Ukraine

Ukraine: Thousands of Russian Troops at Border, Kerry Demands an End

|

White House

All eyes are on the Russian-Ukrainian border as heavily-armed Kremlin forces line up for "military exercises."

The New York Times writes that today Russia's "Defense Ministry… outlined what was described as intensive training of units involving artillery batteries, assault helicopters and at least 10,000 soldiers," noting that this directly contradicts their denial of troop movements yesterday.

The head of Ukraine's National Security asserts that there are actually 80,000 troops.

At a meeting with President Obama today, interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk assured that Ukraine "will fight for [its] freedom… and never surrender."

Nevertheless, interim President Oleksandr Turchynov stated today that Ukraine will not use force against Russia, because it would make "containing the situation… impossible."

Significantly, the three regions in which Russian forces are gathering are not at all near the Crimean peninsula, which is in the south, but situated along Ukraine's eastern border. This raises concerns that Russia may stage an even more aggressive invasion on top of the 25,000 troops already occupying Crimea.

This weekend, Crimea will face a referendum on whether or not the region will join the Russian Federation. According to Reuters, neither of the two options on the ballot would actually allow Crimea to retain its current status as part of Ukraine. The U.S. and E.U. refuse to acknowledge the vote, asserting that the military occupation prevents any legitimate opportunity to dissent.

Secretary of State John Kerry issued a specious warning about it today. "There will be a response of some kind to the referendum itself. If there is no sign [from Russia] of any capacity to respond to this issue … there will be a very serious series of steps on Monday," he said at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing. Kerry will meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov tomorrow in London, according to the Washington Examiner.

Read more Reason coverage of Ukraine here

Advertisement

NEXT: NSA Makes Latest 'Enemies of the Internet' List

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Somebody might want to tell Lurch that the Russians are even less likely to give a shit what he says than Americans.

    Reporting for duty indeed…….!

    1. “There will be a response of some kind to the referendum itself. If there is no sign [from Russia] of any capacity to respond to this issue … there will be a very serious series of steps on Monday”

      This weekend, Kerry is finally getting around to finishing the walkway leading up to his front door!

  2. After watching Ron Paul’s commentary on the Russia-Ukraine situation, I found myself curious as to what his think tank was reporting on the issue — and it does not disappoint:

    It was, of course, U.S. and EU leaders ? and their media acolytes ? who caused the problem we face today by intervening on behalf of self-styled “democrats” in Kiev who without foreign intervention could not have overthrown the Ukrainian president.

    Of course.

    Indeed, it may well be that the whole Ukraine protest movement was primed for action by funds, advisers, and computer systems paid for by Hillary Clinton’s State Department in a program similar to those she ran in several Arab countries.

    It may also well be that I am currently being serviced by my leprechaun sex slave.

    Of course, no Rockwellian foreign policy OP is complete without some foreign dictator loving, so crank some Marvin Gaye circa Let’s Get It On, cuz it’s gonna get steamy in this bitch:

    the terminally adolescent political leaders who run the West have run smack dab into a decisive, realistic, and nationalistic adult, in the person of Vladimir Putin, and they do not know what to do. They are learning that the Ukraine is not Libya or Egypt in that Putin will not to let the West make of Ukraine ? or at least of Crimea ? the same unholy mess its earlier unwarranted interventions made of Egypt and Libya.

    1. BTW, that is just from the first three paragraphs of a 9-paragraph (!) magnum opus — but if you think I’m about to go through the whole thing, you’re crazier than the guy who wrote this abortion of an op-ed.

      1. Man, I used to dig me some Ron Paul but he’s really starting to go the way of McCain.

        1. Next up: Hitler is actually Ghandi in disguise! After this message from our congressmen….

        2. Just imagine Ron Paul as president. I’m not liking what I see.

        3. And what do you disagree with in the comment posted here.

          Do you think what Paul said is outside the realm of possibility ?

          Do you feel that you have more insight and access to info than he does ?

          1. Pretty much everything.

            Completely.

            I think my dog has more insight than he does.

        4. Ron Paul did not write the op-ed.

          1. Or the newsletters. He just likes sticking his name to random things and then shrugging his shoulders when those things turn out to be insanity.

    2. I really hope Rand calls him up and asks him to tone down the kookiness.

      He’s going to end poisoning the legitimate arguments for non-intervention by association.

      1. You mean, you don’t believe that every single uprising and oppressive world government* in the world is under the direct control of the CIA? You don’t think Putin is a totally awesome leader Ukrainians are welcoming to their country with open arms concerned only for the welfare of his people?

        What are you, some kind of…

        *spits*

        Interventionist?

        *Besides Venezuela, Cuba, N Korea, Russia, and Iran, who are totes legit for standing up to the Great Satan

    3. Dammit, I know I said I wouldn’t read the rest but I couldn’t resist taking a look… no commentary, but enjoy the Lightning Round of Ultimate Madness:

      intervention-to-promote democracy is an arrogant, reckless, sophomoric, and war-causing method of conducting international relations, and it is a Satan that has spawned two other war-promoting interventionist causes ? human rights and women’s rights.

      U.S. and Western leaders should be lining up to thank Vladimir Putin for a painful but thorough lesson in how the adult leader of a nation protects his country’s genuine national interests.

      a nation acting to protect what it perceives to be life-or-death national interests ? as is Putin’s Russia ? is both insane and suicidal if it refrains from acting because of a raft of documents

      1. I am beginning to wonder if Ron Paul hates his son for being successful where he was a failure so much that he’s out to torpedo him. He is fucking insane. Rand Paul is going to have to do some ugly public father-slamming/patri-smackdown. This has to be cut out pronto.

        1. The problem is there are pages and pages of this stuff out in easy viewing. I’m no campaign staffer or researcher, but creating the campaign ad here is easy:

          *search for OPs on Ron Paul think tank for embarrassing articles like the one posted supra (thanks, Bo!), which is conveniently enough called the Ron Paul Institute*

          *find Rand Paul supporting his dad*

          Make commercial showing this unhinged nonsense, then show Rand’s endorsement (along with him at a Ron Paul campaign meeting): Is This The Man You Trust With America’s Future?

          1. That’s why Rand has to coldly cut his Dad down in a public interview and set his metaphorical corpse on fire. Only an internecine libertarian version of Red Wedding can inoculate him. It’ll still be damn tough. Thanks Dad!

            1. It’s like Waldorf and Stadler are in the comment sections.

              1. I look that up and laughed heartily.

        2. Ron Paul did not write the op-ed.

      2. “””intervention-to-promote democracy is an arrogant, reckless, sophomoric, and war-causing method of conducting international relations, and it is a Satan that has spawned two other war-promoting interventionist causes ? human rights and women’s rights.”””

        So when are you going to go out and intervein around the world to promote democracy, human rights and womens rights? If you are not going to do it whey should I as an American get dragged into it

        1. So when are you going to go out and intervein around the world to promote democracy, human rights and womens rights?

          The end of never. It’s still fucking stupid to suggest that women’s rights and human rights were neocon inventions or that caring about them means you’re (*gasp*) One Of The Unclean, especially when libertarians are sensitive to each and every thing that trespasses on the NAP.

          I fail to see how one can reconcile the Rockwellian preoccupation with rights in the US while discarding those of anyone abroad as being part of a CIA plot, without some bizarre form of nationalism or paranoia or both.

    4. Ron Paul is an imbecile on some things.

  3. I assure everyone = Sheldon Richman has informed me that our prior non-intervention will lead to *only* less and less risky situations in which to non-intervene – and that continued non-interventions will then ultimately result in the best of all possible outcomes, which he notes in his latest piece being = an influx of grateful Ukrainian refugees! Whom we can be sure will be incredibly appreciative for the non-intervention of the United States into the affairs of their now-Russian former homeland.

    1. On Rainbow Puppy Island (h/t John), where horses shit rainbows and everyone is an ideological clone of Ron Paul, I’m sure that dogmatic non-interventionism and libertarian politics works great for each and every problem, from war to male pattern baldness to saggy titties. In the real world, life sucks and libertarians unprepared to either defend the variant of suck that happens under their policies (or unwilling to even acknowledge its existence) should crawl under a rock and re-emerge when they are willing to be adults about their preferred policy.

      Pretending that there are no trade-offs to actions and that everyone is pure of heart is surefire evidence of shallow thinking.

      1. Reading this nearly gave me a whole-body orgasm.

        If a libertarian society ever develops-and I think it will in certain places like Honduras’s ZEDEs-its maintenance at least for the first few decades will probably require OCEANS OF BLOOD because there are people-socialists and Islamists and environmentalists-who hate freedom and will use force to scuttle it. Further, lots of ‘innocent’ people have to die at the hands of the freedom fighters because that’s war.

        1. its maintenance at least for the first few decades will probably require OCEANS OF BLOOD

          Eh, I doubt it. There were some morons out there who lobbed bombs during the 18th-19th centuries, but by and large people accepted and even stumped for classically liberal policies in a world that was much more difficult to survive in than today’s world would be with the same policies. Not to be cynical, but the other thing is that a libertarian polity would have enough shit out there for young men to do that most of them probably won’t care to violently agitate against it once it’s off the ground.

          That said, having some childproof locks on what a democratic electorate can impact is probably integral to creating and maintaining a successful libertarian polity: see the Bill of Rights, Hong Kong, and the general voting patterns of people for more details.

          1. There were some morons out there who lobbed bombs during the 18th-19th centuries, but by and large people accepted and even stumped for classically liberal policies

            Yeah, that was then, when the western world was a liberal place. ZEDE in particular will be in Central America, which is heading in the right direction but has a bevy of malevolent neighbours, who hopefully go bankrupt imminently.

            In the short term, I think the violence will be directed extrinsically-Bolivarians and maybe Islamofascists. The young men will have to fight.

      2. It’s also worth noting that, contrary to Ron Paul’s fictional Fairy Tales for PeaceNazis, America never had a noninterventionist golden age. The Barbary Pirates, the decades of pacifying Indian Tribes, 1812, The American-Mexican war-there was lots of war in addition the Civil War. They did not reduce America’s freedom appreciably nor did they bankrupt America. Nor was there any ‘blowback’, unless you count the existence of Arizonans which is…a fair counterpoint.

        1. The Barbary Pirates – I don’t think anyone has a problem with fighting pirates which attack US ships. The attempted nation building that occurred was luckily abandoned soon after it started.

          Pacifying Indian Tribes – So moving in an taking someone elses land is ok? Putin wants to hear more

          1812 – Except for the burning to the ground towns and cities and the almost complete destruction of US shipping, yep there was no blowback

          American-Mexican War – More taking of land and Reconquestia Mexicans who want it back

          Don’t forget the Spanish American War, where we took more land and got stuck with a major rebellion in the Philippines and once that was over owned three colonies which never came near paying for what they cost

          First World War, were we won lots of dead and even more debt

          Second World War were we won the right to waste more lives and money around the world at

          Korea, more dead and more debt and still the South Koreans are too cheap to pay for their own defense

          Vietnam, more dead and more debt, in order to bring democracy and freedom but since the commies won and offer cheap sweatshop labor we don’t talk about that no more

          Various other small wars which cost money and lives and most people could not find on a map

          Too be continued

          1. First US Iraq war where we defended a dictatorship from another dictatorship

            Second US Iraq war where we tried to nation build but were more stupid then the Barbary Wars and kept at it for years

            Afghanistan, where we tried to nation build a country where most of the inhabitants did not know what a country was.

            Libya where we made the world safe for Jihadist rebels.

            And now here we are up to our ears in debt, with our military thinking that defending foreigners is their job and with Presidents and Congresses thinking that reordering the world is their job.

            1. You forgot Yougoslavia. Which is still an ongoing clusterfuck where we are, like, totally okay with Kosovo seceding and forming a mafia state where organleggers can thrive and Dubya’s watch gets stolen the minute he steps off the plane (we even have “Camp Bondsteel” down there to see that things stay as they are), but are against the Serbian part of Kosovo seceding back to Serbia. Meanwhile Bosnia-Herzegovina has become a nice breeding ground for Jihadis. Yep, decision once taken will be upheld. Forever.

              1. So many wars, its hard to remember them all.

          2. Everything you listed after the Mexican-American war is not relevant to my comment. Further, your comments do not counter my statement that Ron Paul is imaginining a non-interventionist era that never was. Which is not surprising since you are not actually listening to what I am saying.

            The Tribes were dictatorship by bloodlines. They were not rights-respecting entities and therefore had no right to governance. There were…mistakes but that is one the side.

            Same with Mexico. Mexico was not a rights-respecting entity so America had every right to annex stuff. And there was no blowback.

            1. Civil War didn’t reduce the rights of Americans? A rights respecting entity? A government? It’s just fallacy after fallacy with you.

              There is no such thing as a ‘right to governance’, it’s a baseless collectivist assertion you make. Do the moral prohibitions against theft, kidnapping and murder cease to exist when you wear a special costume or get the approval of 51% of your neighbors?

    2. Hold up, is the working theory still that this is our generation’s Sudetenland moment? Who’s Chamberlain right now, Obama? I’ve lost track.

      Can we acknowledge that there’s a position somewhere between an all-out American invasion force driving the Russians out of Ukraine and writing Vlad a blank check to occupy all of Europe?

      Besides which, between the US and Ukraine there is an entire continent of countries to whom this is more relevant by orders of magnitude. Maybe now would be a good time to let the EU know, collectively or individually, that it’s time for them to start handling their own security issues.

      1. I’ve lost track.

        American Exceptionalism and the Neurosis of Keeping the World in Stasis doesn’t ADMIT any track.

        Just yell MUNICH and HITLER and roll.

      2. “Can we acknowledge that there’s a position somewhere between an all-out American invasion …and writing Vlad a blank check…?”

        Yes – and *I’m* the one making that point.

        The endlessly-repeated, doctrinaire, de-facto foreign policy position of the mag has been “Do Nothing”, as most clearly articulated by Ron Paul and Sheldon Richman (though not without occasional albeit fuzzy support from other writers here)

        The criticism of this view is that it – by definition – pointedly obviates the possibility of any foreign policy stances or diplomatic efforts, as any such “active” foreign policy is by its very nature defined as a form of ‘intervention’ (indeed, we’ve seen writers here go so far as to consider our ‘friendly postures’ toward former soviet possessions tantamount to ‘incitement and threat’ to Russia)…

        This criticism – rather than be addressed on its clearest point (which is that this ‘policy of non-policy’ is an unnecessarily reductive view of international relations) – has so far been mocked as “TEAM AMERICA”-warmongering, as though any opposition to this extremist non-intervention must necessarily recommend TOTAL AND IMMINENT WAR.

        its nonsense. Which we pointed out far before Russian tanks started rolling. If you expect ‘suggestions’ to the EU to be made now, at this belated date, I’d point out that even this kind of diplomatic pressure itself reflects an abandonment of the pure intervention-free universe advocated by readers and writers here to date.

        1. No kidding. I haven’t supported a war that the US has been outside of OEF’s preliminary round since the 80s, but it’s absurd to subscribe to the nonsense I linked to above or to pretend that it always and everywhere provides optimal results. It is interesting that the boogeyman of blowback is invoked, when libertarians take a very rational approach to costs in other circumstance (to wit: that they tend to be reconciled with benefits and that the chief concern is to make those at the very least match up).

          1. Remember: non-interventionism is a religion. The USG is the devil. Blowback is the sinner’s punishment.

            1. Yes, the US needs to take a big step back, militarily.

              How many bases worldwide? What percent of our budget is military? Is it still just short of the rest of the world combined?

              Hmmm.

              The US should pound its chest when it has set a better example, in more ways, for the rest of the world, then they may wish to be more like us.

              1. You’re an imbecile. Them military bases are just SUCH a threat to harm little ole Russia.

          2. It is not about results but whether it is any business of the United States.

            I you want more 9/11’s and Patriot Acts, simply begin to interfere with additional regions of the world.

      3. Syria actually does remind of the Spanish Civil War.

      4. kudos, the have bee mooching of us for 50 years.

  4. Don’t those parochial Russians know that when John F’ing Kerry speaks they are to listen? He once threw someone else’ medals over the fence of the White House whilst suffering from having memories of war seared; seared, I tell you, into his memory.

    1. For the record =

      “John ‘F-ing’ Kerry” made me laugh.

      Mainly because I was thinking of him in the context of ‘military men’ like Bull Halsey, Curtis LeMay, George Patton…

      …but that he is instead the Upper-West-Side, Liberal-Progressive’s version of a “Military Guy”: a man to be Taken Seriously, a man not to be trifled with, a man who wields the Full Force of the Comments Section of Huffington Post at his command….

      it really almost does make you wonder, that the person that Obama wanted to be ‘point man’ for US international relations is a guy whose only notable ‘qualifications’ are a) openly rejecting his own country’s military policy *while* still in uniform, and b) marrying a rich woman with experience in international relations.

      Well, maybe he’ll call his wife and ask *her* what to say? “They’re not listening, darling!”

      1. Pff… Anyone who puts Flyboy LeMay next to Patton is a few beers short of a sixpack. Patton was the guy who wanted to go on to Moscow against the best friend of the Polio Prince. America wouldn’t stand for that. So much for standing up against “tyranny”.


        1. Pff… Anyone who puts Flyboy LeMay next to Patton is a few beers short of a sixpack”

          I’m not sure what that means.

          Particularly given that lemay was completely happy exterminating all of japan himself, given enough incendiary explosives. Maybe you didn’t get my point.

          1. Ah!

  5. God bless the Ukrainian people and all those who risk their lives to stand up against tyranny.

    1. Nope. God has already blessed America. Ukraine will have to wait in line.

      1. How’s it goin’, Mary?

        Begrudging good wishes to people who may be about to die fighting for their own freedom is pretty low.

        You know, the world isn’t a big zero sum game with you on one side–and the Ukrainians and the rest of the world on the other.

        It just seems that way.

        As a great poet once wrote:

        “People are strange
        when you’re a stranger.
        Faces look ugly
        when you’re alone.

        Women seem wicked
        when you’re unwanted.
        Streets are uneven
        when you’re down.”

        Come out from under your bridge, blink in the sunlight, and join the human race. Being lonely and angry all your life is a choice you have to make every day.

        1. “Begrudging good wishes to people who may be about to die fighting for their own freedom is pretty low.”

          Yeah yeah.

          I can’t imagine that people in Crimea are about to die for anything. It’s gonna be annexed by Russia. Or not. Life goes on.

          You also forgot to invoke Munich.

          1. What, are you rootin’ for the Russians to annex all of Ukraine–like, for reals?

            That would be disgraceful.

            1. Did I tell you my care-o-meter readings yet?

              1. Well, we know you care enough to come here and troll the thread.

                And I know you care enough to respond to my comments.

                If you didn’t care at all, you wouldn’t even bother to read my comments–much less respond to them.

                You must care a lot!

                Isn’t that all we need to know?

                1. Actually it just means I am waiting for my compiler to do its work.

                  1. Glad one of you does some

  6. Why does having Kerry as Secretary of the War Department make me root for the Russians?

    1. Sort of like getting an Entrepreneur of the Year award from Barack Obama.

      I can imagine people in running kinda hopin’ they lose.

    2. Remember the soliloquy in Braveheart where Longshanks says “Not my gentle son. The mere sight of him would only encourage an enemy to take over the whole country.”?

      That’s John Kerry. I imagine that every time he publicly opens his ridiculous Brahmin piehole, Putin probably starts planning his next attack.

      1. His son was gay in that film, so that’s what the king was getting at.

  7. http://www.theamericanconserva…..-to-stall/

    How goes the campaign to pep up Americans for a new Cold War? If the most recent polling on the Ukraine crisis is to be believed, not very well. According to a survey released yesterday by Pew Research Center, only 29 percent of Americans want the U.S. “to take a firm stand” against Russia’s incursion into the Ukraine, while 56 percent prefer that the United States “not get too involved in the situation.” Among “independents”?a category much scrutinized and coveted by political operatives of both parties?the skeptical-about-intervention numbers were highest of all: 62 percent versus 25 percent. A mere 16 percent of Republicans supported the certifiably insane position?”consider military options”?while the percentage among Democrats and independents so inclined barely topped the margin of error.

    Let’s see what’s on TV…

    1. Is that what’s going on?

      Do you imagine people here in this thread want the U.S. to intervene in Ukraine?

      1. They sure a bitching and moaning a lot. Certainly more than if upper volta invaded zimbabwe or something.

        1. Upper Volta is nowhere near Zimbabwe, you idiot.

        2. “They sure a bitching and moaning a lot.”

          There’s this thing called compassion.

          When we see other people suffering, especially those who care about the same kinds of things we do, we feel this thing called “compassion”.

          It’s what separates us from the reptiles.

          Oh, and the ability to differentiate between people who feel compassion for Ukrainians and people who want to invade Ukraine is what separates us from the retards.

  8. the terminally adolescent political leaders who run the West have run smack dab into a decisive, realistic, and nationalistic adult, in the person of Vladimir Putin, and they do not know what to do.

    TOP. MEN.

    U.S. and Western leaders should be lining up to thank Vladimir Putin for a painful but thorough lesson in how the adult leader of a nation protects his country’s genuine national interests.

    I thought libertarians don’t believe that politicians can “protect[] his country’s genuine national interests” or at least without coercion?

    a nation acting to protect what it perceives to be life-or-death national interests ? as is Putin’s Russia ? is both insane and suicidal if it refrains from acting because of a raft of documents

    So the problem isn’t foreign intervention but that Wrong TOP. MEN. are intervening badly on the wrong side. How non-interventionist.

    And I’m sure no government in the world has ever abused what “national interests” and “life-or-death” situations mean.

    1. It seems to me that “the adult leader of a nation protects his country’s genuine national interests” could be the writers version of acknowledging realpolitic.

      Expecting Russia to behave other than they are IS foolish. Either you must make them believe that naked force awaits them if they take Ukraine back, or they are going to do what they believe is best for Mother Russia.

  9. So I take Ron Paul thinks that USG should violate international treaties if perceives itself to be acting in the national interest and/or in a life or death situation? So who’s the neocon again?

    1. Principled non-interventionist, or insane warmongering neocon?

      the terminally adolescent political leaders who run the West have run smack dab into a decisive, realistic, and nationalistic adult, in the person of George W Bush, and they do not know what to do.

      Iraq and Middle Eastern leaders should be lining up to thank George W Bush for a painful but thorough lesson in how the adult leader of a nation protects his country’s genuine national interests.

      a nation acting to protect what it perceives to be life-or-death national interests ? as is Bush’s America ? is both insane and suicidal if it refrains from acting because of a raft of documents

      1. Lately I’ve been thinking that the Rockwellians are some bizarre reverse Neocons. Instead of wanting the USG to do whatever it can and make whatever dubious alliance possible in order to defeat the Commies/terrorists/whoever they want everyone else to do whatever they can and make whatever dubious alliance possible in order to defeat the USG. The presence of ex-Cold Warriors like Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts among them makes this sound more likely.

      2. Again I’m still surprised to find supposedly anti-war anti-state libertarians defending war and state as long as TOP. MEN. (meaning anyone who opposes the US) are doing it. They sound like Communists.

        Perhaps allying with the “anti-war” Left and rehashing their talking points has corrupted their thinking? And their hatred of the USG leads to their defences of the CSA and 18th Imperial Britain since they opposed the USG too.

        1. It is a strange and perverse thought process, that’s for sure.

          1. They think the USG are the real villains in the world (plus they are American so being an American libertarian means that the USG is the enemy) so I guess they think everything is necessary to defeat them. Like the neocons and the USSR during the Cold War. Hence me calling them reverse neocons.

  10. Notice how the Ukrainian gov is waiting for the west to act, instead of acting to protect their sovereignty.

    The Russians don’t even claim that the invaders are their troops, but separatists claiming territory. So fight them. Take back what is yours.

    If Russia jumps in, then maybe the outcry will make it not worth it for Russia.

    But this advice is about 2 weeks too late. Also none of my business. Too bad the west didn’t think that too.

    1. You’re an imbecile Joao. The Ukrainians won’t win a war against Russia. They’re smart not to fight. Russia wants Ukraine to give them a pretext to invade with just cause. The Ukrainians are smart not to oblige.

      Secondly, they are gearing for a fight if it comes to that.

      Third, if you gave an actual damn about liberty you’d be wanting the U.S. and whoever else to do all it could to assist Ukraine.

      Doing nothing is also why Putin now controls the Crimea.

      1. Some people don’t understand doing nothing can cause just as much blowback as doing something.

  11. If the Ukrainians want to be free let them fucking fight, if they don’t value their freedom enough to fight for it why the hell should we?

    1. They are willing to fight for it you ignorant shit. Read a fucking newspaper.

      The Poles also stood up to the Germans in 1939. How did that work out for Poland?

    2. Well, I’m assuming they understand the difference between being slaughtered en masse by an unending stream of superior military assets and losing a hundred by a few snipers sent out by the local dictatorship.

      Freedom is worth dying for but when no on is left to appreciate it what’s the point?

  12. That looks ike itsgonna be good.

    http://www.Anon-Works.com

  13. “Secretary of State John Kerry warned of serious repercussions for Russia on Monday…”

    Then…

    “Kerry responded carefully, saying “we have contingencies ? we are talking through various options that may or may not be available.”

    The man should have just said, “We have contingencies” or nothing at all. The rest of his sentence is disturbingly emasculated and non-persuasive. Are you fucking kidding me? You are hanging red meat in front of a KGB Hannibal. You don’t warn of serious repercussion with various options that may NOT be available. This strange tall creature is capable of playing planet-scaring political chess with a tyrannical Russian wizard?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.