"Can the West Stop Russia From Invading Ukraine?"

 

A New York Times article this week asked the question preceding in the title above.
The short answer is "No."

The article made some decent points. 

"In the event of an invasion, the United States and its allies have threatened to impose a series of sanctions that would go far beyond those imposed in 2014, after the Russian annexation of Crimea. Mr. Putin warned that imposing new sanctions could lead to a “complete rupture” in relations with Washington."

I would be inclined to agree. 

Almost 100,000 Russian troops are positioned on the border with Ukraine as we speak.
 

Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan seem to be on the poaching list too, mind you.
There shouldn't be too much surprise when and how the bear recovers some of its might that it lost several decades ago with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Again, the answer is "No," especially when geopolitical forces pull Europe and Russia closer together. This means that NATO is just about due to be regarded as functionally obsolete and outdated as an institution. It is approaching the end of its lifespan, and the plug needs to be pulled.

Elsewhere, is anyone else having trouble procuring soft pretzels, bottled water, or anything else from the supermarket? Notice that the price of certain goods like coffee and bacon has gone up recently with the Covid lock downs too? It might seem kind of trivial to complain about these sort of things when people are dying left and right from the virus, but these are just more of the frustrations of dealing with the global pandemic.

The last thing I would like to address today is the JCPOA, otherwise known as the Iran Deal. The National  Interest wrote an interesting article on the subject, calling for striking a re-balance in the renegotiation of the agreement. 

"Correcting this predicament and minimizing the chances of yet another JCPOA breakdown requires building mutual legal and political deterrence into it. Any legal and political procedures that make the violation of and withdrawal from the agreement costly and cumbersome can contribute to this goal. Adding more domestic and international veto players in order for a withdrawal decision to become effective is one such mechanism. This could take the form of exhausting a rigorous internal review process within the JCPOA and requiring the authorization of the UN Security Council and/or the national legislature of the respective parties to complete a withdrawal bid. While these mechanisms could help lock in the parties’ JCPOA commitments by erecting legal and political hurdles against abandoning the deal, devising an international financial compensation scheme for the parties who suffer economic loss as a result of a member’s withdrawal can further raise the costs and lower the benefits of defection for the respective party. Granted, none of these mechanisms would provide fail-safe deterrence against a future U.S. withdrawal, but a combination of such legal and political procedures, a financial compensation scheme, and the credible threat of more drastic Iranian nuclear expansion would minimize the chances of this scenario."

 The author may indeed have a point there. Also, in addition, "anytime, anywhere" access to the actual reactors themselves. We also cannot forget about access to their military sites, where their secret work on ballistic missiles can be facilitated in earnest. Also, a HAARP installation in Saudi Arabia needs to be a  part of a reworked agreement as well. Why? Earth Penetrating Tomography technology will allow a greater degree of surety and security for all involved. (I've mentioned this before, HAARP technology is described in the Bible.)

 Let them live peacefully so long as they are willing to do so.

Now is not the time for war.