Q: How should one view the great upheavals that are taking place in the Communist world? People are saying it’s the end of the Cold War and now there’ll be world peace.
A: We should view the upheavals with fearful anticipation. Don’t think the Cold War has ended like the fools say. It hasn’t ended at all. Because all while this is going on, Russia is shipping billions of dollars of armaments into Nicaragua. Right now! They’re getting the biggest military supplies. Right now, they sending weapons from Russia to Cuba and to Nicaragua and to all the Communist places! They’re not letting up a bit.
Only the foolish Americans are being taken in by all this and therefore, the liberals are reducing the American army. All the military installations are being dismantled. “We don’t need any more Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI,” they say. “We can trust Russia from now on. There’s going to be one world with happiness and good times.”
It’s as foolish as could be. Russia has not the slightest intention of giving up its plan of world conquest. You should know that. And there’s no question at all about it.
nobody thinks this is “peace deal” this is a deal to stop the blood bath and stop it continuing into a WWlll! hope they succeed!
maybe we’ll have peace in our times. Ask Neville Chamberlain how acquiescing to dictators in the name of peace works out.
Ben:
Do you support sending troops to Ukraine? Not even American troops. British and French troops.
Here is the issue, the facts currently on the ground support a peace agreement along the current front lines with Ukraine ceding the occupied Ukrainian territories and Russia ceding the occupied Russian or perhaps incorporating a swap to minimize changes to territorial boundaries.
This is not equal to Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our times”. That was a preemptive annexation as an appeasement with the hopes that it would avert war. In this case, war is already here. Now the goal is to end it.
What would be closer to the equivalent of “peace in our times, is handing over unoccupied territories in exchange for a ceasefire with no security guarantees.
If you want to change the terms of a peace agreement, you must change the reality on the ground.
Ukraine has shown an incredible capability to hold the Russians back using the international aid provided, but falls short in capacity for large scale operations to consistently take or retake significant swaths of land.
What it seems would be necessary to change the reality on the ground is another force entering Ukraine, crossing the front lines and swiftly taking territory.
The downside of such an action is that it would enable the Russians to open any as yet unopened cans of worms.
Whether that means having Belarus join the war, or it means a limited nuclear strike remains to be seen. This is the main reason I equivocate on such an action.
What should have happened at the outset of the war is that the USA and Great Britain should have invoked the Budapest memorandum and positioned themselves to send large numbers of well equipped troops to swiftly defeat the Russians. This likely would have resulted in a quick and bloodless withdrawal.
Unfortunately, the President and his circle were indecisive at the time which gave us the current status quo.
Which President was indecisive about what?
Russia is communist?
No, but New York, New Jersey and California are.
What did he think about arming Ukrainian Nazis?
This Q & A is dated 1990 before the collapse of communist Russia and therefore doesn’t necessarily apply to today’s (probable) dictatorship in Russia.