rjshae

He wants a permanent agreement. As in for all time, regardless of circumstances. Again, what do we get for making it permanent that will make the alliance more secure? Nada. Then why bother?

Again: appeasement. If Russia wants a deal, they can offer something more substantial.

It really wouldn't surprise me if that sort of thing had gone on throughout the cold war. But that wasn't a government policy; it was an individual's extreme bias.

Deploying troops is one thing; building up logistics for a major offensive is a different matter. The concern here is about what they may do; not whether they are moving about the country.

You didn't actually answer my question. Why would NATO agree to essentially a permanent Russian veto of future members? There's no reason to do so, unless Russia agrees to something substantial in return. Using that as a pretext for an invasion is a false flag. Under this purported agreement, Russia can continue to threaten and coerce the Ukraine. They've always demonstrated a willingness to violate agreements. The NATO charter covers, "on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer". Europe extends to the Urals, effectively including the Ukraine.

Nobody has suggested that Russia could not move their troops around their own country. Where do you get that idea? If Putin had never made a land grab of the Crimea, then they may have had more of a case with the West. As it is, agreeing to Putin's terms at this point amounts to appeasement, and we all know how well that works with autocrats. If Putin wants to make a deal to keep the Ukraine out of NATO, what does NATO get in return? It's Putin that is holding Ukraine hostage, not the other way around.

Has that ever mattered?

Is Resident Alien the funniest comedy on TV? It's got my vote.

Historically, Western Europe demonstrated a willingness to abandon smaller nations in order to maintain the peace. (E.g. Austria, Czechoslovakia.) Russia had already demonstrated a willingness to invade its neighbors. *COUGH*Crimea*COUGH* Once they start doing that, where do you draw the line? If they're stopped at the Ukraine then you don't need to spend a ton of money to stop them at Poland. It's not hysterics; it's a powerful lesson from history.

Frankly, it's better for NATO if the Ukraine stays neutral as that reduces the potential frontage of a war. But it would also be a poor play of the cards to say Ukraine can never join NATO, as that would give Russia a free pass to invade. Better then for NATO to make sure the Ukraine is a well-armed buffer state that remains friendly to the West. But Putin probably won't tolerate that, so here we are. If we can delay the conflict a few years, then we can arm up Ukraine and make an invasion more painful.

Cool. They look a lot like magnetic field lines... or constructs for a type III civilization on the Kardashev scale. Hmm.

UY Sex is a hot subdwarf. It's an astronomical object, not a porn label. Now go scrub your filthy mind.

The Cleaning Lady has been an enjoyable drama thus far, although it seems like there are way too many adverts. Lots of moral grayness on all sides, and things look dire for her sick kid.

Biden has promised to appoint a female PoC Justice. White House Confirms Biden Will Pick Black Woman For Supreme Court. Here’s Who It Might Be. It should be interesting to see how this plays out during the nomination process. Presumably Biden will want to pick somebody who can still win the moderate Democratic vote while playing to the Progressive wing.

Long Covid: doctors find ‘antibody signature’ for patients most at risk

Regardless, the US scored points with NATO on this one.

Omicron May Not Evade All Monoclonal Antibodies, Study Suggests

The main difference is that Russia tend to repeatedly violate their treaties, whereas the US decides to withdraw. History shows that every country is willing to break treaties when it serves their interests, so disparaging the US over this is a bit of an empty argument.

That just seems like a sensible precaution. You never know whether Putin might employ some Spetsnaz operation to decapitate the Ukrainian government, for example.

At least he's de-wormed.

The Russian annexation of Crimea was a violation of: 1975 Helsinki Final Act 1994 Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances for Ukraine 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and Russia Pot = kettle = black

Did Putin respect Trump? I'm skeptical of that. I do think Putin was happy to let the US self-isolate under Trump, whereas Biden operates more in terms of international alliances. Putin and Russia in general are more fearful of the latter.