобы ослабит азиатское направление..

Подобную возможность,обсуждают с момента визита Путина в Китай.
Безусловно,возможно всё.. Но судя по многочисленным публикациям именно в серьёзных изданиях, Китай, не хочет да и не может сейчас начинать войну у себя под боком. 
Да и силы,перебрасываемые в страны,географически близкие к Украине,не являются такими большими. Речь идёт об эскадрилье-двух самолётов и боевых вертолётов.Плюс два-три батальона войск быстрого реагирования. Это не Бог весть ,что.

Вижу цель данной публикации в намеренном обмане читателей и формировании ложного  мнения американского обывателя...