La revuelta de Ucrania

[sudden and sharp]

¿Ya están sacando lo güeno?   

[saturno]

¿Ya están sacando lo güeno?   

La foto es de la explosión del almacen de la OTAN.
La fuente es ucraniana. Lo tuyo es trolear.

Detonation of ammunition continues in Khmelnitsky (ukraine)

💥💥Des dépôts de munitions géants de l'OTAN ont été détruits, a reconnu l'ancien conseiller du président ukrainien
« Quand allons-nous enfin arrêter de mettre tous nos œufs (munitions) dans le même panier (dans un seul entrepôt) ?.. Comme à Pavlograd et Khmelnytsky… », a déclaré Y. Kasyanov.

https://t.me/NordmannGaulois/1067

Aparte, parece que los rusos consiguen perturbar las guias GPS de los HIMARS
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/himars-less-effective-uimproving-russian-cntrmsrs

[sudden and sharp]

Y lo tuyo es hinformar...








[ ¿Desde cuando estalla el uranio empobrecido? ]

[Saturio]

Y lo tuyo es hinformar...








[ ¿Desde cuando estalla el uranio empobrecido? ]

Hombre, se supone que estalla un almacén de munición en el que hay también uranio empobrecido almacenado.
Lo que dicho de paso es difícil de confirmar.
Lo que no me cuadra es que se haya detectado un incremento de radiación gamma cuando el uranio empobrecido prácticamente no emite.

Pero bueno, todos nos venden victorias aquí y allí. El empantanamiento va a durar todavía muuuuucho más. Todavía queda un año y medio o dos años para que Ucrania pueda lanzar una contraofensiva con ciertas garantías y eso si lo hacen bien y hay un compromiso creciente de la OTAN.
Por supuesto, descartemos que Rusia pueda avanzar mucho más y menos propiciar un cambio de régimen en Ucrania y tal.

[sudden and sharp]

Y lo tuyo es hinformar...








[ ¿Desde cuando estalla el uranio empobrecido? ]

Hombre, se supone que estalla un almacén de munición en el que hay también uranio empobrecido almacenado.
Lo que dicho de paso es difícil de confirmar.
Lo que no me cuadra es que se haya detectado un incremento de radiación gamma cuando el uranio empobrecido prácticamente no emite.

Pero bueno, todos nos venden victorias aquí y allí. El empantanamiento va a durar todavía muuuuucho más. Todavía queda un año y medio o dos años para que Ucrania pueda lanzar una contraofensiva con ciertas garantías y eso si lo hacen bien y hay un compromiso creciente de la OTAN.
Por supuesto, descartemos que Rusia pueda avanzar mucho más y menos propiciar un cambio de régimen en Ucrania y tal.

Lo que se quiera creer. Yo esto no me lo creo.

[saturno]

Y lo tuyo es hinformar...








[ ¿Desde cuando estalla el uranio empobrecido? ]

Hombre, se supone que estalla un almacén de munición en el que hay también uranio empobrecido almacenado.
Lo que dicho de paso es difícil de confirmar.
Lo que no me cuadra es que se haya detectado un incremento de radiación gamma cuando el uranio empobrecido prácticamente no emite.

Correcto,

A Sudden: te sobra un post. Eres inaguantable por inundar el foro con tus "evidencias" bienpensantes sin comunicar fuentes, Usas el procedimiento del  estafador intelectual que se posiciona aposta en posición de superior del "contrario"  a ver si el otro se cabrea,  mete la pata demostrando su ignorancia y sólo entonces, vienes a decir "la evidencia es", y la comunicas. El procedimiento es propio de miserables. Trae vinculos sobre el uranio empobrecido y métete tu buenismo por donde te quepa, Aqui tienes la evidencia de tu proceder; lo que has hecho es traer fotos de ovnis. Sigues en ignorados y paso de abrir tus posts.

A los dos: la respuesta es la misma : La fuente es de Ucrania.

Almacenes gigantes de la 'OTAN han sido destruidos, reconoció el antiguo consejero del presidente ucraniano,

« Cuando vamos da dejar de poner todos los huevos (municiones) en la misma cesta (un mismo almacen) ?.. Como a Pavlograd y  Khmelnytsky… », declaró Y. Kasyanov.

Estaba en la fuente:
https://t.me/NordmannGaulois/1067

Kasyanov:  el antiguo ministro de Putin, pasado a consejero de Zelenski
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2022/04/14/amanpour-former-russian-prime-minister-mikhail-kasyanov.cnn

¿Vale ya?


La hinformación es que están ardiendo desde el dÍa 13 de mayo hasta varios días después  miles de millones de nuestros impuestos en un pais que aparte de desviar 20% de la pasta y de las armas de gran calibre a todas las mafias de los Balcanes hasta Marsella (y Barcelona, no lo duden), no es capaz de asegurar un mínimo los almacenes.

Los capitanes del ejercito regular ucraniano ya son los veteranos de Azov de 2018 desde la "Guerra de las fronteras" y los demás batallones neonazis, pero nosotros, dale con que vamos a ganar la "guerra" (que nos abstenemos cuidadosamente de declarar) contra Rusia.

Eso sí, la carnicería que se está dando es culpa de los Rusos y seguimos propagando vientos de "ofensiva de primavera"

Encima la supuesta superioridad tecnológica de la OTAN resulta que es de risa, visto lo que está pasando con los Himars (que también es propaganda USA, cuidado).

¿Cuántos muertos más queremos sobre nuestras conciencias ? Eso sí, los neonazis ucranianos son Europeo auténticos, y Alemania traga con esto y con lo demás

[sudden and sharp]

[...] A Sudden: te sobra un post. Eres inaguantable por inundar el foro con tus "evidencias" bienpensantes sin comunicar fuentes, Usas el procedimiento del  estafador intelectual que se posiciona aposta en posición de superior del "contrario"  a ver si el otro se cabrea,  mete la pata demostrando su ignorancia y sólo entonces, vienes a decir "la evidencia es", y la comunicas. El procedimiento es propio de miserables. Trae vinculos sobre el uranio enriquecido y métete tu buenismo por donde te quepa, Aqui tienes la evidencia de tu proceder; lo que has hecho es traer fotos de ovnis. Sigues en ignorados y paso de abrir tus posts.

Vale.









----------------
[ Modus Operandi: Si pillas un intento de engaño --una exageración, un imposible, en este caso--; en una "noticia", entonces la desechas entera. Pero tú puedes hacer lo que quieras, faltaría más. ]

[Lem]

no tengo intención de entrar en la discusión ni andar "facteando", bastante tuve con el hilo Covid... pero no puedo evitar que me rechinen los dientes cuando veo cuentas de Twitter digamos "temáticas" diciendo cosas como "muchas fuentes" sin aportarlas, así que me he puesto a buscar un poco y he encontrado un artículo de traditional media que como mínimo parece hacer el esfuerzo de hacer una buena recogida de datos.

cada cuál que se limpie lo que quiera con él, aquí lo dejo. no lo voy a formatear, siempre pueden ir a la fuente original, es más legible:

https://www.newsweek.com/huge-mushroom-blast-khmelnytskyi-reignites-depleted-uranium-claims-1800443

Huge 'Mushroom' Blast in Khmelnytskyi Reignites 'Depleted Uranium' Claims

A viral video of a huge explosion near the city of Khmelnytskyi in Western Ukraine has been shared widely along with unverified claims that a "depleted uranium" storage facility was hit and reports that radiation levels were "rising" in the aftermath of the strike (which have been dismissed as false by the IAEA).

Concerns about the safety of Ukraine's nuclear facilities, including the Zaporizhzhia power plant currently under Russian control, as well as Moscow's nuclear sabre-rattling, have fueled fears of escalation throughout the 14-month Russia-Ukraine war.

But with little official commentary from Moscow or Kyiv about the Russian strikes on targets across Western Ukraine, which took place on the night of May 13, 2023, striking images of a huge explosion recorded near Khmelnytskyi added fuel to social media speculation and resurrected existing narratives about the so-called "depleted uranium" shells.

Newsweek Misinformation Watch assessed the veracity of the claims and speculation around the subject in an attempt to figure out what really occurred in the Western Ukrainian town.


A video of a huge fireball appearing on the horizon has been shared widely on social media over the past 48 hours, with several reports in English, Ukrainian and Russian media geolocating the blast to an area near Khmelnytskyi, the administrative center of the Khmelnytskyi Oblast, about 100 miles from Ukraine's border with Moldova.

"According to information, the value of the ammunition destroyed in the Khmelnytsky ammunition depot is about 500 million dollars," said a post by Spriter, viewed nearly 7 million times.

"Another shot from Khmelnitsky shows huge mushroom cloud rising into the sky after Russian Aerospace Forces hit Ukrainian military objects in the city earlier in morning," said a post by Trollstoy that received nearly 230,000 views.

"The Russians smoked a huge amount of American and European tax money in Ukraine's Khmelnitsky," another post claimed.

"Hearing rumors that there was a big stockpile of depleted uranium ammunition in the warehouses that got blown up. Pretty big oof if true," tweeted Russians With Attitude, an account known to share pro-Kremlin propaganda.

The sheer ferocity of the blast, including the sinister-looking mushroom-like cloud of smoke rising in its aftermath, also fueled unverified claims about various types of munitions that could have been blown up and nuclear-weapon-related speculation.

"If the NATO arms depots that Russia is blowing up contain depleted uranium munitions as supplied by the UK those areas of Ukraine may become hotbeds for lung cancer and birth defects as the dust from those exploded DU [depleted uranium] munitions can contaminate large areas of land for decades," wrote Kim Dotcom, a prominent anti-globalist commentator and conspiracy theorist.

Other accounts on Twitter and Telegram posted charts of purportedly "rising radiation levels" that, they claim, were observed in the hours following the strike. These were amplified by multiple reports in Russian media outlets.

Some posts referenced and shared graphs taken from SaveEcoBot, a Ukrainian service monitoring nuclear radiation levels across the country, as well as graphs attributed to the European Commission.

"Gamma radiation In #Khmelnitsky, Western Ukraine, after the explosion of an ammunition depot with reportedly depleted uranium weapons," a tweet by another pro-Moscow account claimed.

A number of these sensationalist and incendiary claims were quickly picked up and amplified by U.S.-based social media accounts, including right-wing commentator Chuck Callesto and the Gateway Pundit publication.

"RADIOACTIVE PANIC: Russians Missiles Hit Ukrainian Ammunition Depot in Khmelnytsky Causing Massive Explosion – Cache of British Depleted Uranium Tank Shells Destroyed – Gamma Radiation Spikes in the Region's Atmosphere," the Gateway Pundit headline said.

What We Know, What We Don't

While not all of the facts and information about the multiple strikes on Western regions of Ukraine have been fully established, there are several elements to the viral conspiracy narrative that are provably false, misleading or lack evidence.

First of all, the shelling, which took place in the early hours of Saturday, May 13, was widely reported in local and international media, with officials on the ground saying that at least 21 civilians were injured in the attack that involved multiple drones and missiles.

Local authorities said that schools and medical institutions, administrative buildings, industrial facilities and private homes were damaged by the explosions.

The Russian military at the time claimed it hit an ammunition depot and a hangar, while Ukraine said the targets were "critical infrastructure."

According to an investigation by GeoConfirmed, a Twitter account that geolocates visual content from the Russia-Ukraine war, there is little to support the notion that what was hit was a facility where "depleted uranium shells" were stored.

The researcher cites pre-war media reporting and public records to suggest instead that this was a Soviet-era ammunition dump, which, the reports indicate, could have contained as much as 30,000 tons of ammunition. Some of the articles suggest that aviation munitions stored at the facility date to 1949.

While Newsweek could not rule out the possibility that the "depleted uranium" shells provided by the U.K. had been stored there, past reports about the nature of these munitions put a big question mark over that claim.

Though Russian President Vladimir Putin misleadingly drew parallels between these types of shells and nuclear weapons, threatening to retaliate were the West to continue supplying them to Ukraine, the comparison is largely baseless.

Depleted uranium is a byproduct of the process to create the enriched uranium used in nuclear fuel and weapons but is far less powerful than enriched uranium and is incapable of generating a nuclear reaction.

It is true that DA munitions are radioactive and thus are considered to be controversial despite their continued use by Western militaries, as well as production by countries including Russia.

However, as Newsweek reported, no definitive conclusions have been drawn on the environmental impacts of DU, or the effects it could have on the human body. Their "radioactivity is something of a red herring, as the real danger appears to lie in its toxicity as a heavy metal," military technology expert David Hambling said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) similarly notes that depleted uranium is mainly a toxic chemical, as opposed to a radiation hazard.

The "radioactive spike" reports are also undermined by the actual timeline of events, as well as misleading use of the monitoring data.

Thus, for example, a graph used in the Gateway Pundit report and in other tweets appears to show a sudden jump in radiation levels, but the actual increase, according to EC data, begins on May 11, 2023, at least 48 hours before the missile barrage hit the area (at which point radiation level actually dropped slightly).

Further, the changes in the radiation levels appear to be fairly minor, peaking at about 155 nanoSieverts per hour (compared to 165 nSv/h recorded in Kharkiv on May 8, or nearly 500 nSv observed near the Chernobyl exclusion zone over the past week.)

As other social media users pointed out, parts of Germany, for example, also saw compatible spikes, but no "nuclear accident" claims have emerged on the back of that.

The Twitter account for SaveEcoBot, which was cited misleadingly by some to promote the false narrative, weighed in on the matter on Monday, calling the claims "fake news" and "Russian propaganda," and affirming that the current "values do not exceed the natural levels."

Eneregoatom, the National Nuclear Power Company of Ukraine, said in its official Telegram channel that "the radiation level at the industrial site [in Khmelnytskyi] and in the surrounding regions is at a level corresponding to the normal operation of power units and does not exceed natural background values."

The IAEA, likewise, poured cold water over the claims.

"The State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency today that there have been no measurements of elevated levels of gamma radiation in the country's western regions in recent days," a representative of the international body told Newsweek in an email.

Newsweek has not been able to locate any official statements or credible reports that radiation levels in Khmelnytskyi or other parts of Ukraine are above normal or corroborate the claim about depleted uranium shells being destroyed in the Russian attack.

Newsweek reached out to Energoatom, as well as the Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministries via email for comment.

y sobre el uranio empobrecido, del mismo medio:

How Depleted Uranium Shells Impact the Body—What We Know, What We Don't

The health effects of depleted uranium ammunition continue to be "a matter of hot debate" after the U.K. committed to sending the controversial munitions to Ukraine.

On March 20, Annabel Goldie, the U.K. minister of state for defense, confirmed that British Challenger 2 tanks donated to Ukraine would be sent along with depleted uranium (DU) munitions.

A spokesperson for the British defense ministry later said that the British armed forces have "used depleted uranium in [...] armor-piercing shells for decades." A spokesperson for the U.S. defense department also told The Associated Press that DU munitions remain a "longstanding element" of military stockpiles.

DU munitions, which are radioactive, are controversial despite their continued use by Western militaries, as well as production by countries such as Russia. DU rounds are very dense in order to penetrate the armor protecting enemy vehicles.

However, no definitive conclusions have yet been drawn on the environmental impacts of DU, or the effects it could have on the human body. Studies have largely concentrated on the impacts of DU munitions on military veterans, as well as civilians in areas of fighting during the Gulf War and Iraq War.

A British defense ministry spokesperson said that "independent research by scientists from groups such as the Royal Society has assessed that any impact to personal health and the environment from the use of depleted uranium munitions is likely to be low."

The Royal Society wrote in 2002 that any additional risks of a person developing deadly cancer from radiation after being internally exposed to military uses of DU "are likely to be undetectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime."

The exceptions would be a "very small fraction" of soldiers, such as those who survive a strike on a vehicle by DU munitions, the Royal Society added.

Retired Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, who previously commanded U.K. and NATO chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense (CBRN) forces, told Newsweek that the "radiation is incredibly low."

"If you're in a vehicle that's hit by a depleted uranium round, the radiation is the least of your worries," he added.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said that DU is "considerably less radioactive than natural uranium," and there is a risk of people developing cancer from exposure to radiation emitted by natural and depleted uranium.

However, there is a "lack of evidence for a definite cancer risk in studies over many decades" for depleted uranium munitions, the IAEA said. The agency said DU is "assumed to be potentially carcinogenic," but there is a lack of evidence for a "definite cancer risk."

People can be exposed to depleted uranium through inhalation, ingestion, and through the skin, according to the World Health Organization. When a DU round strikes a hard surface, it releases dust, which can "be a health hazard in some circumstances, the U.K. government previously said.

The health effects come down to the "physical and chemical nature" of the depleted uranium, as well as the quantity and for how long a person is exposed to DU, the WHO added in a study published in 2001.

DU munitions have been used by U.S. and U.K. forces for decades, and were common from the Gulf War through the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, there were "possible associations between exposure to depleted uranium and adverse health outcomes" for Iraqi citizens living in areas where DU munitions were used in the Gulf War and Iraq War, a 2021 study by the British Medical Journal found. More research was needed, the authors of the study added.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs listed DU as a "potential health hazard if it enters the body," whether through inhalation, ingestion, embedded fragments or wounds.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which opposes the use of DU munitions, has called for a "full, long-term and independent epidemiological study on all the locations where depleted uranium has been used."

"There have been a large number of studies detailing the very dangerous health and environmental impacts of the military use of depleted uranium, yet the U.K. and the U.S. refuse to openly acknowledge the risks," CND Chair Tom Unterrainer told Newsweek.

DU munitions produce "microscopic radioactive and chemically toxic particles that are distributed over the area surrounding the impact and which can then travel far and wide," Unterrainer said.

"It is these particles that produce long-term health and environmental effects," he added.

The "radioactivity is something of a red herring, as the real danger appears to lie in its toxicity as a heavy metal," Hambling argued. The WHO said that the "chemical toxicity" is considered alongside the "radiological" toxicity, with DU likely to target the kidneys and the lungs over other internal organs.

[saturno]

Una de ovnis, a cuenta del citado Kim Dotcom


https://twitter.com/i/status/1658342630185660417

[sudden and sharp]

Poco más de un año de diferencia.

[Reiter]

De momento, aunque cada vez menos, queda margen para disentir.

The U.S. Should Be a Force for Peace in the World

The Russia-Ukraine War has been an unmitigated disaster. Hundreds of thousands have been killed or wounded. Millions have been displaced. Environmental and economic destruction have been incalculable. Future devastation could be exponentially greater as nuclear powers creep ever closer toward open war.

We deplore the violence, war crimes, indiscriminate missile strikes, terrorism, and other atrocities that are part of this war. The solution to this shocking violence is not more weapons or more war, with their guarantee of further death and destruction.

As Americans and national security experts, we urge President Biden and Congress to use their full power to end the Russia-Ukraine War speedily through diplomacy, especially given the grave dangers of military escalation that could spiral out of control.

Sixty years ago, President John F. Kennedy made an observation that is crucial for our survival today. “Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.”

The immediate cause of this disastrous war in Ukraine is Russia’s invasion. Yet the plans and actions to expand NATO to Russia’s borders served to provoke Russian fears. And Russian leaders made this point for 30 years. A failure of diplomacy led to war. Now diplomacy is urgently needed to end the Russia-Ukraine War before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.

The Potential for Peace

Russia’s current geopolitical anxiety is informed by memories of invasion from Charles XII, Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. U.S. troops were among an Allied invasion force that intervened unsuccessfully against the winning side in Russia’s post-World War I civil war. Russia sees NATO enlargement and presence on its borders as a direct threat; the U.S. and NATO see only prudent preparedness. In diplomacy, one must attempt to see with strategic empathy, seeking to understand one’s adversaries. This is not weakness: it is wisdom.

We reject the idea that diplomats, seeking peace, must choose sides, in this case either Russia or Ukraine. In favoring diplomacy we choose the side of sanity. Of humanity. Of peace.

We consider President Biden’s promise to back Ukraine “as long as it takes” to be a license to pursue ill-defined and ultimately unachievable goals. It could prove as catastrophic as President Putin’s decision last year to launch his criminal invasion and occupation. We cannot and will not endorse the strategy of fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

We advocate for a meaningful and genuine commitment to diplomacy, specifically an immediate ceasefire and negotiations without any disqualifying or prohibitive preconditions. Deliberate provocations delivered the Russia-Ukraine War. In the same manner, deliberate diplomacy can end it.

U.S. Actions and Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

As the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended, U.S. and Western European leaders assured Soviet and then Russian leaders that NATO would not expand toward Russia’s borders. “There would be no extension of…NATO one inch to the east,” U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990. Similar assurances from other U.S. leaders as well as from British, German and French leaders throughout the 1990s confirm this.

Since 2007, Russia has repeatedly warned that NATO’s armed forces on Russian borders were intolerable – just as Russian forces in Mexico or Canada would be intolerable to the U.S. now, or as Soviet missiles in Cuba were in 1962. Russia further singled out NATO expansion into Ukraine as especially provocative.

Seeing the War Through Russia’s Eyes

Our attempt at understanding the Russian perspective on their war does not endorse the invasion and occupation, nor does it imply the Russians had no other option but this war.

Yet, just as Russia had other options, so too did the U.S. and NATO leading up to this moment.

The Russians made their red lines clear. In Georgia and Syria, they proved they would use force to defend those lines. In 2014, their immediate seizure of Crimea and their support of Donbas separatists demonstrated they were serious in their commitment to defending their interests. Why this was not understood by U.S. and NATO leadership is unclear; incompetence, arrogance, cynicism, or a treacherous mixture of all three are likely contributing factors.

Again, even as the Cold War ended, U.S. diplomats, generals and politicians were warning of the dangers of expanding NATO to Russia’s borders and of maliciously interfering in Russia’s sphere of influence. Former Cabinet officials Robert Gates and William Perry issued these warnings, as did venerated diplomats George Kennan, Jack Matlock and Henry Kissinger. In 1997, fifty senior U.S. foreign policy experts wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton advising him not to expand NATO, calling it “a policy error of historic proportions.” President Clinton chose to ignore these warnings.

Most important to our understanding of the hubris and Machiavellian calculation in U.S. decision-making surrounding the Russia-Ukraine War is the dismissal of the warnings issued by Williams Burns, the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In a cable to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008, while serving as Ambassador to Russia, Burns wrote of NATO expansion and Ukrainian membership:

“Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.”

Why did the U.S. persist in expanding NATO despite such warnings? Profit from weapons sales was a major factor. Facing opposition to NATO expansion, a group of neoconservatives and top executives of U.S. weapons manufacturers formed the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO. Between 1996 and 1998, the largest arms manufacturers spent $51 million ($94 million today) on lobbying and millions more on campaign contributions. With this largesse, NATO expansion quickly became a done deal, after which U.S. weapons manufacturers sold billions of dollars of weapons to the new NATO members.

So far, the U.S. has sent $30 billion worth of military gear and weapons to Ukraine, with total aid to Ukraine exceeding $100 billion. War, it’s been said, is a racket, one that is highly profitable for a select few.

NATO expansion, in sum, is a key feature of a militarized U.S. foreign policy characterized by unilateralism featuring regime change and preemptive wars. Failed wars, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, have produced slaughter and further confrontation, a harsh reality of America’s own making. The Russia-Ukraine War has opened a new arena of confrontation and slaughter. This reality is not entirely of our own making, yet it may well be our undoing, unless we dedicate ourselves to forging a diplomatic settlement that stops the killing and defuses tensions.

Let’s make America a force for peace in the world.


SIGNERS

Dennis Fritz, Director, Eisenhower Media Network; Command Chief Master Sergeant, US Air Force (retired)
Matthew Hoh, Associate Director, Eisenhower Media Network; Former Marine Corps officer, and State and Defense official.
William J. Astore, Lieutenant Colonel, US Air Force (retired)
Karen Kwiatkowski, Lieutenant Colonel, US Air Force (retired)
Dennis Laich, Major General, US Army (retired)
Jack Matlock, U.S. Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., 1987-91; author of Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended
Todd E. Pierce, Major, Judge Advocate, U.S. Army (retired)
Coleen Rowley, Special Agent, FBI (retired)
Jeffrey Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University
Christian Sorensen, Former Arabic linguist, US Air Force
Chuck Spinney, Retired Engineer/Analyst, Office of Secretary of Defense
Winslow Wheeler, National security adviser to four Republican and Democratic US
Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Colonel, US Army (retired)
Ann Wright, Colonel, US Army (retired) and former US diplomat


TIMELINE

1990 – U.S. assures Russia that NATO will not expand towards its border “…there would be no extension of…NATO one inch to the east,” says US Secretary of State James Baker.

1996 – U.S. weapons manufacturers form the Committee to Expand NATO, spending over $51 million lobbying Congress.

1997 – 50 foreign policy experts including former senators, retired military officers and diplomats sign an open letter stating NATO expansion to be “a policy error of historic proportions.”

1999 – NATO admits Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to NATO. U.S. and NATO bomb Russia’s ally, Serbia.

2001 – U.S. unilaterally withdraws from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

2004 – Seven more Eastern European nations join NATO. NATO troops are now directly on Russia’s border.

2004 – Russia’s parliament passed a resolution denouncing NATO’s expansion. Putin responded by saying that Russia would “build our defense and security policy correspondingly.”

2008 – NATO leaders announced plans to bring Ukraine and Georgia, also on Russia’s borders, into NATO.

2009 – U.S. announced plans to put missile systems into Poland and Romania.

2014 – Legally elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, fled violence to Moscow. Russia views ouster as a coup by U.S. and NATO nations.

2016 – U.S. begins troop buildup in Europe.

2019 – U.S. unilaterally withdraws from Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.

2020 – U.S. unilaterally withdraws from Open Skies Treaty.

2021 – Russia submits negotiation proposals while sending more forces to the border with Ukraine. U.S. and NATO officials reject the Russian proposals immediately.

Feb 24, 2022 – Russia invades Ukraine, starting the Russia-Ukraine War.

https://eisenhowermedianetwork.org/russia-ukraine-war-peace/

 

[sudden and sharp]

The US is still assessing to what degree the system was damaged, the official said. That will determine whether the system needs to be pulled back entirely or simply repaired on the spot by Ukrainians forces.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-damage-ukraine/index.html][url]https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-damage-ukraine/index.html[/url]

[Vipamo]

Un poco de historia para los que les interese. Asombrosos los paralelismos de Napoleón, operación Barbarossa y lo que tenemos hoy en día.


Es en inglés: https://youtu.be/byH2WhzXjcQ

[el malo]

De momento, aunque cada vez menos, queda margen para disentir.

The U.S. Should Be a Force for Peace in the World

The Russia-Ukraine War has been an unmitigated disaster. Hundreds of thousands have been killed or wounded. Millions have been displaced. Environmental and economic destruction have been incalculable. Future devastation could be exponentially greater as nuclear powers creep ever closer toward open war.

[..]

No cito todo el post para que sea más legible. Por fin un poco de sentido común en las filas occidentales (en las rusas imagino que también lo habrá, pero quedarán silenciadas internamente).

Esto mismo que dice el artículo (muy bien expuesto) lo llevamos diciendo muchos desde el día uno. ¿Qué c*ño pinta la OTAN tocándole los coj.. a Rusia en su patio trasero? Billones de dólares en venta de armas.

J*der con los pacifistas demócratas. El buenrollista Clinton, el mismo que se iba de copas con Gorbachov, empezó el trabajo.

[Saturio]

Una de ovnis, a cuenta del citado Kim Dotcom


https://twitter.com/i/status/1658342630185660417

Lo siento, Saturno. No hay ninguna evidencia de que todo eso que se está viendo ser disparado sean Patriots. Y tampoco que el sistema de lanzamiento sea lo que se ve arder.


No digo que no puedan surgir en el futuro pero esas imágenes muestran muchos misiles siendo lanzados, yo diría que desde diferentes sistemas de armas colocados en diferentes puntos, pero no lo puedo asegurar.

Efectivamente hay canales de youtube diciendo que la contraofensiva ucraniana de primavera está empezando. Lo llevan diciendo desde hace dos meses. Y es falso. Y no nos lo creemos. Tampoco tenemos que creernos la otra propaganda.

Rusia ya no tienen nada que hacer en esta guerra, salvo defender sus posiciones actuales. Ucrania no va a poder hacer nada en mucho tiempo, cuando haya formado un ejército nuevo con nuevas armas y equipo, nueva estructura logística y de mando...