"In the early days of Russia’s war on Ukraine, Fiona Hill warned that what Putin was trying to do was not only seize Ukraine but destroy the current world order. | Alex Wong/Getty Images."
(Sound familiar?)
really like her a lot and not just because of her testimony in front of the senate on Trumps impeachment. (1st time around).
Of all the "talking heads" asserting that they are "experts on Russia, The Kremlin, Putin etc"? I like her the most, even though I disagree with her on a few points. The interview is long, excerpts and my comments (in parentheses) follow:
"Ukraine has shown itself to be a far more robust military force than pretty much anyone predicted. Talk has changed from wondering how long Ukraine could hold out to how much territory it can retake — and to when and how the war will end."
("Ukraine has shown itself to be a far more robust military force than pretty much anyone predicted", that's the lens we are looking through and it is 100% incorrect, that was the interviewer BTW Maura Reynolds.)
"Hill warned in an interview with POLITICO that what Putin was trying to do was not only seize Ukraine but destroy the current world order. And she recognized from the start that Putin would use the threat of nuclear conflict to try to get his way."
(She understands that its not just a threat, and that article was published 4 days after the invasion, more on it in another post a lil later.)
"But while Putin appears to be doubling down in Ukraine, the conflict poses some real dangers to his leadership."
(Thats the interviewer again and he is not APPEARING to be doubling down, he was all in from the get go.)
"The West has come a long way since February in understanding the stakes in Ukraine, Hill says, but the world still hasn’t totally grasped the full challenge Putin is posing. Putin must be contained, Hill says, but that won’t happen unless and until international institutions established in the wake of World War II evolve so they can contain him. And that conversation is only just beginning."
(That was the interviewer again, the fact is the "international institutions established in the wake of World War II" dont have time to "Evolve" to contain Putin.)
“This is a great power conflict, the third great power conflict in the European space in a little over a century,” Hill says. “It’s the end of the existing world order. Our world is not going to be the same as it was before.”
(100% in agreement with that statement)
HILL: "We know that the Russians have had very high casualties and that they’ve been running out of manpower and equipment in Ukraine. The casualty rate on the Russian side keeps mounting. A few months ago, estimates were 50,000. Now the suggestions are 90,000 killed or severely injured. This is a real blow given the 170,000 Russia troops deployed to the Ukrainian border when the invasion began."
(The high reports of casualties and equipment losses are coming from The Moscow Times? It's pro-western propaganda being fed to willing and apathetic consumers. And the fact that she used the word "troops" as if they were regular service personnel when the invasion force was anything but? These are some of the types of questions I would like to ask Mrs. Hill about.)
HILL: "So, what does Putin do? He sends even more troops in by launching a full-on mobilization."
(Not buying that talking point either.)
"Reynolds: At this point, if he’s so adaptive, do you think he has an endgame?
Hill: In his mind, I think Putin still thinks he’s got more game to play. His endgame is to go out of this war on his terms. What we’re seeing right now, with the annexations and the big speech that he made on September 30th is very clear. He sees this conflict as a full-on war with the West, and he still is adamant on removing Ukraine from the map and from global affairs."
(Putin has plenty more game to play (nuclear, hypersonics etc) and why would he start a "full-on war with the West" unless he thought he could win it? Again, questions I would love to ask Mrs. Hill.)
Reynolds: If Putin wants Ukrainian territory so badly, why is he raining down such destruction on civilian areas and committing so many human rights abuses in occupied areas?
Hill: This is punishment, but also perverse redevelopment. You cow people into submission, destroy what they had and all their links to their past and their old lives, and then make them into something new and, thus, yours. Destroy Ukraine and Ukrainians. Build New Russia and create Russians. Its brutal but also a hallmark of imperial conquest."
(Talked about the brutality having a purpose a lil while ago.)
Hill: Putin’s initial goal when he launched the invasion was the collapse of central Ukrainian authority, the imposition of a puppet government in Kyiv, and all local governments swearing allegiance to Moscow, probably with some political commissar-type proxy leaders put in place around the country — the kind of thing that we saw happening in 2014 in the Russian-occupied territories of Donetsk and Lugansk and Crimea. But of course, that didn’t happen.
("Putin’s initial goal when he launched the invasion was the collapse of central Ukrainian authority, the imposition of a puppet government in Kyiv, and all local governments swearing allegiance to Moscow..."
This is where I strongly disagree with just about everybody, this is the talking point we are being force fed and it is simply just not true.
His goals were as follows:
1) The destruction of NATO (wait till Germany is freezing this winter, then come talk to me about it),
2) Starting a severe recession in the EU due to high energy cost. (the EU is the US largest trading partner. What exactly do you think happens to us if out largest trading partner goes into a severe recession?)
3) Creating a global energy crisis. (Just wait, warning signs are already there with the OPEC+ production cuts and "The West" wanting to put caps on Russian energy exports coming up, all of this just in time for winter mind you)
4) Raise food prices due to lack of Ukraine wheat being exported. (Yeah I know some is getting out but not nearly as much as before the invasion and there definitely will not be nearly as much exported next year and the Russians are already talking of pulling out of that deal already.
5) Forcing economic, social and political unrest in developing countries/emerging markets. due to higher food prices globally.
6) To increase global inflation. His goals also included to have poorer countries default on their $ dominated debt burden. As we take measures to increase the strength of the $? It helps us fight inflation domestically but it means poorer countries with $ denominated debt burdens have to pay more and in fact several have already defaulted.
7) Collapse the $ as the reserve currency of the world.
It goes a lot deeper than the "Putin’s initial goal when he launched the invasion was the collapse of central Ukrainian authority, the imposition of a puppet government in Kyiv..." talking point were being force fed.)
"Hill: It’s very clear that Elon Musk is transmitting a message for Putin. There was a conference in Aspen in late September when Musk offered a version of what was in his tweet — including the recognition of Crimea as Russian because it’s been mostly Russian since the 1780s — and the suggestion that the Ukrainian regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia should be up for negotiation, because there should be guaranteed water supplies to Crimea. He made this suggestion before Putin’s annexation of those two territories on September 30. It was a very specific reference. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia essentially control all the water supplies to Crimea. Crimea is a dry peninsula. It has aquifers, but it doesn’t have rivers. It’s dependent on water from the Dnipro River that flows through a canal from Kherson. It’s unlikely Elon Musk knows about this himself. The reference to water is so specific that this clearly is a message from Putin."
"Now, there are several reasons why Musk’s intervention is interesting and significant. First of all, Putin does this frequently."
"This is a classic Putin play."
"Elon Musk has enormous leverage as well as incredible prominence. Putin plays the egos of big men, gives them a sense that they can play a role. But in reality, they’re just direct transmitters of messages from Vladimir Putin."
(Glad I dont have an ego...God ground mine into dust for us (me and honey) to accomplish our task here on earth.)
"We’re having a hard time coming to terms with what we’re dealing with here. This is a great power conflict, the third great power conflict in the European space in a little over a century. It’s the end of the existing world order. Our world is not going to be the same as it was before."
(These are perhaps the most telling lines in the entire interview:
"We’re having a hard time coming to terms with what we’re dealing with here."
"It’s the end of the existing world order. Our world is not going to be the same as it was before."
Does that sound like someone who honestly believed:
"Putin’s initial goal when he launched the invasion was the collapse of central Ukrainian authority, the imposition of a puppet government in Kyiv, and all local governments swearing allegiance to Moscow..."?
Or does it sound to you like somebody who knew a lot more was at stake in this conflict than what we are being led to believe? I know which option I'm going with out of those two choices.)
"People worry about this being dangerous hyperbole. But we have to really accept what the situation is to be able to respond appropriately...And, in the 21st century, these are economic and financial wars. We’re all-in on the financial and economic side of things."
(It will rapidly hasten our demise and somebody (Putin) knew it ahead of time.)
"Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has turned global energy and food security on its head because of the way Russia is leveraging gas and oil and the blockade Putin has imposed in the Black Sea against Ukrainian grain exports. Russia has not just targeted Ukrainian agricultural production, as well as port facilities for exporting grain, but caused a global food crisis. These are global effects of what is very clearly not just a regional war."
(Again, that last statement sounds like somebody who believed: "Putin’s initial goal when he launched the invasion was the collapse of central Ukrainian authority..."? Or do they sound like somebody that knows there is a lot more going on here than what meets the eye?)
"Reynolds: China and India, Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi, and other world leaders who have not exactly been with West on this — how do you think their views of what Russia is doing is changing?
Hill: This is another global dimension. Just before the invasion, at the Beijing Olympics, we had Xi Jinping and Putin standing in seeming solidarity, talking about a limitless partnership, and Xi Jinping being very explicit in terms of Chinese opposition to the expansion of NATO and the role of NATO in the world. Clearly, at that point, Xi and China didn’t expect that Vladimir Putin’s special military operation would turn into the largest military action in Europe since World War II. Now, Xi Jinping is leery about showing any kind of diminution of his support for Vladimir Putin and Russia, since that would suggest he made a major miscalculation in lending Putin support. We haven’t seen Xi repudiating Putin and Russia directly. But we’ve certainly seen some signs of concern. At a meeting in Central Asia around the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Putin himself acknowledged that China had concerns. We’re pretty sure at this point that the Chinese also don’t like Vladimir Putin’s nuclear saber rattling in the context of the war in Ukraine, because that destabilizes the larger strategic balance globally, not just in Europe."
"For India, this has been a nightmare, frankly, and they’ve been trying to straddle the fence and figure out a balance. They don’t want to get on the wrong side of the United States or Ukraine, or Russia, and they just don’t really know quite what to do. Nonetheless, Prime Minister Modi has said explicitly to Putin, look, this is a time for peace, not war. And being much more outspoken on the issue of the conflict than perhaps some might have anticipated. That’s not insignificant."
("Clearly, at that point, Xi and China didn’t expect that Vladimir Putin’s special military operation would turn into the largest military action in Europe since World War II."
Two things, 1) Xi knew exactly what was going to happen, it helps him later when he takes Taiwan (and he will) and 2) Mrs Hill called it "Vladimir Putin’s special military operation" not, "Russia's full scale invasion."
It might not be very telling to you, but it tells me a whole lot.
Furthermore?
"For India, this has been a nightmare, frankly, and they’ve been trying to straddle the fence and figure out a balance"..."they just don’t really know quite what to do".
Ever since Modi called out Putin in their meeting at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation on Sept 16th? I've thought exactly the same thing. They (India) are really the wild card in the situation we find ourselves in currently.)
"Reynolds: Let’s talk about the situation inside Russia. Do you think Putin was surprised by the wave of protests that followed his announcement of what he called a partial mobilization? Or was he expecting that?
Hill: "...We’ve already seen violence in Dagestan and other places where ethnic minorities have borne the brunt of recruitment."
(If its not a "partial mobilization"? Then why are ethnic minorities bearing the brunt of recruitment in certain places? Remind anybody of the poor white folks and blacks being drafted for Vietnam? Just a thought, throwing it out there.)
"Hill: You’re going to start hearing more and more stories of people who’ve gone to the front completely unprepared and got killed. That will reduce tolerance for the special military operation."
(Thats twice now she called it what she knows it is...You can throw "Putin’s initial goal when he launched the invasion was the collapse of central Ukrainian authority" out the window.)
"Hill: One would think so. In 2024, the reelection has to be in the early part of the year. So, we’ve got a year and a few months in the Russian political calculations to start to prepare for this and ensure that it all goes smoothly. That was why Putin wanted to get the quick victory in Ukraine well out of the way. Ukraine started in February and March of 2022, because February and March of 2024 will be election time.
I’m sure Putin thought he would have been unassailable with a quick, victorious war. Ukraine would be back in the fold and then probably after that, Belarus. Moldova as well, perhaps."
(A quick victory just did not and does not serve his purposes. See the list of his goals I mentioned above.)
"Reynolds: Do you feel like Ukraine is on course for a military victory and what would that mean to the Russian side?
Hill: Ukraine has already had a great moral, political and military victory. Russia has not achieved the aims of its special military operation. "
(Thats three times she called it what she knows it is, a "special military operation." I love Chris Berman and Tom Jackson when they did NFL highlights, "One is an accident, two is a trend, three is a pattern." It kinda speaks for itself honestly.)
"Hill: He’ll keep trying to soften the battlefield beyond Ukraine, keep on trying to poison attitudes internationally against Ukraine."
(People are going to want their (Russia's) oil and minerals more than they care about Ukraine's freedom." I've said it from the very get go and it's going to be true.)
"Hill: ...
But there’s no strategic standoff here. This is pure nuclear blackmail. There can’t be a compromise based on him not setting off a nuclear weapon if we hand over Ukraine. Putin is behaving like a rogue state because, well, he is a rogue state at this point. And he’s being explicit about what he wants. We have to pull all the diplomatic stops out. We have to ensure that he’s not going to have the effect that he wants with this nuclear brinkmanship.
Putin is also making it very clear that to get what you want in the world, you have to have a nuclear weapon and to protect yourself, you also have to have a nuclear weapon. So this is an absolute mess. Global nuclear stability is on a knife edge.
But again, this is not about strategic issues. This is not an issue of strategic stability. This is Vladimir Putin pissed off because he hasn’t got what he wanted in a war that he started. It’s another attempt to adapt to the battlefield."
(Again, I completely disagree, he is getting exactly what he wants by dragging this on as long as he can and he WILL use a nuclear weapon if for no other reason than to force NATO into a vote on implementing article 5 and I think many people will be surprised on just how that will turn out.
"Overseas and European demagogues are not going to perish in a nuclear apocalypse,” he (Dmitry Medvedev Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation) added. “Therefore, they will swallow the use of any weapon in the current conflict.”
Unfortunately?
I believe he is right.)
"Reynolds: Can this war end in a way that would be satisfying for the West and with Putin remaining as Russian leader? Or is this the beginning of a revolution that’s going to be very messy and dangerous?"
"Hill: It’s unlikely this ends in any satisfying way. You need every side willing to compromise, and Putin doesn’t want to compromise his goals."
Any compromise is, in any case, always at Ukraine’s expense because Putin has taken Ukrainian territory. If we think about World War I, World War II or the settlements in many other conflicts, they always involved some kind territorial disposition that left one side very unhappy.
There is not going to be a happy or satisfying ending for anybody, and it’s also not going to be happy or satisfying for Vladimir Putin either, honestly."
(Agreed..."It is unlikely this ends in any satisfying way...There is not going to be a happy or satisfying ending for anybody." It's a good reason why you should accept Christ as risen lord and savior over all, it really is, this doesn't end well for anybody and the consequences are far more severe than most will ever realize.)
"Hill: There’s not any good outcome I can see come out of this."
(Me neither, knew it when he was amassing his forces on the border just what a mess this was going to be.)
"Hill: How do we reconfigure ourselves internationally to deal with this? The United Nations has proven to be in dire need of an overhaul." The United Nations has been a major player in this conflict. The secretary-general has been heavily involved investigating war crimes and pressing resolutions. But the United Nations has shown itself inadequate because of the configuration of the Security Council and the veto. Everybody’s talking about how to address this."
(We dont have time to reconfigure ourselves internationally to deal with this, its here and right now, overhauling international institutions takes time we just do not have.)
"Reynolds: It occurs to me that there’s a kind of reckoning coming for NATO. With Finland joining, that adds a long direct border between NATO and Russia. With the new union between Belarus and Russia, there’s going to be another NATO border between Poland and Belarus. Considering the fact that NATO’s already getting a line across Europe that it’s going to have to defend, should NATO consider membership for Ukraine?"
"Hill: This is also going to be a big issue, right?...
But, if we talk about Ukraine being part of NATO at this particular moment, it will simply feed into this flawed discussion. It will detract from the essence of what this war is, which is Russia trying to seize Ukrainian territory."
(Wrong, she has already demonstrated earlier in the interview she knows what this war is about. That it is a global conflict already etc...
"The West has come a long way since February in understanding the stakes in Ukraine, Hill says, but the world still hasn’t totally grasped the full challenge Putin is posing."
“It’s the end of the existing world order. Our world is not going to be the same as it was before.”
"He sees this conflict as a full-on war with the West."
"We’re having a hard time coming to terms with what we’re dealing with here."
"these are economic and financial wars. We’re all-in on the financial and economic side of things."
"These are global effects of what is very clearly not just a regional war."
she said.)
"Hill: Finland and Sweden did not apply to NATO before, they have now because NATO is focused on ensuring common collective security and defense, and Russia has put all of Europe at risk."
(The majority of the (managed) news stories I see/read, suggest that Russia is so far out of troops, missiles and everything else under the sun to the point where Finland and/or Sweden themselves should be able to take them out at this point, so why do we gotta spend 16 billion again? Oh yeah to protect the $ as the reserve currency of the world etc...And 90, 000 casualties? Seriously? We had close to 60,000 deaths and 150,000 injuries in all of the Vietnam war and they have had 90,000 in 8 months? Sorry, but that dog just doesn't hunt, not over here it doesn't.
at the end of the article it states:
CORRECTION: This article has been edited to remove a reference to the Netherlands being invaded by Germany during World War I. The Netherlands remained neutral in that conflict. It also clarifies that some news reports are estimating that 90,000 Russian troops have been killed or injured in the conflict so far.)
"Reynolds: In other words, even if Ukraine wins the war for its territory, even if Putin is somehow constrained or deposed, we’re still at the very beginning of a rethinking of the international order that those outcomes are not going to solve.
("...we’re still at the very beginning of a rethinking of the international order..." It's being forced on us like it or not, and its exactly what most people just do not understand / can not come to terms with.)
"Hill: Yes. We’ve also had the impacts of Covid. We’ve got a climate crisis, which should be evident to everybody by now. There are so many things that we need to contend with, and we’ve only got the skeleton of an international system."
(Ukraine can not win this war by itself, it does not have the manpower or the armaments. Period. Anything else you hear is complete bunk. WOD BTW, slang term anyway, Bunk.
Would Putin have even attempted this without Covid? My argument would be it would have been very doubtful. Your maker knew what he was doing when he sent Covid into the world to get you to turn to him. Colossians 1:16-17
"There are so many things that we need to contend with."
The fact that there are no good solutions to any of them tells you EXACTLY where we are in the overall scheme of things.
"we’ve only got the skeleton of an international system"
Somebody in Moscow knew that well before he ever started this and he is absolutely looking to bury it.)
"Hill: I understand why the Global South is so frustrated with all of this: “While you’re fighting this war in Ukraine over the same kind of territorial disputes you guys have been having for a hundred years now, we’re dying here from disease and climate change. Our countries have flooded. We’re starving and you guys are expecting us to help you solve this?” The United Nations system is breaking down, as António Guterres, the secretary-general, has said over and over again."
(Told ya, somebody gave the UN a big middle finger and pretty much said you are irrelevant at this point when he annexed those regions in eastern Ukraine.)
"Reynolds: So we need a new or a revamped global order to address the whole problem?
Hill: That’s obvious. So how do we do it?...
But we do need international institutions to deal with the magnitude of the problems that we’re facing. It’s ironic that Elon Musk, the man who has been talking about getting us to Mars should be Putin’s messenger for the war in Ukraine, when we’re having a really hard time getting our act together on this planet. But it’s glaringly obvious to ordinary people that we need to do so. Time is not on our side.
No, no it most certainly is not.
Dont wait, do it today.
Dr. R.G. Lee's list of conversion excuses and questions
Excuse 16.
"Not now."
Answer: Every time you say no, it is more difficult to say yes. The time and day is now. "Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation"
(2 Corinthians 6:2)
Seek the lord while he may be found. Delay is decision for the wrong way. "Today, if you will." saith the Lord,
tomorrow is the day when the idle man works,
the thief becomes honest,
the drunkard sober.
Tomorrow is a period nowhere to be found except, perhaps, in the fools calendar,
God's call is not a call for tomorrow but for today.
Dr. Lee says of the above, "In this manner do I deal with excuse-makers. With many excuse-makers I have had success. With some I have not."
Proverbs 27:1
Do not boast about tomorrow,
for you do not know what a day may bring.
Proverbs 29:1
Whoever remains stiff-necked after many rebukes
will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy.
Isaiah 55:6
Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
Hebrews 2:3
how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.
I love you baby.
Godspeed everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment