Sagamu Cult Clash

12:34, 19th Sep, 2023 BY ARISENEWS
Ogun Governor Abiodun Orders Crackdown on Cultists in Sagamu As Cult Clash Leaves About 20 People Dead
Regional
He said a new security approach in collaboration with critical stakeholders will be implemented.

Ogun State Governor, Mr. Dapo Abiodun, has directed security agencies in the state to rid Sagamu and its environs of the menace of cultists and cult-related activities in the state.

This was just as no fewer than 20 young men were feared dead in Sagamu, headquarters of Sagamu Local Government area of Ogun State, during clashes between the two rival cult groups, who engaged each other in supremacy battle in the town.

The directive from the governor came as the renewed clashes among rival cult gangs in the town raised tension and panic among residents of the town.

But the security agents are already on ground in the troubled town to restore normalcy.

Abiodun, in a statement by his Chief Press Secretary, Lekan Adeniran, regretted the avoidable loss of innocent lives and wanton destruction of properties by the hoodlums.

According to him, the police and sister security agencies have been given directives to deal ruthlessly and decisively with those disturbing the peace of the town.

Reiterating the state government’s zero tolerance to acts of brigandage and lawlessness, Abiodun warned that those responsible for this current crisis would find themselves to blame.

He said: ” As a responsible and responsive government, we are very sad with the resurgence of activities of criminal elements under different outlawed groups, raising unnecessary tension in the sleepy town of Sagamu and its environs.

“Let me categorically state that we are more than determined to put an end quickly to the nefarious activities of these hoodlums and enemies of our people; who are hell bent to truncate the peace of our land.

“Let these urchins be rest assured that the state will be too hot for them to operate as we are reevaluating the security architecture for greater surveillance and tactical operation.”

The governor noted that the new security approach would be implemented in collaboration with the traditional institution, community and religious leaders, youth groups as well as other critical stakeholders.

Abiodun, therefore, appealed to the people to provide adequate and useful information to security agents for prompt response to prevent future occurrences.

It was gathered that among the casualties of the clash, which started on Friday, were secondary schools students

Speaking on the development on the condition of anonymity, a resident of Sagamu lamented that the town had been on edge since Friday, as people go about in fear, so as not to be victims of stray bullets from the cultists.

The source listed Agbowa behind Ewusi Palace, Makun, Ijagba, Ajaka, Isale Oko and Sabo as centres of the mindless killings in the ancient town.

The source said, “those boys have started killing themselves since Friday. As we speak, they must have killed about 20 people but many of these victims were innocent.

“For instance, three secondary schools’ students who had gone to cut their hairs on Sunday in preparation for the school resumption today, Monday were gunned down around Sabo.

“The target was actually the owner of the barbing saloon, but when he wasn’t found there, the cultists decided to kill those that were found in the shop. “About four people were also killed on Ode Lemo road under the same circumstances. The target of the cultists was also not around when they came calling in the middle of the night, but they killed the four people they met in his room. It is terrible and no one can really say this is why they are fighting.”

Reacting to the killings in Sagamu on his X handle, the Nigeria Police Force Public Relations Officer, Muyiwa Adejobi, said the situation goes beyond the deployment of an anti-cultism squad only, stressing that all hands must be on the deck.

He wrote, “Sagamu case goes beyond the mere anti-cultism squad. The elders know how to handle them. The politicians know what to do. I was in their midst in Sagamu between 2006 and 2008. But no single cult clash before I left in 2008. I worked then with the late Akarigbo, Oba Michael Sonariwo and others.”

The Force PRO added that the Ogun State Commissioner of Police, Mr. Abiodun Alamutu, should look inward and take action on the report by some residents that the cultists are well known to security agents.

“I will engage the CP on this. Whoever is dealing with cultists and criminals must not compromise. That person must stand firm, and operate against all odds.”

Adejobi added, “Most of those who cause this wahala (problem) in Sagamu are not even Sagamites. At times, they come from Ijebu Ode or Ago Iwoye to strike and move. In some cases, they come as far as Edo State. It’s a problem that the whole system must tackle, not only the security forces. It requires multi-track diplomacy.

“We will discuss this with the CP and take the necessary steps. In Sagamu, almost every young one is a cultist. Okada riders, artisans, etc. are into cultism even more than students, and I think the whole town and Remoland, in general, should take action on it.

“I think the community should rise up to it. They should have an urgent meeting with the heads of all the quarters in Sagamu with the police and vigilante group to address this matter. Sagamites know and understand what I am saying here. I worked in Sagamu for almost 2 years.”

When contacted, the spokesperson of the Ogun State Police Command, Omolola Odutola said the number of those killed wasn’t up to 20, but failed to state the actual figures.

James Sowole in Abeokuta


REGIONAL
26th Sep, 2023

© 2023 Arise News - Part of the Arise Media Group.

Arise News
en ▼

Badadvisor:

He's a bird.
Seems like he tried to cross carpet and all of that. His issues is really complicated.

He carpeted before his last show which he did for D'general bitters in Ikorodu.

Go check cubanachief priest and zlantan ibile histogram page you will see him behind both using the fingers x sign.

If you know you know ..

When will this stop!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7aocBcHGHQ

When will all these wars end? # Say No To Cultism


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_or_YwsUU4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOK1G7i0w-E

Why war when we can all live in peace?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_or_YwsUU4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOK1G7i0w-E

People should stay away from Cultism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGH4S8FtsaI

Be careful.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Bc9mzwgTk

Too many unnecessary deaths on both sides.
Many ain't even talked about.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDvYVPFzKZQ

Cultism is evil, So many deaths on both side! Most are not even captured or talked about.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDvYVPFzKZQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUZItLa718w

:oHe wasn't caught or killed by rival axe(Aye) but was chased by area boys after he brought down a rival, they beat him up and handed him to the police who took him away as he is said to be on police wanted list.

Bill tv gives better and more accurate update than Nigeria view.

Nigeria view is mixing up happenings and not posting some happenings, like Epe own which Bill tv updated.

Anyway Nigeria view is trying but it needs to carryout more investigation on the information the guy received before posting so that people can know exactly what's happening.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUZItLa718w

Eight dead in bloody Edo cult war
pmnewsnigeria.comJun 30, 2022 12:00 PM
No fewer than eight people have been reportedly killed in the last 24 hours in a fierce rivalry between two cult confraternities, in Benin, Edo State.

The incident has set the state capital boiling, with the eight confirmed deaths occurring at various locations in the city.

Two of the victims were reportedly killed at Uselu-Ugbowo axis of Benin, while Irhirhi, Ogunmwenhi, and Egor axis have one casualty each, making a total of five killed on Wednesday in the clash.

It was also gathered that three more were killed in the early hours of Thursday in the Egor axis, all in one place and at the same time, making a total of eight deaths within twenty-four hours.

At the time of writing this report, details of circumstances leading to the cult war still remain unknown.

Calls made to the Edo State Police Command’s Public Relations Officer, SP Chidi Nwabuzor, for confirmation were unsuccessful.

#SayNoToCultism#

Eight dead in bloody Edo cult war
pmnewsnigeria.comJun 30, 2022 12:00 PM
No fewer than eight people have been reportedly killed in the last 24 hours in a fierce rivalry between two cult confraternities, in Benin, Edo State.

The incident has set the state capital boiling, with the eight confirmed deaths occurring at various locations in the city.

Two of the victims were reportedly killed at Uselu-Ugbowo axis of Benin, while Irhirhi, Ogunmwenhi, and Egor axis have one casualty each, making a total of five killed on Wednesday in the clash.

It was also gathered that three more were killed in the early hours of Thursday in the Egor axis, all in one place and at the same time, making a total of eight deaths within twenty-four hours.

At the time of writing this report, details of circumstances leading to the cult war still remain unknown.

Calls made to the Edo State Police Command’s Public Relations Officer, SP Chidi Nwabuzor, for confirmation were unsuccessful.

#SayNoToCultism#

Eight dead in bloody Edo cult war
pmnewsnigeria.comJun 30, 2022 12:00 PM
No fewer than eight people have been reportedly killed in the last 24 hours in a fierce rivalry between two cult confraternities, in Benin, Edo State.

The incident has set the state capital boiling, with the eight confirmed deaths occurring at various locations in the city.

Two of the victims were reportedly killed at Uselu-Ugbowo axis of Benin, while Irhirhi, Ogunmwenhi, and Egor axis have one casualty each, making a total of five killed on Wednesday in the clash.

It was also gathered that three more were killed in the early hours of Thursday in the Egor axis, all in one place and at the same time, making a total of eight deaths within twenty-four hours.

At the time of writing this report, details of circumstances leading to the cult war still remain unknown.

Calls made to the Edo State Police Command’s Public Relations Officer, SP Chidi Nwabuzor, for confirmation were unsuccessful.

#SayNoToCultism#

Saw this and don't know who is lying.

Ukraine said they lost less than 3k Ukrainian fighters and killed about 20k Russians days ago but Russia is saying they have killed 23,367 Ukrainian fighters.

Who dey lie?

MOSCOW, April 17. /TASS/. Russian State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin on Sunday said Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky wants to buy time by expressing readiness for talks while also seeking help from NATO.
Volodin was reacting to Zelensky’s statement that Ukraine is ready to discuss abandoning its bid to join NATO and the status of Crimea with Russia, but not until Moscow halts hostilities and withdraws its troops.
"He said the same before the talks in Turkey when our troops were near Kiev," Volodin said on Telegram. "Russia reduced activity in that area and pulled out troops. And then there were the Bucha staging and other provocations. "Kiev then "gave up the commitments it had accepted."
"The same scenario is on the table again," the speaker said. "The reason is obvious.
Volodin said Zelensky should pull troops from the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and make some other decisions if he cares about the people of his country. The Duma speaker said the Ukrainian armed forces already lost 23,367 people while 1,464 people surrendered in Mariupol as of yesterday and another 2,500 are blocked at the city’s Azovstal plant.
"If Zelensky cares about the people of Ukraine, he should immediately make the following decisions," Volodin said. "First, pull troops from the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. Second, put it down in an agreement that Ukraine commits to recognize Crimea and adopt a non-bloc status and de-Nazify and demilitarize the country."
"There can be no other way about it," the speaker said.
TAGS
Military operation in Ukraine

FireTheSun:


Forget all these slanted, Propaganda news.
Slovakia supplied the ONLY S-300 it has, a symbolic show of force, for such a tiny country.
It did so because America promised to replace any country's Arsenal that was sent to Ukraine.
Even Poland wanted to use the opportunity to "UPGRADE" its Fighter Jets from the Soviet era MiGs Fighters to American F-16s, so it sent 29 of them to Germany, something needed next door in Ukraine, and asked America to take it to Ukraine by itself. .

America refused to send them to Ukraine by itself and asked Poland to come and carry its stuff, if it cannot send it to hi sneighbour that needs it. That day, l nearly died of laughter.


If Solvakia doe snot own the S-300 that Russia destroyed, how come it is telling its Citizens not to worry , that the "Allies" have assured them of Security and new patriot Sysytems?

I think l even posted the News and Source, on page 7 of this thread.

I read lots of stuffs and check to know the truth and discovered western propagandas and denials are more than the truth the west put out.

Me self dey laugh.

Russia says it struck S-300 systems given to Ukraine by EU state
Russia’s defence ministry did not specify which country provided the missile system it said to have destroyed.
Russia said it destroyed four S-300 launchers concealed in a hangar in Ukraine [File: Sergey Pivovarov/Reuters]
Russia says it had destroyed anti-aircraft missile systems supplied to Ukraine by a European state, without specifying which country provided the equipment.
Defence Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said on Monday Russian Kalibr missiles destroyed on Sunday four S-300 launchers concealed in a hangar on the outskirts of the central-eastern Ukrainian city of Dnipro, hitting 25 Ukrainian soldiers in the attack.
Slovakia, which had donated such a missile system to Ukraine last week, denied that the one it supplied had been struck. The prime minister’s office issued a statement calling Russian reports that its S-300 system had been destroyed “disinformation”. It was unclear, however, whether both sides were referring to the same strike.
There was no immediate comment by Ukrainian authorities.
The Russian defence ministry said its forces targeted missile defence systems in three different locations in recent days. They also shot down two Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft near the city of Izyum and destroyed two ammunition depots, one of which was near the southern city of Mykolaiv, it added.
The Pentagon said Russia has a clear advantage in armoured forces for its
next phase in its war on Ukraine, which will focus on the eastern region of Donbas.
Press secretary John Kirby said Russian forces had spread themselves too thin to take the capital, Kyiv, following the February 24 invasion, but they were refocusing on a smaller region and still had the vast majority of their combat power.
The United States on Friday said it had
sent a Patriot missile defence system to Slovakia to replace the S-300 air defence systems sent to Ukraine.
“Now is no time for complacency,” US President Joe Biden said when announcing the Patriot transfer. “As the Russian military repositions for the next phase of this war, I have directed my administration to continue to spare no effort to identify and provide to the Ukrainian military the advanced weapons capabilities it needs to defend its country.”
US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said the system, as well as a team of US soldiers to operate it, will arrive in Slovakia in the coming days and remain there for an undefined duration.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

22 Feb, 2022 17:04
Why isn’t America listening to the advice on NATO expansion of its foremost 20th century expert on Russia?
“Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era,” George Kennan said
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of 'Midnight in the American Empire,' How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream. @Robert_Bridge
FILE PHOTO. George Kennan. © Getty Images / Bettmann
The US diplomat George Kennan, an astute observer of Soviet Russia under Stalin, offered his observations later in life on the question of NATO expansion. The tragedy of our times is that those views are being ignored.
Winston Churchill once famously quipped that the “Americans will always do the right thing, but only after all other possibilities are exhausted.” That bit of dry British humor cuts to the heart of the current crisis in Ukraine, which is loaded with enough geopolitical dynamite to bring down a sizable chunk of the neighborhood. Yet, had the West taken the advice of one of its leading statesmen with regards to reckless military expansion toward Russia, the world would be a more peaceful and predictable place today.
George Kennan is perhaps best known as the US diplomat and historian who composed on February 22, 1946 the ‘Long Telegram’ , a 5,400-word cable dispatched from the US embassy in Moscow to Washington that advised on the peaceful “containment” of the Soviet Union. That stroke of analytical brilliance, which Henry Kissinger hailed as “the diplomatic doctrine of his era,” provided the intellectual groundwork for grappling with the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin as ultimately enshrined in the ‘Truman Doctrine’.
Inside the fetid corridors of power, however, where the more hawkish Dean Acheson had replaced the ailing George Marshall in 1949 as secretary of state, Kennan and his more temperate views on how to deal with capitalism’s arch rival had already passed its expiration date. Such is the fickleness of fate, where the arrival of a single new actor on the global stage can alter the course of history’s river forever. Thus, having lost his influence with the Truman administration, Kennan eventually began teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study, where he remained until his death in 2005. Just because George Kennan was no longer with the State Department, however, didn’t mean that he stopped ruffling the feathers of predators.
In 1997, with Washington elves hard at work on a NATO membership drive for Central Europe, particularly those countries that once formed the core of the Soviet-era Warsaw Pact, Kennan pulled the alarm. Writing in the pages of the New York Times, he warned that ongoing NATO expansion toward Russia
“would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”
Particularly perplexing to the former diplomat was that the US and its allies were expanding the military bloc at a time when Russia, then experiencing the severe birth pains of capitalism atop the smoldering ruins of communism, posed no threat to anyone aside from itself.
“It is … unfortunate that Russia should be confronted with such a challenge at a time when its executive power is in a state of high uncertainty and near-paralysis,” Kennan wrote.
He went on to express his frustration that, despite all of the “hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the cold war,” relations between East and West are becoming predicated on the question of “who would be allied with whom” in some “improbable future military conflict.”
In other words, had Western dream weavers just let things work themselves out naturally, Russia and the West would have found the will and the way to live side-by-side in relative harmony. One example of such mutual cooperation is evident by the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a bilateral project between Moscow and Berlin that hinges on trust and goodwill above all. Who needs to travel around the world for war booty when capitalism offers more than enough opportunities for elitist pillage right at home? Yet the United States, having snorted from the mirror of power for so long, will never be satisfied with the spectacle of Russians and Europeans playing nice together.
As for the Russians, Kennan continued, they would be forced to accept NATO’s program of expansionism as a “military fait accompli,” thereby finding it imperative to search elsewhere for “ guarantees of a secure and hopeful future for themselves.”
Needless to say, Kennan’s warnings fell on deaf ears. On March 12, 1999, then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, an acolyte of geopolitical guru and ultimate Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski, formally
welcomed the former Warsaw Pact countries of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the NATO fold. Since 1949, NATO has grown from its original 12 members to thirty, two of which share a border with Russia in the Baltic States of Estonian and Latvia, which has been the site of massive NATO military exercises in the past.
So while it is impossible to say how things would be different between Russia and the West had the US heeded Kennan’s sage advice, it’s a good bet the world wouldn’t be perched on the precipice of a regional war over Ukraine, which has become a center of a standoff between Moscow and NATO.
Russia certainly does not feel more secure as NATO hardware moves inexorably toward its border. Vladimir Putin let these sentiments be known 15 years ago during the Munich Security Conference when he told the assembled attendees: “I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?”
Today, with Kiev actively pursuing NATO membership for Ukraine, and the West stubbornly refusing to acknowledge Moscow’s declared ‘red lines’, outlined in two draft treaties sent to Washington and NATO in December, the situation looks grim. What the West must understand, however, is that Russia is no longer the special needs country it was just 20 years ago. It has the ability – diplomatic or otherwise – to address the perceived threats on its territory. There has even been talk of Russia, taking its cue from NATO’s reckless expansion in Europe, building military alliances in South America and the Caribbean.
Last month, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reported that President Putin had spoken with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, for the purpose of stepping up collaboration in a range of areas, including military matters.
With each passing day it is becoming more apparent that had Kennan’s more realistic vision of regional cooperation been accepted, the world would not find itself at such a dangerous crossroads today. Fortunately, there is still time to reconsider the advice of America’s brilliant diplomat if it is peace that Washington truly desires.

Russia aims to ward off NATO in the event of a Ukraine invasion
By Paul Sonne and Ellen Nakashima
February 15, 2022 at 8:41 p.m. EST
As Russian President Vladimir Putin sends mixed signals about his willingness to invade Ukraine, his military continues to undertake activities that appear designed not only to ready an offensive but to thwart any attempt by the United States and NATO to intervene, according to Western officials and analysts.
Get the full experience. Choose your plan
President Biden, who on Tuesday warned that Russian forces around Ukraine now number 150,000 even as Moscow claimed that some of its forces had pulled back , has explicitly ruled out the possibility of deploying U.S. troops to combat an invasion. Such a move, the president has said, would risk another world war. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has made similar pronouncements about Western military intervention.
[Biden says U.S. has not verified a pullback of Russian troops from Ukraine’s border, despite Moscow’s claims]
The prospect of a large-scale nuclear exercise, the presence of sophisticated air defenses in Belarus and elsewhere, and an array of powerful naval assets spread throughout the Black and Mediterranean seas have underscored to Western capitals just how difficult and dangerous
any attempted intervention would be.
The Kremlin, said Samuel Charap, a Russia specialist and senior political scientist at the Rand Corp., is looking to “abundantly disincentivize” the alliance even from contemplating coming to Ukraine’s aid militarily. “The way the Russians have thought about this kind of an operation is they have two problems to solve,” he said. “One is the immediate issue of outgunning smaller adversaries along their periphery like Ukraine, and the other is deterring NATO — the U.S., really.”
Follow a battalion commander through the trenches of eastern Ukraine as he prepares his troops for a possible Russian invasion. (Whitney Shefte, Whitney Leaming, Erin Patrick O'Connor/The Washington Post)
[West prepares to sharpen eastern defenses if Russia invades Ukraine ]
Russian state news media have reported that the country plans to hold its annual strategic nuclear exercises during the first half of this year, earlier than usual. U.S. and European officials have said they expected those drills to begin this month, potentially to coincide with an invasion of Ukraine, but thus far there are no public indications that has happened.
A senior Western intelligence official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive security matter, said that the intent of such an exercise would be to “send a message to the West — that ‘we have strategic capabilities, and if we’re pushed too far, we might use them.’ ”
Mathieu Boulègue, a research fellow in the Russia and Eurasia program at London-based Chatham House, said, too, that it could be calibrated to hold NATO at arm’s length while Russia proceeds with an invasion.
“It is a signal sent to the West and to NATO in particular saying, ‘Don’t move,’ ” Boulègue said. “ ‘Don’t try anything stupid because we can quickly escalate to the nuclear threshold if we need to.’ ”
Putin put Russia’s nuclear forces on alert while he annexed Crimea from neighboring Ukraine in 2014, stating later that year, as Russia escalated its backing for separatist fighters in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, that, “It is best not to mess with us when it comes to a possible armed conflict.” Russia, he told the audience comprising participants in a Kremlin youth camp, “is one of the leading nuclear powers.”
Putin made a similar statement during a news conference this month with French President Emmanuel Macron in Moscow, warning that if Ukraine were to join NATO and attempt to take back Crimea, European countries would end up in a military conflict with Russia.
“Of course, NATO’s united potential and that of Russia are incomparable,” Putin said. “We understand that, but we also understand that Russia is one of the world’s leading nuclear powers and is superior to many of those countries in terms of the number of modern nuclear force components.”
[Russian military move into Belarus poses risks to more than Ukraine ]
Separately, joint military exercises between Russia and Belarus, scheduled to conclude Sunday, are aimed at demonstrating Moscow’s capability in addition to potentially providing cover for an invasion of Ukraine from the north, the senior Western intelligence official said.
Those exercises have included S-400 air defense systems positioned very close to the Polish border. They are capable of shooting down planes and missiles, and reaching into NATO territory.
Positioning the S-400s there is part of a broader move by the Russians to complicate the airspace in a way that would deter Western intervention. In addition, the missiles that military analysts say Russia has placed in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, Belarus, in Russian territory near Ukraine and in the Black Sea, when combined with the S-400s, would make a flight into Ukraine by U.S. or allied aircraft incredibly risky if not impossible in the event of a full-blown conflict. Those moves also pose threats to NATO over the Baltics.
“I’m confident,” the senior intelligence official said, “that the so-called ‘exercise’ is also intended to put Russian troops and advance Russian capability into a geographic position to send a message to the alliance that, ‘Look, if you seek to operate in that airspace, whether to do a noncombatant evacuation from Ukraine or if you intended to intercede militarily in this, you would have to fly through our engagement zone and those air defenses.’ ”
[In their shared sea, Ukraine and Russia already risk direct conflict every day ]
Russia underscored its naval powers and regular proximity to U.S. and NATO vessels with a massive exercise Tuesday in the Mediterranean. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu observed the drills, which state news agency Tass said involved more than 15 combat ships from Russia’s Pacific, Northern and Black Sea fleets.
Russia also has moved a fleet of naval vessels into the Black Sea, including Ropucha-class landing ships designed to invade territory through beach landings. A Russian Kilo-class submarine, which can hit targets with Kalibr cruise missiles similar to American Tomahawks, was
spotted this week passing through the Bosporus into the Black Sea. Notices closing large parts of the Sea of Azov were issued but later lifted, underscoring Russia’s ability to blockade Ukraine.
It’s a signal, said retired Adm. James G. Foggo III, former commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, that “it will be a combined land, air and sea campaign.”
Beyond the possible involvement in a Ukraine invasion, the large naval presence shows Russia’s ability to cause problems for the three NATO members that also have vital Black Sea coastlines.
Russia’s past muscling of Ukraine in the Sea of Azov — Russian authorities fired on three Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait in 2018 and captured 24 of their sailors in a protracted dispute — raises the prospect of broader challenges in the Black Sea. The current Russian presence could complicate trips by NATO warships into the waters.
Foggo said U.S. warships would continue to go into the Black Sea but that doing so now would risk exacerbating existing tensions.
“I think we will continue to go in there and flex our muscles,” he added, “but right now … it could make matters worse.”
Russia-Ukraine tensions: What you need to know
The latest
What’s happening in the Ukraine-Russia crisis |
Putin has decided to invade Ukraine, Biden says |
Ukraine’s Lviv becomes ‘western capital’ as some diplomats leave Kyiv | In Ukraine’s Donbas region, war is an ever-present reality
The geography
Four maps that explain the Russia-Ukraine conflict | Wetlands and radioactive soil: How Ukraine’s geography could influence a Russian invasion
The backstory
Why might Russia want to invade Ukraine? | Six reasons Russia is at odds with Ukraine’s Zelensky | What is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and why is Biden vowing to stop it if Russia invades Ukraine? | Here’s where countries stand on the Russia-Ukraine crisis
Analysis
When it comes to Ukraine, what do Russian citizens actually want? | Why it’s not so easy to slap sanctions on Vladimir Putin | An invasion of Ukraine could drive up global food prices and spark unrest far from the front lines | How joining NATO and the E.U. became Ukraine’s unattainable dream
Comments Gift Article
washingtonpost.com
© 1996-2022 The Washington Post

According to the best military analysis, the United States and Russia rank #1 and #2 respectively in military power today. ... The US dominates the air with far more bases, fighter jets and bombers than Russia but Russia is superior on the ground with more tanks, artillery and land vehicles.
Russia vs United States Military Stats Compared - NationMaster
www.nationmaster.com › compare › Mili...
More results

Remarks by President Biden Providing an Update on Russia and
Ukraine
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
SPEECHES AND REMARKS
East Room
3:29 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Today, I’d like to provide an update on the crisis involving Russia and Ukraine.
From the beginning of this crisis, I have been absolutely clear and consistent: The United States is prepared no matter what happens.
We are ready with diplomacy — to be engaged in diplomacy with Russia and our Allies and partners to improve stability and security in Europe as a whole.
And we are ready to respond decisively to a Russian attack on Ukraine, which is still very much a possibility.
Through all of the events of the last few weeks and months, this has been our approach. And it remains our approach now.
So, today I want to speak to the American people about the situation on the ground, the steps we’ve taken, the actions we’re prepared to take, and what’s at stake for us and the world, and how this may impact on us here at home.
For weeks now, together with our Allies and partners, my administration has engaged in non-stop diplomacy.
This weekend I spoke again with President Putin to make clear that we are ready to keep pursuing high-level diplomacy to reach written understandings among Russia, the United States, and the nations of Europe to address legitimate security concerns if that’s what — his wish. Their security concerns and ours.
President Putin and I agreed that our teams should continue to engage toward this end along with our European Allies and partners.
Yesterday, the Russian government publicly proposed to continue the diplomacy. I agree. We should give the diplomacy every chance to succeed. I believe there are real ways to address our respective security concerns.
The United States has put on the table concrete ideas to establish a security environment in Europe.
We’re proposing new arms control measures, new transparency measures, new strategic stability measures. These measures would apply to all parties — NATO and Russia alike.
And we’re willing to make practical, results-oriented steps that can advance our common security. We will not sacrifice basic principles, though.
Nations have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have the freedom to set their own course and choose with whom they will associate.
But that still leaves plenty of room for diplomacy and for de-escalation. That’s the best way forward for all parties, in our view. And we’ll continue our diplomatic efforts in close consultation with our Allies and our partners.
As long as there is hope of a diplomatic resolution that prevents the use of force and avoids the incredible human suffering that would follow, we will pursue it.
The Russian Defense Ministry reported today that some military units are leaving their positions near Ukraine.
That would be good, but we have not yet verified that. We have not yet verified that Russian military units are returning to their home bases. Indeed, our analysts indicate that they remain very much in a threatening position. And the fact remains: Right now, Russia has more than 150,000 troops encircling Ukraine in Belarus and along Ukraine’s border.
An invasion remains distinctly possible. That’s why I’ve asked several times that all Americans in Ukraine leave now before it’s too late to leave safely. It is why we have temporarily relocated our embassy from Kyiv to Lviv in western Ukraine, approaching the Polish border.
And we’ve been transparent with the American people and with the world about Russia’s plans and the seriousness of the situation so that everyone can see for themselves what is happening. We have shared what we know and what we are doing about it.
Let me be equally clear about what we are not doing:
The United States and NATO are not a threat to Russia. Ukraine is not threatening Russia.
Neither the U.S. nor NATO have missiles in Ukraine. We do not — do not have plans to put them there as well.
We’re not targeting the people of Russia. We do not seek to destabilize Russia.
To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy. And I do not believe you want a bloody, destructive war against Ukraine — a country and a people with whom you share such deep ties of family, history, and culture.
Seventy-seven years ago, our people fought and sacrificed side by side to end the worst war in history.
World War Two was a war of necessity. But if Russia attacks Ukraine, it would be a war of choice, or a war without cause or reason.
I say these things not to provoke but to speak the truth — because the truth matters; accountability matters.
If Russia does invade in the days or weeks ahead, the human cost for Ukraine will be immense, and the strategic cost for Russia will also be immense.
If Russia attacks Ukraine, it’ll be met with overwhelming international condemnation. The world will not forget that Russia chose needless death and destruction.
Invading Ukraine will prove to be a self-inflicted wound.
The United States and our Allies and partners will respond decisively. The West is united and galvanized.
Today, our NATO Allies and the Alliance is as unified and determined as it has ever been. And the source of our unbreakable strength continues to be the power, resilience, and universal appeal of our shared democratic values.
Because this is about more than just Russia and Ukraine. It’s about standing for what we believe in, for the future we want for our world, for liberty — for liberty, the right of countless countries to choose their own destiny, and the right of people to determine their own futures, for the principle that a country can’t change its neighbor’s borders by force. That’s our vision. And toward that end, I’m confident that vision, that freedom will prevail.
If Russia proceeds, we will rally the world to oppose its aggression.
The United States and our Allies and partners around the world are ready to impose powerful sanctions on [and] export controls, including actions that did not — we did not pursue when Russia invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014. We will put intense pressure on their largest and most significant financial institutions and key industries.
These measures are ready to go as soon and if Russia moves. We’ll impose long-term consequences that will undermine Russia’s ability to compete economically and strategically.
And when it comes to Nord Stream 2, the pipeline that would bring natural gas from Russia to Germany, if Russia further invades Ukraine, it will not happen.
While I will not send American servicemen to fight Russia in Ukraine, we have supplied the Ukrainian military with equipment to help them defend themselves. We have provided training and advice and intelligence for the same purpose.
And make no mistake: The United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power. An attack against one NATO country is an attack against all of us. And the United States commitment to Article 5 is sacrosanct.
Already, in response to Russia’s build-up of troops, I have sent additional U.S. forces to bolster NATO’s eastern flank.
Several of our Allies have also announced they’ll add forces and capabilities to ensure deterrence and defense along NATO’s eastern flank.
We will also continue to conduct military exercises with our Allies and partners to enhance defensive readiness.
And if Russia invades, we will take further steps to reinforce our presence in NATO, reassure for our Allies, and deter further aggression.
This is a cause that unites Republicans and Democrats. And I want to thank the leaders and members of Congress of both parties who have forcefully spoken out in defense of our most basic, most bipartisan, most American principles.
I will not pretend this will be painless. There could be impact on our energy prices, so we are taking active steps to alleviate the pressure on our own energy markets and offset rising prices.
We’re coordinating with major enersy [sic] — energy consumers and producers. We’re prepared to deploy all the tools and authority at our disposal to provide relief at the gas pump.
And I will work with Congress on additional measures to help protect consumers and address the impact of prices at the pump.
We are not seeking direct confrontation with Russia, though I have been clear that if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully.
And if Russia attacks the United States or our Allies through asymmetric means, like disruptive cyberattacks against our companies or critical infrastructure, we are prepared to respond.
We’re moving in lockstep with our NATO Allies and partners to deepen our collective defense against threats in cyberspace.
Two paths are still open. For the sake of the historic responsibility Russia and the United States share for global stability, for the sake of our common future — to choose diplomacy.
But let there be no doubt: If Russia commits this breach by invading Ukraine, responsible nations around the world will not hesitate to respond.
If we do not stand for freedom where it is at risk today, we’ll surely pay a steeper price tomorrow.
Thank you. I’ll keep you informed.
END 3:50 P.M. EST
President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Approves Hawaii Disaster
Declaration
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
STATEMENTS AND RELEASES

Sign Up The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/

What do people gain from Cultism

Next to nothing!!

Known circle of Cultism..

The group of this one killed may retaliate in a very brutal way to prove they ain't cowards or chin chin like their rival call them on social media or to prove they're more brutal or stronger and as such are not killed like fowls like their rival claim they do to them on social media eg. NL; just to prove a point and as such the violence continues or simply get out of hand as the rival will also fight back to prove a point that they're strong.

Thought ( Likely Reasons for these wars)

1) These cult clashes or wars may be political in nature as the rival may want to weaken or reduce the influence of the other group for the opposition party they support, which want to take over the state or the incumbent political party which they want to keep as the ruling party.

2) Territory grab or take over

3) Trade dispute or sharing formula of money received from politicians etc.


Which ever way you look at it, cultism is bad as valuable lives and people's futures are destroyed..

Parents, families, friends and Government should try and enlighten active cultist, young children and youths in general against the ill/danger of cultism.

There is profit in education and labor even though, that country is hard as people say.

Please let people know and understand that - No gain in Cultism!!!!!!


#SayNoToCultism

OPINION
Even without war, Russia has defeated Europe already
Vladimir Putin (second left) with senior military officers on Moscow's Red Square. 'Washington just cannot afford a war with Russia now that China has become so powerful' (Photo: Romania Libera)
By JONATHAN HOLSLAG
BRUSSELS, 14. JAN, 07:06
LISTEN TO ARTICLE
Whether or not Vladimir Putin moves his troops into Ukraine, he has once again confronted Europe with a most painful reality: while being too weak to defend itself, it can no longer rely on the United States to come to its rescue.
We are facing a reality in which Russia, despite its economy only having the size of Italy's, can bully and intimidate a continent thanks to its energy reserves and its readiness to project vast military power.
Sure, any Russian invasion of Ukraine would cost Russia a fortune and likely degrade into a grinding war of attrition. Invasion is unlikely to be president Putin's preferred option. Yet, this game of brinkmanship has another part of the equation. If Russia invades Ukraine, the costs for Europe will be equally devastating.
It will force gas-addicted European countries to find expensive alternatives and to severe billions in infrastructure, from pipelines, over pumping stations, to dedicated storages.
Russia also remains a key export destination and a supplier of other resources than oil and gas. Think of titanium. While the Kremlin has long prepared a gradual decoupling from Europe, the opposite remains unthinkable for most Europeans.
While a sizeable part of the Russian population would support an intervention in the eastern part of Ukraine, citizens in many European countries will find it hard to accept soldiers to die for what they consider a strange, peripheral country: Ukraine.
Countless times, I have heard very senior European business leaders sympathise with the leadership of Putin, to the point that one got the impression that they were more attracted to Russian strong leadership than Western liberalism.
Cannon fodder
Let's also be fair. If, at this stage, European countries would have to stand up to a large Russian land invasion, many soldiers would end up as cannon fodder.
Western European land forces have decayed into a bulky peace corps, their wheeled armoured vehicles hardly suitable for combat in the muddy battlefields in eastern Europe, their fire power no match for Russia's, and their command and communication infrastructure highly-vulnerable to Russia's immense electronic war-fighting capabilities.
Chasing poorly-equipped terrorists is one thing; facing a formidable conventional army, ready for sacrifice yet another.
Many European land forces struggle with a predator complex from the 'Global War on Terror'. They are used to being superior, at least in terms of technology and fire-power, and have huge difficulties imagining that the hunter of the last decade might become the hunted in a large-scale conflict.
The whole strategic mindset in that regard has become skewed towards defense; tactics towards limited surgical offense, often even from a distance.
Stand-off, it is called. Land powers like Russia have also trained in precision and long-range strikes, yet always combined with blunt power: wearing volleys of missiles and artillery and big division-size units moving in.
Sacrifice and attrition
If everything in Europe is about efficiency; armed forces like Russia still factor in sacrifice, redundancy, and attrition. Clean wars do not exist in the Russian strategic lexicon.
Europe has a lack of everything. Even if it tries to steer clear of frontline involvement, supporting from behind will not be much in evidence either. Many countries lack stand-off missiles or their ammunition stockpiles are dangerously low. Advanced fighter jets, capable of penetrating Russia's air defence, are still rare. Special forces that would, a crucial asset, are stuck in Africa and struggle to enlist enough quality recruits.
The US is slowly restocking their arsenals, with new long-range precise ammunitions, but will prefer to send them to the Pacific. It preserves a sizeable conventional deterrence in Europe, including 70,000 troops, hundreds of prepositioned armoured vehicles and dozens of fighter jets.
Yet, this is not sufficient to counter a Russian invasion in a country like Ukraine - and Washington just cannot afford a war with Russia now that China has become so powerful.
We can endlessly reflect on what drives Russia in amassing its vast military presence on Ukraine's border, on how we came to this point, the misgivings and frustrations on both sides.
What is clear, however, is that we enter a new tournament of great power politics and that Europe arrives at the start not as a strong, unified team, but as throng of plump puerile pygmies.

A nuclear war is unwinnable

Number of nuclear warheads worldwide as of January 2021
© Statista 2022 Nuclear powers Number of nuclear warheads
Worldwide total 13,080
Russia 6,255,
USA 5,550,
China 350,
France 290,
United Kingdom 225,
Pakistan 165,
India 156,
Israel 90,
North Korea* 40
Showing entries 1 to 10 (10 entries in total)
Download for free

DEFEAT IS POSSIBLE
EDWARD GEIST
JUNE 17, 2021
COMMENTARY
Horns of a Dilemma
YOU CAN’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON TV
Commentary
WHY INTERMEDIATE-RANGE MISSILES ARE A FOCAL POINT IN THE UKRAINE CRISIS
Commentary
BEING A BETTER PARTNER IN THE PACIFIC If the United States is to have a reasonable hope of winning a war, it needs to think very seriously about what it would be like to lose. For several years, analysts have been sounding the alarm that the United States and its allies might not prevail in a high-level conflict with a near-peer adversary. While Russia and China fall short of the United States in overall military power, they enjoy local overmatch in key theaters that might allow them to defeat U.S. forces. In 2019, analyst David Ochmanek of the RAND Corporation remarked that “In our games, when we fight Russia and China, blue gets its ass handed to it.” In November 2018, the National Defense Strategy Commission found that “If the United States had to fight Russia in a Baltic contingency or China in a war over Taiwan … Americans could face a decisive military defeat … Put bluntly, the U.S. military could lose the next state-versus-state war it fights.” These findings suggest that, in a pitched battle with a near-peer adversary such as China, American forces may be defeated even if its commanders don’t make any mistakes. Unfortunately, there exists a longstanding taboo in American strategic culture against the contemplation of defeat. To the extent that the possibility U.S. forces might lose on the battlefield is acknowledged at all, prescriptions for dealing with it fail to account for all the ways in which this defeat might transpire. If defeat is to be prevented, U.S. strategy and planning may need to think about all the different forms defeat might take so as to be ready for alternative kinds of conflicts and concepts of operations.
Thinking about defeat is not merely taboo in U.S. strategic culture. It is illegal in some cases. In August 1958, Sen. Richard Russell expressed outrage that he had heard on the radio “that some person or persons holding office in the Department of Defense have entered into contracts with various institutions to conduct studies to determine when and how, and in what circumstances, the United States would surrender to its enemies in the event of war.” Russell proposed an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill then under consideration that “no part of the funds appropriated in this or any other act shall be used to pay” for studies of this kind. While the Eisenhower administration (which protested that Russell misrepresented the studies he was condemning) and some senators pushed back against the amendment, it ultimately passed with 88 votes for and only two against.
BECOME A MEMBER
The Department of Defense and the RAND Corporation protested that the study that sparked this controversy, Strategic Surrender: The Politics of Victory and Defeat, was not really about the prospect of the United States surrendering to its communist enemies at all. Instead, its author Paul Kecskemeti argued that the policy of “unconditional surrender” that the United States and its allies had insisted upon during World War II had been counterproductive and had prolonged conflict with the Axis powers. What little discussion the study contained of a prospective U.S. surrender was limited to the final chapter, which examined the implications of surrender in the nuclear age. That merely hinting at the possibility that U.S. surrender might be possible elicited a law prohibiting any federal funding of research on the topic exemplifies the American allergy to thinking seriously about defeat. In an era when it appeared that a major war would end in a mutual annihilation rather than surrender, this tendency was perhaps excusable. But, in the present, when near-peer adversaries are increasingly capable of defeating U.S. conventional forces on a theater level, U.S. decision-makers can no longer afford to pretend that defeat is not a real possibility. And, so long as policymakers do not take losing seriously, they are unlikely to take the difficult steps needed to prevent such a defeat.
There is a natural tendency to avoid thinking about how America might lose by imagining how U.S. forces might win instead. Recent debates in U.S. defense policy circles about how to address the possibility of near-peer conflict have focused on denial strategies that would prevent Chinese or Russian territorial grabs from succeeding in the first place. Robert Work contends that the capability to “Sink 350 Chinese navy and coast guard vessels in the first 72 hours of a war, or destroy 2,400 Russian armored vehicles” would have this effect. Work also suggests that, with some relatively affordable investments (about $8 billion per year for three years), the U.S. military could actualize such capabilities in the near term.
But as Evan Braden Montgomery of the Center of Strategic and Budgetary Assessments argued in War on the Rocks last year , conceptualizing the problem in narrow operational terms could prove very risky. Montgomery pointed out rightly that doing so might undermine both the deterrence of potential aggression and allies’ confidence in U.S. security assurances, as foreign observers might doubt the United States will to act with the swiftness essential for destroying invading ships or armor before the invader attained its objectives under the assumptions of the denial strategy. Should an adversary invasion appear underway, it may become necessary to launch the campaign against it as quickly as possible. But, with feints, provocation, and deception, the adversary may obscure whether an invasion has begun, sowing uncertainty and undermining U.S. decision-makers’ willingness to take the fateful step of attacking Russian or Chinese forces. If adversary leaders come to doubt U.S. resolve, then deterrence could fail. If strategic partners come to doubt it, they may feel compelled to appease their neighbors rather than entrust their security to Washington.
Along with imperiling deterrence and assurance, a denial strategy framed in narrow operational terms may also increase the risks of defeat should conflict occur. The most effective deterrent force is not necessarily the same thing as the most effective war-fighting force, as the military capabilities that appear most impressive to either adversaries or allies may not be the same as those that prove most effective on the battlefield once conflict begins. Even if planners make the optimistic assumption that the capability to sink Chinese ships and destroy Russian armor can be made a reality at modest cost, as argued by Work and others, this does not mean that the associated denial strategy is a sure bet in case of war. Firstly, one or more necessary enablers of the capabilities may prove more technically challenging than anticipated or even impossible. Secondly, even if the requisite capabilities could be realized quickly and cheaply in the abstract, this does not mean they necessarily will be in practice. The history of U.S. defense procurement in the post-Cold War period is littered with examples of technologically ambitious systems that consumed huge development budgets without becoming operational realities . Implementation of the new capabilities may simply be flawed or delayed for all-too-familiar mundane reasons. The denial strategy also hinges on presidential resolve, as Montgomery pointed out. Even if the capability works, if the United States fails to use it promptly, the effect could be the same as if it didn’t exist. Finally, defining the problem in narrow operational terms simply invites the adversary to devise an alternative mode of attack. Explicitly signaling that U.S. leaders think of the problem this way makes it makes it clear for the other side how to begin planning accordingly.
Because of these considerations, the national security establishment may need to contemplate some kinds of near-peer conflict that it would rather not think about if it is to minimize the chances of defeat. If a near-peer conflict is not terminated on terms favorable to the United States and its allies in its opening phase, then there are two basic possibilities. The first of these is that the adversary managed to accomplish some or all of its goals in the opening phase of the war, but that the United States and its allies have refused to give up the fight. This presumably means a transition to a protracted war, possibly one of attrition. Even if the status quo ante could not be restored, Washington decision-makers might still feel it necessary to pursue such a conflict. Rationales for this could include a desire to shore up the faith of other allies in U.S. security guarantees and to impose costs on adversaries to deter them from further aggression. Unfortunately, U.S. strategy has not planned seriously for protracted near-peer conflict since the early Cold War. Being prepared for this contingency could demand considerable preparation and significant opportunity costs, but these may prove the best defense investment budget planners could make in the case of high-level conflict.
The second way that a protracted near-peer conflict might begin would be if the United States and its partners successfully parried an initial assault but the adversary refused to retire, initiating a protracted war on their own terms instead. While it seems like Western analysts have neglected this scenario, it seems all too plausible in some of the contingencies of interest (such as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan). Such a campaign might allow an aggressor to attain their goals even if these eluded them at first. For example, if a U.S. denial campaign depended upon an inventory of some hard-to-replenish resource (such as precision-guided munitions) and these assets were depleted in the opening phase of the war, the adversary might be able to regroup and mount another more successful attack before the United States could reconstitute its denial capability. Moreover, the failed initial attempt would also provide learning opportunities that might be exploited to neutralize U.S. advantages in the rematch. And, even if an adversary campaign of attrition fails to achieve its objectives, the United States and its partners might have to deal with its consequences.
It is much more unpleasant to envision losing than winning — but this does nothing to change the fact that defeat is an increasingly plausible possibility in a war with Russia or China. Brad Roberts has argued forcefully that the United States should have clearer “theories of victory,” but, in addition to “theories of victory,” defense planners need to have “theories of defeat” in order to turn those theories into self-negating prophecies. In order to forestall defeat, the Pentagon may need to envision how it could lose. Defense intellectuals could contemplate all the diverse ways U.S. forces might be defeated instead of one or two specific ways in which they would prefer to win. At the very least, planners could begin formulating contingency plans to continue the fight should the opening phase of a near-peer conflict fail to go as desired. An essential first step could be to start taking the prospect of protracted near-peer conflict seriously. Whether or not U.S. policymakers want such a conflict, one may be imposed upon them — and at present, America is woefully underprepared for it.
BECOME A MEMBER
Edward Geist is a policy researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. Geist received a Smith Richardson Strategy and Policy Fellowship to write a book on artificial intelligence and nuclear warfare .
Image: U.S. Navy (Photo by Mass Communication Spc. 3rd Class Quinton Lee)
COMMENTARY
ABOUT
MISSION
PEOPLE
FOUNDER'S CLUB
CONTACT
MEMBERS
JOIN
WARCAST
WAR HALL
PODCASTS
WOTR
BOMBSHELL
NET ASSESSMENT
JAW-JAW
HORNS OF A DILEMMA
PRIVACY POLICY |
TERMS & CONDITIONS | SITEMAP |
COPYRIGHT © 2022 METAMORPHIC MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. GET MORE WAR ON THE ROCKS
SUPPORT OUR MISSION AND GET EXCLUSIVE CONTENT
BECOME A MEMBER
FOLLOW US
NEWSLETTER
SUBSCRIBE
SIGNING UP FOR THIS NEWSLETTER MEANS YOU AGREE TO OUR D

Opinion: Biden should resist the calls for war with Russia
By Branko Marcetic
January 24, 2022 at 12:43 p.m. EST
Branko Marcetic is a staff writer at Jacobin magazine and the author of “ Yesterday’s Man: The Case Against Joe Biden.”
Joe Biden was rarely known as the coolest head in the room. He once backed deploying troops against terrorists on U.S. soil, and his panic-fanning comments about the 2009 swine flu caused a mini-crisis for the Obama White House. So it’s more than a little surprising to see the president become a lonely voice of moderation in the escalating Ukraine crisis.
Opinions to start the day, in your inbox. Sign up.
Biden has been caught in an uproar since
suggesting a “minor incursion” by Russian President Vladimir Putin into Ukraine might not invite full-scale U.S. pushback. The White House moved quickly to walk back the comment, but for Biden’s critics, it seemed to confirm their preconceptions: Biden is a weak leader who can’t stand up to a crafty authoritarian such as Putin.
It’s certainly true that the president has been unenthusiastic about conflict with Russia. Last year, Biden pushed back on members of the press corps egging him into a more aggressive posture, while
postponing military aid to Ukraine and waiving sanctions on Moscow’s pivotal natural gas pipeline. Since the outbreak of this latest crisis, he has been similarly cautious, initially dragging his feet on sending military assistance to Kyiv and threatening sanctions only should a Russian invasion materialize.
Look around, and Biden seems increasingly isolated. Republicans are pushing him to escalate tensions, with one senator putting a ground war and nuclear strikes on the table. Democrats such as Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and former Obama administration official
Evelyn Farkas want him to, respectively, “impose military costs” on Moscow and “use our military to roll back Russians.” Usually level-headed NATO allies like
Britain and Canada are making similar noises. Even the press corps is back at it, with a Fox News reporter demanding to know why Biden was “waiting on Putin to make the first move.” The fact that Biden is reportedly mulling sending thousands of troops, plus warships and aircraft, to Eastern Europe suggests this pressure is already having an effect.
But which position here is really outside the mainstream?
Any hostilities with Russia have to be weighed against the potentially catastrophic outcome of the world’s two leading nuclear powers going to war. Accidents and misunderstandings have nearly triggered nuclear exchanges between the two in peacetime, so it’s not hard to imagine how full-on war, with all its escalations and movements of troops and aircraft, would heighten this risk. It’s why the two mortal enemies did everything possible throughout the Cold War to prevent direct armed conflict.
If U.S.-Russian hostilities led to the use of nukes, it wouldn’t end well. Imagine if the web of alliances that led to crisscrossing declarations of war in 1914 had triggered hundreds, maybe thousands of nuclear warheads being
fired across continents instead. The United States, whose missile defense systems have a far from 100 percent success rate, would not escape unscathed. And even if a ground war managed to avoid triggering a nuclear holocaust, it would still precipitate an economic downturn, considering Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas and the costs accrued from U.S. wars against weaker countries than Russia.
Ukraine, on whose behalf war hawks would risk such disaster, is a country 5,700 miles away from American shores, and one that, as a non-NATO member, Washington has no obligation to defend. Its government and security forces are also infected with neo-Nazis who have
trained and directly inspired homegrown far-right terrorists. If you’re reading this from one of the dozens of major metropolitan and military centers that would sit in the crosshairs of a Russian nuclear strike, ask yourself: Is Ukraine’s territorial integrity really worth the costs?
Those like Farkas imply it would, to defend “international law and sanctity of international borders.” But this is hard to take seriously. Both have already been
serially violated by Washington this century. And just as George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, as outrageous as it was, didn’t justify a Russian war with the United States, neither does a similarly outrageous Russian invasion now make the same conflict any more preferable.
This also ignores that Putin’s actions are driven by the expansion of a hostile military alliance, NATO, up to his borders, a longtime Russian complaint that has been central to Moscow’s
demands throughout this current crisis. U.S. officials well understand Russian objections to this, given that they view the prospect of Russian troops and missiles in Latin America as similarly unacceptable.
Because even war involving Russia and Ukraine alone would set back the fragile
American and world economies, ideally, cooler heads would prevail here just as they did 60 years ago. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved with a quid pro quo , each side removing missiles from mutually threatening positions. A similar compromise can be found here that satisfies each party’s security concerns while letting them save face. And should Putin make good on his threat, a
potential quagmire along with sanctions that further strangle his economy aren’t exactly minor consequences.
Biden entered politics admiring and drawing comparisons to John F. Kennedy, who was also called weak and an appeaser by those who measure toughness by recklessness. Decades later, there’s no question Kennedy’s way was right. Should Biden resist the calls for war, he won’t be popular in Washington, but he, too, will be remembered more kindly than his critics.
Comments Gift Article President Biden speaks during the U.S. Conference of Mayors winter meeting in D.C. on Jan. 21. (Eric Lee/BLOOMBERG)
Story continues below advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
POPULAR OPINIONS ARTICLES HAND CURATED

f
OPINION
Even without war, Russia has defeated Europe already
Vladimir Putin (second left) with senior military officers on Moscow's Red Square. 'Washington just cannot afford a war with Russia now that China has become so powerful' (Photo: Romania Libera)
By JONATHAN HOLSLAG
BRUSSELS, 14. JAN, 07:06
LISTEN TO ARTICLE
Whether or not Vladimir Putin moves his troops into Ukraine, he has once again confronted Europe with a most painful reality: while being too weak to defend itself, it can no longer rely on the United States to come to its rescue.
We are facing a reality in which Russia, despite its economy only having the size of Italy's, can bully and intimidate a continent thanks to its energy reserves and its readiness to project vast military power.
Sure, any Russian invasion of Ukraine would cost Russia a fortune and likely degrade into a grinding war of attrition. Invasion is unlikely to be president Putin's preferred option. Yet, this game of brinkmanship has another part of the equation. If Russia invades Ukraine, the costs for Europe will be equally devastating.
It will force gas-addicted European countries to find expensive alternatives and to severe billions in infrastructure, from pipelines, over pumping stations, to dedicated storages.
Russia also remains a key export destination and a supplier of other resources than oil and gas. Think of titanium. While the Kremlin has long prepared a gradual decoupling from Europe, the opposite remains unthinkable for most Europeans.
While a sizeable part of the Russian population would support an intervention in the eastern part of Ukraine, citizens in many European countries will find it hard to accept soldiers to die for what they consider a strange, peripheral country: Ukraine.
Countless times, I have heard very senior European business leaders sympathise with the leadership of Putin, to the point that one got the impression that they were more attracted to Russian strong leadership than Western liberalism.
Cannon fodder
Let's also be fair. If, at this stage, European countries would have to stand up to a large Russian land invasion, many soldiers would end up as cannon fodder.
Western European land forces have decayed into a bulky peace corps, their wheeled armoured vehicles hardly suitable for combat in the muddy battlefields in eastern Europe, their fire power no match for Russia's, and their command and communication infrastructure highly-vulnerable to Russia's immense electronic war-fighting capabilities.
Chasing poorly-equipped terrorists is one thing; facing a formidable conventional army, ready for sacrifice yet another.
Many European land forces struggle with a predator complex from the 'Global War on Terror'. They are used to being superior, at least in terms of technology and fire-power, and have huge difficulties imagining that the hunter of the last decade might become the hunted in a large-scale conflict.
The whole strategic mindset in that regard has become skewed towards defense; tactics towards limited surgical offense, often even from a distance.
Stand-off, it is called. Land powers like Russia have also trained in precision and long-range strikes, yet always combined with blunt power: wearing volleys of missiles and artillery and big division-size units moving in.
Sacrifice and attrition
If everything in Europe is about efficiency; armed forces like Russia still factor in sacrifice, redundancy, and attrition. Clean wars do not exist in the Russian strategic lexicon.
Europe has a lack of everything. Even if it tries to steer clear of frontline involvement, supporting from behind will not be much in evidence either. Many countries lack stand-off missiles or their ammunition stockpiles are dangerously low. Advanced fighter jets, capable of penetrating Russia's air defence, are still rare. Special forces that would, a crucial asset, are stuck in Africa and struggle to enlist enough quality recruits.
The US is slowly restocking their arsenals, with new long-range precise ammunitions, but will prefer to send them to the Pacific. It preserves a sizeable conventional deterrence in Europe, including 70,000 troops, hundreds of prepositioned armoured vehicles and dozens of fighter jets.
Yet, this is not sufficient to counter a Russian invasion in a country like Ukraine - and Washington just cannot afford a war with Russia now that China has become so powerful.
We can endlessly reflect on what drives Russia in amassing its vast military presence on Ukraine's border, on how we came to this point, the misgivings and frustrations on both sides.
What is clear, however, is that we enter a new tournament of great power politics and that Europe arrives at the start not as a strong, unified team, but as throng of plump puerile pygmies.

MOSCOW, January 27. /TASS/. Russia will not delay a reaction to the West’s responses to Moscow’s proposals on security guarantees but no immediate reaction should be expected, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Thursday.
"I cannot give a specific date. Clearly, no one will delay a reaction but it would be stupid to expect a reaction the next day," he said when asked when and how Moscow might publish its response.
Peskov pointed out that it took the US and Europe about a month to study the documents that Russia had presented. "So let’s not expect an immediate reaction from us," the Russian presidential spokesman noted.
In response to a question, if Putin planned to hold any meetings on the issue, Peskov explained that the president held consultations with Security Council members, his aides, and other senior officials when the need arose. Meanwhile, no decision has been made yet on how Moscow will react to the West’s responses to its proposals on security guarantees, the Kremlin spokesman noted. When speaking about the possibility for Russia to give a response publicly, he said that "a separate decision will be made on that."
The United States and NATO handed their written responses to Russia’s proposals on security guarantees over to Moscow on Wednesday. Washington asked Moscow not to make the documents public but US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg highlighted their basic provisions. According to their statements, the West declined to provide the concessions that Russia finds crucial but outlined areas for future talks.

Ukraine crisis: Russian attack would be 'horrific', US warns
2 hours ago
Ukraine escalation
General Mark Milley said a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be "horrific"
Top US General Mark Milley has said that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be "horrific" and would lead to a significant number of casualties.
Gen Milley described the build-up of 100,000 Russian troops near Ukraine's border as the largest since the Cold War.
But US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said conflict could still be avoided through the use of diplomacy.
Russia denies plans to invade and says US support for Ukraine is a threat.
At a news conference at the Pentagon on Friday, Gen Milley - US President Joe Biden's most senior military officer - warned that the scale of Russia's forces near its border with Ukraine meant an attack would have severe consequences.
"If that was unleashed on Ukraine, it would be significant, very significant, and it would result in a significant amount of casualties," said the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
Fighting in dense urban areas would be "horrific, it would be terrible", Gen Milley added.
'Not inevitable'
US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said the US was committed to helping Ukraine defend itself, including by providing more weaponry.
"Conflict is not inevitable. There is still time and space for diplomacy," Mr Austin said, calling on Russian President Vladimir Putin to de-escalate the situation.
"There is no reason that this situation has to devolve into conflict... He can order his troops away," he added.
Also on Friday, President Biden said he would send a small number of troops to Eastern Europe in the "near term", to strengthen the Nato presence in the region. He did not specify where they would be stationed or when they would arrive.
Earlier this week, the Pentagon said there were 8,500 combat-ready troops on alert, ready to be deployed at short notice.
Why Germany isn't sending weapons to Ukraine
What is Nato and why doesn't Russia trust it?
Is Russia preparing to invade Ukraine?
How big is the Russian military build-up?
The US has rejected a key Moscow demand that Nato rule out Ukraine joining the defence alliance - but insisted it was offering Russia a "serious diplomatic path".
Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the West of ignoring Russia's security concerns.
But he said he would study the US response before deciding what to do, according to a Kremlin readout of a call between Mr Putin and his French counterpart.
France said the two leaders had agreed on the need to de-escalate and that its President Emmanuel Macron had told Mr Putin that Russia must respect the sovereignty of its neighbouring states.
"We don't need this panic," Mr Zelensky said
'Don't create panic'
The warnings from the Pentagon come after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters not to create panic over the build-up of Russian troops on his country's borders.
At a news conference in Kyiv, Mr Zelensky said he did not see a greater threat now than during a similar massing of troops last spring.
"There are signals even from respected leaders of states, they just say that tomorrow there will be war. This is panic - how much does it cost for our state?"
The "destabilisation of the situation inside the country" was the biggest threat to Ukraine, he said.
Diplomacy intensifies by the day. Everyone wants to be seen to be doing something but they don't want to do it - they don't want their own troops on the ground fighting a war in Ukraine against Russia.
Everyone has their own interest: President Biden is post-Afghanistan pullout debacle; Germany is post-Angela Merkel; Britain is post-Brexit, trying to carve out its own way in the world; and President Macron of France is pre-elections in the spring.
But they all want to prevent a war on Europe's doorstep; all want to stop President Putin's efforts to reshape this region. President Zelensky's extraordinary outburst asking everyone to calm down underlined the risks of escalating rhetoric. But he was equally clear: if this war escalates in Ukraine it will spill across borders, there will be proxy wars.
So telephone lines are burning. President Biden had his call with President Putin. President Macron had his. Now it seems Prime Minister Johnson will have his telephone moment too.
President Putin is where he wants to be - at the centre of world attention. In the dead of a very cold winter in the depths of a very old crisis, there's little clarity about the days ahead. No one can afford to lose, but it's not yet clear how they'll all pull back from this brink.
Russia last month made wide-ranging security demands from the West, including that:
Ukraine should be barred from joining Nato
Nato should end military activity in eastern Europe, pulling troops out of Poland and the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
The alliance should not deploy missiles in countries near or bordering Russia
The US and Nato responded by saying Ukraine had the right to choose its own allies, but offered Russia talks on missile placements and other issues.
If Russia were to invade Ukraine, it would not be the first time.
Russia annexed Ukraine's southern Crimea peninsula in 2014. It is also backing rebels who seized large swathes of the eastern Donbas region soon afterwards, and some 14,000 people have died in fighting there.
Watch the BBC's Sarah Rainsford as she tries to track down official bomb shelters in Kyiv
More on this story
Related Topics
Ukraine escalation Volodymyr Zelensky
Russia Ukraine
Top Stories
Features
Elsewhere on the BBC
Most Read
BBC News Services
On your mobile
On smart speakers
Get news alerts
Contact BBC News
Best of BBC Sounds
Home
News
Sport
Weather
iPlayer Sounds
CBBC
CBeebies
Food
Bitesize Arts
Taster
Local
Three
Terms of UseAbout the BBCPrivacy PolicyCookies
Accessibility HelpParental Guidance
Contact the BBCGet Personalised Newsletters
Why you can trust the BBC
© 2022 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the contents

US could sanction Putin if Russia invades Ukraine
2 days ago
Kremlin media: Ukraine the aggressor, not Russia
2 days ago
PM to call Putin and visit region amid Ukraine crisis
3 hours ago
Invasion of Ukraine would be 'horrific', US warns
2 hours ago

Why Germany isn't sending weapons to Ukraine

F-35C fighter jet: Race is on to reach sunken US plane... before China
By Claire Hills
BBC News, Washington
1 day ago
A race against time is under way for the US Navy to reach one of its downed fighter jets - before the Chinese get there first.
The $100m (£74m) F-35C plane came down in the South China Sea after what the Navy describes as a "mishap" during take-off from the USS Carl Vinson.
The jet is the Navy's newest, and crammed with classified equipment. As it is in international waters, it is technically fair game.
Whoever gets there first, wins.
The prize? All the secrets behind this very expensive, leading-edge fighting force.
Seven sailors were injured when the jet came down on Monday after it struck Vinson's deck during a military exercise.
It is now lying on the ocean bed, but what happens next is a mystery. The Navy will not confirm either where it came down or how long it will take to retrieve it.
China claims almost the entire South China Sea and has increasingly taken steps to assert that claim in recent years, refusing to recognise a 2016 international tribunal ruling saying it had no legal basis.
US and Philippine Marines train in the South China Seas
On Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian denied Beijing was after the stricken F-35C. "We have no interest in their aircraft," he said at a briefing.
Still, US national security experts say Chinese military would be "very keen" to get to the jet. A US salvage vessel looks to be at least 10 days away from the crash site.
That's too late, says defence consultant Abi Austen, because the black box battery will die before then, making it harder to locate the aircraft.
"It's vitally important the US gets this back," she says. "The F-35 is basically like a flying computer. It's designed to link up other assets - what the Air Force calls 'linking sensors to shooters'."
What might happen next in the South China Sea?
China doesn't have that technology so getting their hands on it would give them a huge leap forward, she says.
"If they can get into the 35's networking capabilities, it effectively undermines the whole carrier philosophy."
Asked if there were echoes of the Cold War here, she says: "It's all about who's the biggest dog in the park! This is basically The Hunt For Red October meets The Abyss - it's a brilliant three-act play."
What's so special about the F-35C?
a network-enabled mission system that allows real-time sharing of information it collects while in flight
US Navy's first "low observable" carrier-based aircraft which enables it to operate undetected in enemy airspace
larger wings and more robust landing gear make it suitable for "catapult launches" from carriers at sea
has the most powerful fighter engine in the world and it can hit speeds of up to 1,200 mph, or Mach 1.6
can carry up to two missiles on its wings and four inside
Ms Austen, a former adviser to the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and former senior Nato and EU diplomat, said she believes any attempt by China to try to claim salvage rights was them "stress testing" the US.
It comes at a vulnerable and dangerous time following what some perceived as a disorganised and disastrous Afghanistan pull-out, she believes.
There is no doubt China wants this plane, although cyber espionage may mean they already have some knowledge of its interior, layout and workings, says Bryce Barros, a China affairs analyst and security fellow at the Truman Project.
"I think they would want to see actual parts of the plane, to better understand how it is laid out and find its vulnerabilities."
The US Navy acknowledged in a statement that a recovery operation was under way following the "mishap" aboard USS Carl Vinson.
Why is everyone fighting over the South China Sea?
So how would the retrieval actually work?
A team from the US Navy Supervisor of Salvage and Diving would attach bags to the jet's fuselage which will then be slowly inflated to raise the wreckage.
This operation will be more difficult if the airframe is not largely in one piece.
The aircraft was likely to have been armed with at least a couple of missiles carried either on its wings or in the internal weapons bay which could also complicate recovery.
There is precedent for these winner-takes-all military cat and mouse games.
In 1974, at the height of the Cold War, the CIA secretly pulled a Russian submarine from the sea floor off the coast of Hawaii using a giant mechanical claw
Two years earlier, the Chinese military secretly salvaged the UK submarine HMS Poseidon which sank off China's east coast.
And it is widely believed that China got its hands on the wreckage of a secret US "stealth" helicopter that crash-landed in the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in 2011.
Mr Barros said: "We are sure the Chinese military got to see the onboard equipment and software then."
The Guinness World Record-holding deepest successful salvage operation was the raising of the wreckage of a US Navy transport aircraft from the floor of the Philippine Sea in May 2019.
It was some 5,638m (18,500 ft) below the surface,
One other option, of course, is to destroy the jet to stop it getting into the hands of Beijing.
"The easiest thing to do would be to torpedo it!" said one military officer.
But that's not thought to be an avenue under consideration.
Related Topics
China US Armed Forces
Top Stories
Features
Elsewhere on the BBC
Most Read
BBC News Services
On your mobile
On smart speakers
Get news alerts
Contact BBC News
Best of BBC Sounds
Home
News
Sport
Weather
iPlayer Sounds
CBBC
CBeebies
Food
Bitesize Arts
Taster
Local
Three
Terms of UseAbout the BBCPrivacy PolicyCookies
Accessibility HelpParental Guidance
Contact the BBCGet Personalised Newsletters
Why you can trust the BBC
© 2022 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking. Menu
Menu World Africa Asia Australia Europe
Latin America Middle East US & Canada
GETTY IMAGES
GETTY IMAGES
GETTY IMAGES
PM to call Putin and visit region amid Ukraine crisis
4 hours ago
Invasion of Ukraine would be 'horrific', US warns
3 hours ago
Ashleigh Barty wins Australia