Ukraine

How the Past 4 American Presidents Helped Escalate Tensions in Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin is singularly responsible for the war that began this week. But the past four presidential administrations missed opportunities to deescalate.

|

The war in Ukraine is solely the responsibility of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has shamefully ordered an attack on a nonthreatening neighbor.

But the exploding conflict is also a warning about how missteps in American foreign policy can unnecessarily escalate tensions in ways that make war more likely. Some of those decisions heightened the acute risk of conflict in Ukraine itself, while others undermined the post-war norms that are now at risk of being fully torched by Putin's invasion. Through hubris and misguided attempts at projecting American power around the globe, four successive presidential administrations helped create the conditions that led to Putin's violation of Ukrainian sovereignty.

That doesn't excuse Russia's actions, but it does help to explain them.

That history begins with the Clinton administration, which inherited a world that for the first time in decades did not include the Soviet Union. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe meant that there was an opportunity for the United States and its NATO allies to reassess the purposes of the strategic partnership that had been formed in 1949 to oppose the Soviets.

Instead of reorganizing what had always been a defensive alliance, NATO during the 1990s went on the offensive. First, it admitted new member states that had previously been part of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, like Poland and Bulgaria. Then, with the backing of the Clinton administration, NATO launched into the Yugoslav Wars, most aggressively intervening in Kosovo.

The parallels between the 1999 war in Kosovo and Putin's attack on Ukraine are not perfect, but they are eerily similar in some ways. Both involved the direct military intervention of a superpower, were motivated (or at least justified) by claims of needing to protect an ethnic enclave within a larger country, ignored the post-WWII norm that great powers do not use force to redraw national borders, and created a huge refugee crisis.

The "war [in Kosovo] was waged without U.N. authorization, and was a rank violation of international law," writes Sarang Shidore, director of studies at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a realist foreign policy think tank. "It was conducted based on a new principle conjured up by the United States and some of its partners called the Responsibility to Protect or R2P—the idea that major human rights violations justify the 'international community' intervening militarily in any part of the world. While persecution of human beings is not acceptable anywhere, the highly arbitrary use (and non-use) of the principle by a set of powerful states against those less able reeked of opportunism even back then."

President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq (and, to a lesser extent, the long misadventure in Afghanistan) further undercut the principle that superpowers should not violate smaller states' sovereignty or engage in wars to topple unfriendly regimes. It is that same principle that the U.S. and NATO are now seeking to use to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine—indeed, none other than Bush himself has issued a statement articulating that same principle.

Bush also pushed to heighten the stakes in Ukraine. At a 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania, the Bush administration (against the wishes of Germany and France) successfully negotiated for NATO to issue a statement offering future membership to Ukraine and Georgia. The so-called Bucharest Declaration triggered an immediate, aggressive response from the Russian government, which announced plans to provide military support to pro-Russia militias in Georgia and later invaded part of the country. Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, has called the declaration NATO's "cardinal sin."

"Many leading strategists warned that NATO expansion was a mistake," Chris Preble, co-director of the Atlantic Council's New American Engagement Initiative, tells Reason. "But there was a bipartisan consensus among foreign policy elites that dismissed Russian security concerns. NATO expansion advocates explained that NATO was a purely defense alliance and thus no threat to Russia. This was a key untested assumption underlying NATO expansion, a real blind spot, that was never seriously scrutinized."

President Barack Obama's promise to avoid doing "stupid shit" in foreign policy and his administration's attempt to "reset" relations with Russia might have offered some hope of reducing those tensions. But much of that went out the window when America plainly attempted to influence the outcome of the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution that ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, who had refused to sign a free trade agreement with the European Union.

Victoria Nuland, Obama's assistant secretary of state, in a leaked phone call to American ambassadors, expressed a clear preference for a successor in Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who would become the new president of Ukraine after the revolution. Sens. John McCain (R–Ariz.) and Chris Murphy (D–Conn.) visited Yatsenyuk during the protests and openly indicated American support for him—the kind of behavior that would be loudly denounced if it were Russian politicians attempting to pick favorites in a Mexican or Canadian election.

Putin responded by annexing Crimea—and Obama, wisely, decided against escalation.

As he was leaving office in 2016, Obama gave about as realistic of an assessment of the situation in Ukraine as an American president could. "The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do," he told The Atlantic, adding that "This is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for."

The lesson did not stick. President Donald Trump broke with his predecessors by openly calling for a reassessment of America's role in NATO and NATO's role in the world, but those efforts were driven by domestic populist politics rather than a serious attempt at diplomatic realignment. Trump was neither the Russian stooge that many liberals claimed nor the tough guy that many conservatives imagined, but his administration remained committed to the 2008 Bucharest Declaration—a position that's in tension with Trump's loud criticisms of NATO and personal fondness for Putin—and, like Obama, Trump sold billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine.

In each administration since the end of the Cold War, American presidents have made choices that echo in the current crisis. Whether directly related to Ukraine or as broader expressions of the de facto realities of foreign policy, those decisions have colored the contours of what is now unfolding. Principles like respect for national sovereignty cannot be discarded in some circumstances and held as insoluble in others, and even well-intentioned security commitments like the Bucharest Declaration can serve to escalate tensions in dangerous ways.

But the bipartisan foreign policy consensus in Washington has refused to acknowledge that "blindspot," as Preble puts it. Indeed, the Biden administration has continued this trend. During his confirmation hearing in January 2020, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the Biden administration would continue to support eventually extending NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia.

"If you are successful," interjected Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), "then we will be at war with Russia now."

Avoiding a direct military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia must be the top priority for American officials—now more than ever. All this history means nothing compared to the importance of what happens next.

While the actions of American presidents over the past 30 years do not excuse Putin's belligerence, today's choices are built atop those made in the past. And the truth is that multiple American presidential administrations spanning three decades engaged in foreign policy decisions that have helped shape the potentially cataclysmic choices Putin, Biden, and other world leaders now face.

NEXT: Audit: L.A. Spending as Much as $837,000 per Unit of Housing for Homeless

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. But much of that went out the window when America plainly attempted to influence the outcome of the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution that ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, who had refused to sign a free trade agreement with the European Union.

    Victoria Nuland, Obama's assistant secretary of state, in a leaked phone call to American ambassadors, expressed a clear preference for a successor in Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who would become the new president of Ukraine after the revolution. Sens. John McCain (R–Ariz.) and Chris Murphy (D–Conn.) visited Yatsenyuk during the protests and openly indicated American support for him—the kind of behavior that would be loudly denounced if it were Russian politicians attempting to pick favorites in a Mexican or Canadian election.

    Fomenting color revolutions abroad is never a good idea.

    1. "Wars good for the economy because a dead guy cant flip a burger"

      Bobcat Golthwaite.

      1. 34. War is good for business.

        35. Peace is good for business.

        1. Building an army: good. Using an army: bad. Only defense can justify the use of an army. In the case of Russia's invasion of Ukraine one must remember the Ukraine's rhetoric in the last few weeks included the threat to develop nuclear weapons. A creditable and noteworthy threat as Ukraine used to be very advanced. They may not be so after the current events play out. Ask yourself in the tally of the dead how many would have died if Ukraine had used nuclear weapons in its efforts, good or bad, to reacquire the Donbass? Russia could not sit idly as its leadership actually cares about the security of Russia instead of just its own power. Not that caring about power is necessarily a bad thing as ambition is required to induce someone to accept the responsibilities and trouble that political office brings.

          1. Nick Fuentes- "the United States is the evil empire in the world...now they're going and saying 'Vladimir Putin is Adolf Hitler', as if that isn't a good thing-- oops, I shouldn't have said that"

            1. [JOIN NOW] I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($200 to $300 / hr.) online from my laptop. Last month I got cheek of nearly 30,000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go office, Its home online job. yui You become independent after joining this job. I really thanks to my friend who refer me this:-
              ..
              SITE….., http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/

          2. you grossly contradicted yourself.

            Defensive mil action. obviously.

            Unsupported claims , Attacking the Victim ( Left Wing Troll tactic) with U TALKING about making a nuke, NOT DEFENDE

            1. not substantiated
            2. no reason they cant, should join iaea
            3. just having one is not a threat. You presuppose only Russia have a self defense right outing yourself as a

            COMMUNIST TROLL.

            .we know you Rusians are ful on propaganda mode.

            Fuck off Rusky

          3. You are forgetting that US guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty for surrendering nuclear weapons, and obama reneged on this commitment in 2014, so did biden in 2022.

      2. Really something to that. The reason we got out of the depression wasn't due to increased federal spending, rather it was because such a large percentage of our working age males were fighting a war. And after the war, all our competitors industries were in total wrecks, well ours was wholely intact.

        1. In fact, ours highly technically advanced.

          Massive science and engineering efforts went ahead of the industry.

          And now, Vlads as senile and deluded as Joey...hes going to drop the ISS on the US?

          Only a moron would fall for that...

          Itll burn up like flash paper on reentry or just skip off the atmosphere.

          No heat shields.

        2. One of the reasons for The Crusades.

        3. The war itself could be looked at as increased federal spending. I've always maintained it is profitable to build an army and sometimes catastrophically expensive to use same. Total agreement with the rest of your comment.

        4. Nick Fuentes- "the United States is the evil empire in the world...now they're going and saying 'Vladimir Putin is Adolf Hitler', as if that isn't a good thing-- oops, I shouldn't have said that"

      3. LISTEN TO 3795 KHz shortwave SSB

        Man in PR absolutely going OFF on Germany and Biden for alliwin this to happen.

        Hes from " there"

        1. Nick Fuentes- "the United States is the evil empire in the world...now they're going and saying 'Vladimir Putin is Adolf Hitler', as if that isn't a good thing-- oops, I shouldn't have said that"

      4. How does NOT flipping burgers improve the economy? That makes no sense.

    2. This is McStain’s love child…Obama and Trump certainly didn’t give a shit about NATO expansion and Ukraine. McStain and the Military Industrial Complex get credit/blame.

  2. We should have had no effect.
    Should have.

  3. "Instead of reorganizing what had always been a defensive alliance, NATO during the 1990s went on the offensive. First, it admitted new member states that had previously been part of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, like Poland and Bulgaria."

    This is horseshit.

    Admitting Poland and Bulgaria into NATO was in the best interests of the United States--with or without the Ukraine.

    And there isn't anything libertarian about the idea that freedom is only worth it if an aggressive tyrant doesn't object.

    Incidentally, do you only support the Second Amendment so long as no one ever gets shot?

    The primary responsibility for the aggression of foreign dictators is foreign dictators--not the security interests of the United States.

    1. NATO's purpose is to destroy Russia and steal taxpayer money for the totalitarians who want us to own nothing.

      1. Nick Fuentes- "the United States is the evil empire in the world...now they're going and saying 'Vladimir Putin is Adolf Hitler', as if that isn't a good thing-- oops, I shouldn't have said that"

        1. Really don't know what you think you have there.

    2. "Admitting Poland and Bulgaria into NATO was in the best interests of the United States--with or without the Ukraine."

      Oh?
      Make the case, neokeNN

    3. "The primary responsibility for the aggression of foreign dictators is foreign dictators"

      Yes, that's what Putin has been saying for the better part of a decade. You just choose to obey boomer propaganda instead of listening to his concerns.

    4. NATO's defensive nature has been totes proved by:

      -invading, occupying, and bombing Serbia
      -invading Afghanistan
      -invading Iraq
      -sponsoring a coup in Georgia
      -bombing Libya
      -invading Syria
      -sponsoring a coup in Ukraine
      -training, supplying, and funding Ukrainian forces to kill Russians
      -oh, and trying to frame Russia for crimes causing every political result that the establishment doesn't like

      20+ years of constant, aggressive warfare worldwide while they surround Russia, reject its offer to join their alliance, with constant rhetoric about how evil Russia is.
      Gee, wonder why Putin might feel Russia's threatened. No way it's the 2 decades of consistently threatening words and actions from NATO...

      1. So the mask slips on the compulsive re-tweeter.

        Preventing war in Europe for the first time in millennia is the single most important justification for the US being a superpower. Russia lost the Cold War. Losing means you eat shit.

        This week's actions seem to justify NATO more than at any time since that happened, no? Just a pity Ukraine was too late to gain its protection.

        1. Hey, Tony has the same opinion as Ken!
          Really strong endorsement there.

          1. Cripes! Isn't that the fifth horseman of the apocalypse?

          2. And you're posting the same opinion as online socialists doing Russian propaganda. It's a topsy-turvy world.

            1. "IT'S RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA!!"

              Cool your jets Joe McCarthy.

              1. McCarthy was correct on a lot of his investigations. Let's not smear him like this.

        2. Losing means you eat shit... Exactly what lead to the Versailles Treaty, and that certainly insured peace was maintained, didn't it?

          1. ToV not nearly as non- peaceful as its replacement, the Useless Nations.

            1. The League of Nations came from the Treaty of Versailles but the League of Nations wasn't the problem. The UN was just part of the post WW2 actions.

              The problem with the Versailles treaty was the way Britain and France used it to punish Germany to such a degree that it led to cause de resistance among the German people, while forcing a weak government on them, while completely bankrupting Germany, making it easier for a dictator to take over. Also, all the new countries it created without regards to any cultural or historical perspective, often solely to for the benefit of extending their colonial empires. We're still dealing the fall out from that (see the Middle East).

              1. Indeed.

                And here's something nobody seems to have considered: what happens if they get their wish and Putin is taken out?
                Putin, despite the caricature and bad reads imagined by some here (I'll not name names), is a rational actor. In many ways, much more rational than our leadership.
                Yall really looking forward to rolling the dice on who comes next?

              2. Swing and a miss!

                The LoN had no military force.

                It couldnt enfore its decrees.

                Powerless

        3. Once again another progressive chicken hawk, who's spent the last decade decrying military spending, bad mouthing the US military, it's servicemen and our country, who soundly is jingoistic now that his side is the one beating the war drums. Remind me again Tony, what branch did you serve in? And, which branch will you be serving in in the war against Russia?

          1. Wow, are you ranting incoherently!

            Russia invaded Ukraine because Vladimir Putin has emotional problems.

            I have no endorsed any military action at all. The US is not engaged militarily in Ukraine. So what the fuck do you think you're talking about?

            1. No, he was pretty coherent.

              Just because you want to weasel out, doesn't mean he wasn't understandable.

            2. You've been beating the war drums since January. Now you're trying to weasel out of it.

              1. Everyone's beating the war drums thanks to Putin's propaganda. Thirty percent of America wants to murder the other 70% for reasons they can barely articulate.

                1. Everyone? It seems like most, especially the right and the centrist, are saying no war, let's focus on our own problems.

                2. Only the left is the ones screaming we need to do something to help the Ukraine. And some leftover neo-cons.

                  1. To be honest, I'm disappointed that the bulk of everyone has jumped on board the "Russia evil, Ukraine glorious heroes" bandwagon.
                    It's especially galling that people who've seen through the russiagate hoax, who've seen all the lies pushed about covid, who otherwise trust the media very little are taking msm (including FoxNews, who has people on talking about the certainty of pogroms and concentration camps) and politicians as suddenly being honest brokers of the truth, steadfastly reporting w/o bias or deception.
                    This is how you end up with enough fucking idiots to support a No-Fly Zone and think it's a form "soft" pressure. This is how you get support for US troop involvement, because the righteousness dial has been turned to 11.

                  2. Think about this: the US and NATO are giving Ukrainians training and weapons for the express purpose of killing Russians.
                    What the fuck do we think should come of that?

                    1. Quite honestly, I view it as a proxy test of our weapons and defenses against Russia.

                      While making aome money, of course.

                    2. Yea, that's a good point from a logic perspective.
                      But morally/ethically?
                      We considered Suleimani a terrorist for doing exactly what US is doing now.

                      Suleimani gives Iraqis training and weapons to kill Americans in Iraq.
                      US/NATO gives Ukrainians training and weapons to kill Russians in Ukraine.

                      I'm good with the strike on Suleimani for attacking our embassy, in fact it was the best foreign policy maneuver of my lifetime, and I'm good with making value judgements based on friend/enemy assessments, I'm even ok with saying it's because we're the big dog.
                      I just wonder if anyone's really considered possible, and justifiable, blowback.

            3. Tony’s not even interested in how the people he argues with here almost daily think, why would he be interested in Putin’s point of view?

        4. "Preventing war in Europe for the first time in millennia is the single most important justification for the US being a superpower."

          I'm not sure what that means: Europe has had wars in the last millennia, and the US isn't close to a millennia old.

      2. Lying about Iraq, Troll?

        Outs you as A Leftist Troll.

        Lying scumbag, The UN Coalition, not Bush as you Haters like to state, thres outva murderous dictator that not only kilked his own people, but fired 110, 000 chemical rockers on Iran.

        But thats OK with you Bush hating Leftists.

        UN MOVIC found chem weapons in Iraq March 2003.

        That doesnt make it past your political hate, does it?

        As usual, you pathetic psychopaths dont care about mass murder so long as it fosters your hatred.

        1. That's ahistorical. The UN refused to endorse the US-sponsored invasion of Iraq. That's why Bush had to come up with the so-called "Coalition of the Willing".

          The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.

          Oh, and the March 2003 UN MOVIC document listed remaining concerns that needed to be addressed, not "found chem weapons".

          1. Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but we did find some buried chemical weapons, we even had a few coalition members wounded by them, but the stockpiles were extremely small and badly detoriotated from age.

            1. Weren’t they left over from their war with Iran? Also the Bush admin claimed they were actively making weapons but weren’t.

              1. This was because Hussein was in a bind. He needed a deterrent against Iran.

                So he complied with the chemical weapons ban, but pretended to still have stockpiles. He repeatedly blocked inspectors and moved truckloads of documents and equipment before allowing them in.

                How much was Disinformation campaign and how much was real attempts to evade detection is unclear. But "Bush made it up" was always a lie. Russia was telling the same story, and Iraq llwas their client state.

                1. Chemical and biological weapons are asinine—we invaded because Iraq had huge reserves of easily exploitable oil and the Bush family’s primary goal is expanding the global middle class. Oil is very important to expanding the global middle class because we can’t print energy like we can print dollars.

                  1. Well, that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Most of that money went to European interests.

                2. I’m not saying the Bush admin knowingly lied, but they had bad intel.

                  1. Correct. Clinton gave an address to the nation (in 1998 I believe) where he made the same basic claims about Iraq developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Our intelligence agencies gave both Clinton and Bush bad information.
                    Cyto mentions one theory - that the misinformation was intentionally generated by Iraq as a deterrent to Iran - but some (most on the left) like the theory that it was generated by the “military industrial complex” and oil interests to justify the huge spending that came with the invasion. Either way (and there are other theories) it should be a lesson as to the limits on information and make us very cautious about sending troops to fight on foreign soil.

    5. Not to mention that there is no parallel between Kosovo and Ukraine.

      * Stalin demanded that Ukraine and Belarussia be admitted to the UN as founding independent states.

      * Khrushchev transferred Crimea to Ukraine from Russia in 1954.

      * Putin agreed to honor the 1991 borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its leftover USSR nuclear weapons.

      Kosovo? Yugoslavia fell apart on its own. One of the member groups (Serbs? I've lost track by now) began a genocide. Kosovo asserted its independence. The NATO operation stopped the genocide. That is nothing like Putin stealing Crimea from Ukraine, then invading for as flimsy a reason as Hitler invading Poland.

      What a sorry comparison. Learn some history, buddy, before you start preaching it.

      1. Part of Kosovo declared it's independence, part didn't. As for genocide, look up what the Muslim Kosovoans did to the Serbian Christian minority after we helped them win their independence.
        Which branch did you serve in during that time?

        1. I have long lost any detailed memory of who killed whom, but if Muslims were killing the Christians who had been killing them, I will shed no tears.

          As for my service, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Do you judge my opinion by itself, or do you need to know my race and religion too?

          1. I don't think soldiermedic76 was attacking you.

          2. I do when you act jingoistic. And supporting NATOs intervention in the Balkans is jingoistic in my book. I didn't support it then and still don't support it. I couldn't say much back then as I was subject to the UCMJ at the time, but in private I did criticize it.

          3. Also, if it was so important why did we go the NATO route instead of the UN route? Oh, because Serbia has been a Russian ally clear back to the days of the Russian Empire and we knew the actions would antagonize Russia, which has veto power in the UNSC. We calculated that Russia would remain weak and compliant. Guess we errored there.

    6. Admitting Poland and Bulgaria into NATO was in the best interests of the United States--with or without the Ukraine.

      Really? What American interests were served by admitting Poland and Bulgaria into NATO? How did that improve the lives, security, or well-being of Americans?

      And there isn't anything libertarian about the idea that freedom is only worth it if an aggressive tyrant doesn't object.

      I have no idea what that even means.

      What is cetain is that there is nothing libertarian about a construct like NATO, or tens of thousands of US troops stationed abroad, or getting involved in the border disputes or wars of two shithole countries halfway around the world.

      "Libertarians for NATO" is just not a thing.

      1. "Really? What American interests were served by admitting Poland and Bulgaria into NATO? How did that improve the lives, security, or well-being of Americans?"

        This mutual defense treaty has been a great deterrent to war. Mutually assured destruction through nuclear ICBMs makes conventional wars through proxies more likely, with the U.S. against the communists' allies in Vietnam and the Russians against the U.S.' allies in Afghanistan both being examples. Why wasn't there a conventional proxy war like that in Europe during the Cold War--when tensions were much higher than they are now?

        The correct answer is NATO.

        The best way to win wars is to deter them from happening in the first place, and if Putin doesn't invade Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland in the future, it won't be out of the goodness of his heart. It will be because we and our NATO allies have moved our assets from Germany and elsewhere in western Europe into those countries. It will be because we all stand together to defend them in such a way that Putin couldn't possibly win that war.

        Finland and Sweden may soon decide that it's in their best interests to join NATO, and it will be in our best interests to admit them, too. Putting American troops in Finland might be provocative to Putin, but putting Finnish troops in Lithuania would be just fine.

        1. Not sure admitting Finland would accomplish much, considering Norway already has a land border with Russia. It just makes this land border available to NATO longer. Possibly for the defense of the Baltics it would make sense. It would strengthen our position in the Baltic Sea and it's closer to Estonia than the rest of NATO, making reinforcing them maybe easier. It still wouldn't give us a land link to the Baltics, but Gulf of Finland is pretty narrow.

        2. Wonder how you'd react if Cuba decided to allow the Russians to place nukes on their island in exchange for a few billion dollars.

          1. stupid comment.

            1. Castro had them.
            2. submarines make it a moot point.

      2. "Libertarians for NATO" is just not a thing."

        If avoiding unnecessary wars is a libertarian thing, then constitutionally ratified mutual defense treaties are absolutely a libertarian thing. In fact, treaties, naturalization rules, declarations of war, spending, and taxes are all within the proper purview of democracy--from a libertarian perspective. You can't live in a free society and not have those things subject to approval by elected representatives, which is why ratifying treaties is an enumerated power of Congress.

        NATO was ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate in 1949, and the Soviet Union collapsed before launching a conventional war against our allies because of it.

        Even when the USSR knew it was collapsing, they refrained from starting a conventional war in Europe--and NATO was integral to that outcome.

      3. "And there isn't anything libertarian about the idea that freedom is only worth it if an aggressive tyrant doesn't object."

        The argument above seems to suggest that fighting against Putin for your freedom isn't worth it if it means someone might get hurt.

        If the statistics showed that the Second Amendment actually did increase the violent crime rate, would you support repealing it?

        Not me. I have a qualitative preference for freedom even if it means it's more likely that I get hurt. That may be the essence of libertarianism.

        Freedom is more risky--so what?

    7. After the collapse of the USSR, what purpose did NATO really serve?

      1. NATO was a strictly military alliance formed to confront Soviet aggression after WWII, once the Soviet union stopped existing, it really lacked a reason to exist, which really became the problem for the past three decades. It's been a huge alliance with no mission.

        1. youre becoming quite a liar...

          This...proves otherwise.

          .Your founding lie is that no USSR = no Russian aggression.

      2. To eventually attack, invade, and/or destroy an independent Russia (and steal tax money from the middle class to redistribute to our ruling oligarchs). That's a pretty unavoidable conclusion when you review their actions during that span.
        The Brits have been trying to take down Russia for like 300+ years.

    8. The enemy has changed while NATO has not. Russia is no longer the Soviet Union NATO was formed to safeguard against but the inflexible organization continues to act as though it were fighting the USSR instead of the Russian Orthodox Republic.

      What do you expect from militant atheists like the present regime of the United States? Committed to atheism and the removal of all reminders of religion or at least the Christian one.

      Rules for thee but none for me. I always think of myself as a pro-life Libertarian but murder being wrong is a rule isn't it? Do you suppose some of us accept that rules are necessary for civilization to even function? The second amendment is one of the greatest safeguards of our freedom and is the canary in the mine which has warned us about the Progressive Death Cult's emergence.

      To address the article we are commenting on. Does everyone forget that Ukraine's rhetoric in the past weeks included the threat of developing nuclear weapons?

      1. "The enemy has changed while NATO has not"

        The aggression is coming from the same place, and Russia's nuclear arsenal continues to necessitate NATO as a response.

        The reason Putin is doing this is because, in his calculation, invading the Ukraine was more to his benefit than not invading the Ukraine. NATO makes it even more against his interests to invade our allies, and that makes it more unlikely that we'll be dragged into a war with Russia.

      2. P.S. NATO deterred a conventional invasion of our allies by Russia during the Cold War, when tensions were much higher than they are now, and there is no good reason pull the plug on an effective deterrent to war. If you want to go to war with Russia, getting rid of NATO is the first step.

    9. Ken,
      What would you have recommended so we don't have the current conflict? I'm on old cold warrior but when the cold war ended instead of shutting it all down and coming home we engaged in neolib/neocon foreign endeavors. I'm not talking about keeping a strong Navy and Air Force but trying to remake the world for "democracy", globalism and Goldman Sachs (kidding..well not really). 30 years of bankrupting America, moving our industrial base to China and wars which haven't served our interests are the result. And the spread of big govt/survillance state domestically. We now have the WaPo editorializing that "freedom and liberty" are "white supremacy."

      Dan Moynahan, George Keenan, and Bill Bradley had it right.

      And to say that is not treasonous..hell the real traitors are the folks at DHS who want to sick the FBI on parents...

  4. So... Trump's sin was not fully supporting NATO, the aggressive expansion of which has been used in the pretext for multiple Russian invasions?

    Creative writing there. How about the guy after him, under whose administration the current invasion of Ukraine began?
    The guy who was Vice President when Crimea fell, and the guy whose son did such stellar work for Ukrainian energy interests - along with the sons of several other U.S. luminaries, like Pelosi and Kerry - one might think he would deserve some scrutiny here.

    Alas, it seems sanctions will be SWIFT in name only. But a good show has been put on.

    1. IT'S NOT ALL JOE'S FAULT! Or Barry's in 2014...

      Don't you even know Orange Man is bad? Also something, something NATO.

    2. Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, and Romney all have kids on Ukrainian payrolls.
      Hmm...

      1. Ukraine got appropriate value for their money.

      2. Thank you, I forgot Romney.

    3. Bidet is the common denominator in both Regimes.

    4. Trump's biggest complaint about NATO was most it's member states weren't living up to their obligations when it came to military spending and readiness. He stated he was tired of the US paying for Europe's defense, while those same countries shit all over us. And he was right. The German CiC of the Army even announced yesterday that Germany has so neglected it's military that they aren't prepared to fight a war. He's been saying this for years, as has his predecessors. Merkel et al ignored them kept budget expenditure below 2% of GDP, so they could fund their social programs. Most years they voted to decrease their budget.

      I've told Joe Friday this multiple times, yet he still thinks NATO is a benefit to the US. What good is an ally who can't help you fight, which in fact you have to spend extra resources defending because they are so unwilling and incapable of fighting themselves? No one singing NATOs praises has yet answered this.

      Western Europe has been complacent, happy to have the US spends billions of dollars in our budget, to protect them, while they cut their budgets and readiness, secure in the knowledge that if they're attacked we have to defend them under the NATO treaty. At the same time they have become increasingly hostile to the US and have had no problem criticizing our military budget. And the fact is that we aren't even properly prepared for a conventional, near peer war. It isn't so much the size of our budget but how it's allocated, that is the problem. Politically driven projects have replaced field time and politics have hindered procurement, and research and development. No, this isn't only a problem from the left, but the bear more than their fair share of the blame for this problem. It hasn't made our military more cohesive, more lethal, more ready, or improved moral. The front line officers and NCOs almost universally agree it has hurt all these metrics.

      The west has grown complacent and has bought into the myths of our own superiority and righteousness. We've bought into myths about the Cold War and the world wars. Forgetting the struggles of these conflicts and only celebrating the victories. We've forgotten how ill prepared we were when these conflicts started and the huge casualties we took as a result. We remember Normandy, but forget Dunkirk. We remember Midway, but forget the Solomon Seas. We celebrate JFK during the Cuban Missile crisis, but rarely discuss how Khrushchev only ordered the missiles into Cuba after we stationed missiles in Turkey, and how the Soviets only backed down after Kennedy agreed to pull the missiles out of Turkey. We celebrate the Berlin Airlift but forget how close it came to open war. We remember the Berlin Wall falling but forget that just 6 years earlier a misread intercept nearly caused the Soviets to declare war. We haven't fought a near peer in generations, arguably as far back as 1945 (you could make an argument Iraq was in 1991, but despite being the 3rd or 4th largest Army in the world at the time, it really was a paper tiger).

      And the very people who have put us in this situation, the very elites who have not prepared us for this, are now beating the drums of war. They are increasing the rhetoric and the hostility towards Putin, despite none of it doing anything more than increasing Putin's hostility towards us. He just announced in retaliation Russia will respond with some unspecified retaliation against NATO that will result in military-technical consequences.

      We can't save Ukraine. That's a done deal. It's time to worry about saving the world from another world war. It's time to back off the rhetoric and admit the sanctions aren't working. It's time to change course, prepare for war while seeking peace. But instead our leaders appear more interested in looking tough than in being effective and pragmatic.

      FDR promised not to send troops into die in a European War, also, so did Wilson, but FDR openly embraced policies that made war more likely than less. As early as 1940 he was actively looking for a reason to declare war, while promising the American public he wasn't seeking war. It was the sanctions FDR placed on Japan that convinced the Japanese that the only recourse was to attack America. Would Japan have attacked without them? It's hard to say, Japan had been preparing for war with the US for decades, while the US wasn't preparing for war at all. It was pure luck that our carrier fleet was out to sea on December 7th, normally they were in port on Sundays and the Japanese were betting they would be that Sunday to. If they had launched the attack on November 30th instead, they would have found the US carriers and battleships both in port. Midway also was largely due to lack. The Japanese had left their naval encryption key in place so long that our crypto analysis units in Pearl were decrypting it at a high degree of accuracy. Even then, Naval intelligence and Admiral King in Washington disagreed with the conclusion of the crypto analysis unit at Pearl. Nimitz gambled that the Pearl Unit was correct. If Nimitz had deferred to his superiors, our carriers wouldn't have been in the right place. And we would have walked into a trap. As it was, the Japanese submarine screening force that was supposed to locate the US carriers for the Japanese task force were late getting onto station, therefore the Japanese didn't even realize our carriers where in the area until after we launched our planes. Otherwise the Japanese commander would never have ordered another bombing attack on Midway Island and likely could have sunk all three of our carriers. Enough with the lecture for now, I could go on, but the point is that a lot of our success early in WWII wasn't because of our military superiority, it was largely due to good luck. And we have forgotten that.

      1. Well covered.

        The rhetoric and propaganda is reaching covidian levels.
        And honestly, the more Biden, Psaki, the regime say we're not going to send troops, the more it worries me that we'll send troops.

      2. I come here for the free articles.

        NATO never made sense for the US to be involved in, unless it's a threat leveled at Russia. We are not Europe. Not being Europe was a large part of why our nation was formed...

        I kinda agree with Ken, in that NATO could be a good idea, if it were more inclusive. Open membership to any nation for mutual defense, contingent on GDP% contributions and no wars of aggression or acts of genocide. And if you fail to meet criteria, the nation actually is penalized or removed. Like most NWOish things, the lack of internal ethics undemined it.

        1. I could agree with that. However, NATO hasn't been that for three decades. I still don't know why Putin was denied entry to NATO when he asked in 1999. Maybe he still will have turned out to be an asshole, but I think we would have had far more influence on him then.

          I look at Erdagon, and don't think he is any better than Putin. We haven't kicked Turkey out of NATO. So, it isn't principled, unless that principle was purely Russia bad and irredeemable. Which means Putin has a point about NATO hostility towards Russia.

          1. I still don't know why Putin was denied entry to NATO when he asked in 1999.

            Why Russia has been denied entry to NATO is the key to understanding this. Who's profiting from preventing Russia from being a US ally? 20 years ago, it could have been mistrust from 80s CIA/NSA. Today, it's definitely China. If it weren't for Russiagate, maybe we would have them as an ally. Now, I wonder if this will permanently put Russia in the China camp.

            1. I don't think the Russia China alliance can last. It didn't last very long under Stalin. They've been traditional enemies since Russia settled and conquered Siberia. Siberia simply has to much resources China needs and there cultures don't trust each other. At this time it's beneficial for them to be allies, but it's not a state I believe is durable given their histories.

          2. Yep. If NATO was destined for any success, Russia would have been admitted rather than ostracized. But it's petty politics and war games as it stands, and not worth the US investment.

            I kinda think the Russia/China alliance may last. No love lost, but they would have a long time divising up the globe before there was any friction.

        2. I think in 1949 NATO made sense, I think it lost that reason in 1991, maybe even 1989. And that's the problem. It's been three decades since NATO really had a point. But it's acted as if it has, without defining what that was.

        3. come for the articles.

          Stay for the Trolls.

          What a bargain !

      3. “I've told Joe Friday this multiple times,”

        Lefty trolls are to be mocked, not fed.

      4. Unless Germany and EU drop the "green deal", they will be funding Putin's regime..his revenue stream needed to buy domestic support comes from the gas he is shipping to Berlin...

    5. "Trump's sin was not fully supporting NATO"

      Trump's sin was starting to sell advanced weaponry to Ukraine, something which Obama had not done and Biden continues to do. Something which the Russians were a lot more concerned about than many western observers had predicted. Russian concerns over western designs on Ukraine go back a lot further than Trump, of course.

      1. AYFKM? After Crimea….

    6. It’s not Reason without nonsensical BOTH SIDES idiocy

  5. ‘Boaf sidez Boehm’ has opined.

  6. We should be clear about the reasons why Putin annexed the Crimea and why he's invading the Ukraine. It was not because NATO wanted to expand into the Ukraine. It was because the Ukrainian people wanted to join the EU. It was because the Ukrainian people wanted to join NATO. It was because the Ukrainian people wanted to reject Moscow. It was because the Ukrainian people wanted to reject Putin. That is why Putin is invading Ukraine. He is invading to subjugate the Ukrainian people to his rule, and he would be doing the same thing no matter who we had admitted into NATO.

    Right now, we're in that period where average Americans are still learning about this conflict. Six months after we invaded Iraq, 69% of the American people still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11. Part of that was because of the propaganda they were fed, but part of it was simple ignorance. Average Americans didn't know anything about Islam back then, much less that Al Qaeda and dictators like Saddam Hussein were enemies. You couldn't sell the American people that horseshit after 2004, but between September 2001 and April of 2003, people were still working their way up the learning curve.

    This is one of the reasons why censoring "misinformation" is such a bad idea. The reasons my posts are so long is because I want to subject the reasons behind my thinking to excellent scrutiny. If I don't tell you why I think what I think, how will you be able to point out where and why I'm wrong? The way propaganda and misinformation are defeated online is by letting people say this shit--and subjecting their thinking to scrutiny. If they can't express their wrong ideas online, they'll continue to believe and perpetuate them much longer.

    Suffice it to say, anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq because they believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11--anthrax attack or no anthrax attack--was wrong to support the invasion of Iraq for that reason. And hardly anyone still believes that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11 today. Likewise, there are a tremendous number of Americans who do not understand what is happening in Ukraine and why, and filling their heads with a bunch of crap about how it was NATO's fault is not helpful. The American people will get there without you. Hopefully, they'll get there before supporting a big mistake like we did in the Ukraine.

    1. https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1496945788810838016?t=FkeANqtyYUs4qNz5bRpOHg&s=19

      These moments are always the most revealing. Take note of who is willing to say the uncomfortable truths and who sounds indistinguishable from CNN.

      1. Your Inner Crazy is showing.

        Mute time.

        Not going to sort thru pages of your crazy.

        1. "All my sources lied to me nonstop for years, but they're totally telling the truth this time."

          Don't think most observers will come to the same conclusion as you when judging which of us is the crazy one in this exchange.

          Also, note: I've repeatedly informed daveca that when I post a link, what follows is a direct quote of someone else [unless contained within brackets]. Yet he still responds as if I were the speaker...

    2. "We should be clear about the reasons why Putin annexed the Crimea and why he's invading the Ukraine. It was not because NATO wanted to expand into the Ukraine. It was because the Ukrainian people wanted to join the EU. It was because the Ukrainian people wanted to join NATO. It was because the Ukrainian people wanted to reject Moscow. It was because the Ukrainian people wanted to reject Putin. That is why Putin is invading Ukraine. He is invading to subjugate the Ukrainian people to his rule, and he would be doing the same thing no matter who we had admitted into NATO"

      This might be the least insightful, most childish thing ever written on this website, and reveals a near psychotic level of psychological projection.
      Be better, Ken.

      1. I don't see why your, or Ken's arguments are necessarily mutually exclusive.

        Russia has been fighting to keep Ukraine to away from Europe, and rich oligarchs in Ukraine have been fighting to tie them closer to the west. Whether the US chose a horse in this race or not, it is a fact that a large number of Ukrainians want to be closer aligned with the West than with Russia. It is also a fact that the US/NATO sticking their nose into a regional conflict unnecessarily increased the stakes.

        Ukraine was probably doomed to be a corrupt puppet state of Russia, and to the extent that the US and NATO ever really cared, it was only because corrupt oligarchs in Kyiv were paying our Elite to care. Our meddling merely meant that Russia had to use force of arms to do what they always intended to do- make Ukraine their puppet instead of a free agent.

        In essence the US/NATO is like that meddling person who tells some guy to go easy on his employees, oblivious of the fact that as soon as he looks away, that manager is going to go EXTRA hard on them to save face. We didn't cause this problem, but we sure aren't helping.

        1. and FWIW: This doesn't mean I subscribe to Ken's conclusion that it is our responsibility to be Europe's peacekeeper. But I agree with him that Russia is Asshole. Ukraine wanted freedom from them, by and large, and that isn't Europe or America's fault.

        2. More or less.
          Ukraine is screwed no matter what so long as Europe/NATO and Russia view each other as antagonists. They're literally caught in the middle, with their urban populations yearning to be close with the EU and their rural types feeling closer to Russia.
          If NATO didn't exist, or had accepted Russia's offer to join, Ukrainians would be better off. They could have ties with the EU without those ties representing a direct, imminent threat to Russia from NATO.
          Ken's analysis fails in that he's completely consumed by his imagination of Putin's personality, formed from the caricature painted by globalist media and politicians. There is no possibility or consideration in his screeds that Putin and Russia might have legitimate motivations and concerns.
          We can get that kind of analysis from CNN, NBC, Fox, WSJ, NYT, or any of the other msm outlets that have consistently lied to us about covid, about other wars, and about Russiamanbad+orangemanbad=fascismracismOMG!
          I take issue with people who make the case for something, over and over and over again, then throw out some little disclaimer that they're not for this thing they've spent so much time arguing the justification for.

        3. It's also true that Putin and Russia also wanted to be more closely aligned with western Europe and the US at the turn of the century, we rebuffed them for reasons, while embracing the rest of the former Warsaw Pact. Would Putin still be an asshole and a tyrant? It's quite possible but not certain and we certainly would have had more influence over him. Remember Turkey and Greece are historic enemies and are still hostile towards each other over Cyprus, but both being members of NATO has kept them at peace. And Erdagon is hardly better than Putin.

        4. Just for the record, my argument is that 500,000 Ukrainians maintaining a protest until the Putin puppet left does NOT require the assistance of the CIA or any elite for an explanation. And I can see 500,000 of them in that video I linked with my own lying eyes. I can hear them screaming for revolution, too.

          From the Boston Massacre to the Arab Spring in Tunisia, when governments fire on unarmed protesters, it typically make protest movements flare up into revolutions. Just for the record, my argument is that 500,000 Ukrainians maintaining a protest until the Putin puppet leaves not only doesn't require the assistance of the CIA or any elite for an explanation. And I can see them in that video linked with my own lying eyes. I can hear them screaming for revolution, too.

          And it isn't just that the CIA or the elite are unnecessary to explain that revolution. It's also that once Putin's puppet started firing on unarmed protesters, the CIA or the elite couldn't have stopped the Ukrainian people from overthrowing Putin's puppet--even if they'd wanted to do so. They simply don't have that kind of control to start a revolution that the Ukrainian people don't already want.

          It is also a fact that a large number of Ukrainians wanted to be more closely aligned with the West and wanted to turn their backs on Putin--without any help from the CIA or the elite. There are plenty of good reasons to not want to be under the thumb of a Putin crony. And the people who are claiming otherwise, that it was about the CIA or the elitists: 1) Are echoing Kremlin propaganda precisely for their explanation and 2) Are using the same logic progressives used to argue that the only reason Trump won in 2016 was because of Russian interference on social media.

          The fact is that there were plenty of good reasons to explain why swing voters in the Midwest would vote against Hillary Clinton and in favor of Donald Trump--because they liked his promises to renegotiate NAFTA and start a trade war with China among them. I'm not denying that the Russians bought plenty of ads on social media in 2016, but anyone who claims that 63 million Americans voted for Donald Trump because the Russians bought ads on social media is making a fool of themselves.

          It's the same thing with Ukraine.

          These facts seem indisputable to me.

          1) A huge protest movement broke out over the Putin puppet tearing up the Ukraine's agreement to join the EU. That isn't disputable.

          Especially among the young, who wanted to seek careers in the EU--you don't need the CIA or the elite to explain that reaction.

          2) When the Putin puppet fired on the protesters, the protest turned into a full scale revolution. That seems indisputable, too.

          If the CIA or the elite were throwing kerosene on the fire, it was already a forest fire raging out of control anyway. And the major events are all most simply explained as a reaction to the Putin puppet tearing up the EU agreement and the Putin puppet staging his own Boston Massacre.

          1. But the CIA involvement, even if it wasn't key, can't be ignored. And it was the second time in a decade, which also can't be ignored. It also can't be ignored that the west embraced most of the European former Soviet Satellite countries but remained indifferent and at times even hostile to Russia. We forgave or outright ignored (and at times even supported) the rampant corruption of Yeltsin and his hand picked successor, and then when Putin was elected (largely in response to that corruption) we turned hostile towards Russia. None of these facts can be ignored.

            We also can't ignore the fact that between 1800-1945 the western powers invaded Russia four times, and, then our first military action as NATO, after the Cold War ended was directed at a long time Russian ally.

            It is like only looking at the rise of Hitler while ignoring the Treaty of Versailles. In fact, the situations are so similar it shouldn't even be a debate. Instead of acting like the allies did after WW2 (think the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine) we instead acted like the victorious WW1 allies in spring of 1919, after 1991. We spent billions helping Central and Eastern Europe recover from Soviet occupation, but forgot how much more and longer Russia had suffered under the Soviets. If the analogy of Putin and Hitler is at all accurate, then we can't ignore our post Cold War actions anymore than it is correct to ignore how the Treaty of Versailles contributed to Hitler gaining power in the first place.

            1. The CIA's involvement really can be excluded from serious consideration to explain something--when their activities were obviously superfluous--just like the Russian intelligence buying pro-Trump ads on Facebook should be excluded from serious consideration to explain why Donald Trump won in 2016.

              https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/05/10/thousands-russian-bought-facebook-social-media-ads-released-congress/849959001/

              IF IF IF thousands of Ukrainian students descended on the capital to protest because the CIA told them that the president had torn up the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, that takes nothing away from the fact that the reason those students were protesting was because the president tore up the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement.

              IF IF IF 500,000 Ukrainians descended on the capital to demand the resignation of the president because the CIA showed them that the president ordered his thugs to shoot unarmed protesters, that does absolutely nothing to take away from the fact that Putin's puppet of a president had his thugs shoot unarmed protesters.

              1. Their involvement can't be ignored, just because it was superfluous. The optics of it to Russia is what I am arguing not it's effectiveness. It's the optics, not the outcome. Would Putin still have stood idly by? I don't know, but we can't know because we chose to get involved, when, it appears we didn't even need to. Getting involved when we didn't need to is worse in my opinion than being directly behind it's success. It was not needed and it looks bad to boot. I don't consider that superfluous. I am not arguing if it had any impact. The fact is we did get involved, rather or not we drove it is besides the point. It's the getting involved I have a problem with, especially, if as you conclude (and I'm not questioning your conclusion about the cause) we didn't need to.

                1. "The optics of it to Russia is what I am arguing not it's effectiveness."

                  Even in Putin's KGB trained, megalomaniac mind, I have a hard time believing that he really believes that the only reason the people of the Ukraine didn't want to be ruled by his puppet is because of the CIA. I do know, however, that the Kremlin is selling that propaganda story to the Russian people. I remember when plenty of Americans believed that the Iraqi people wanted us to bomb, invade, and occupy their country, so it doesn't surprise me to hear that Putin's propaganda has been effective in Russia in that regard. I'm sure there are plenty of average Russians who genuinely believe that the only reason the Ukrainians don't want to be ruled by a Putin puppet is because of the CIA. And they should be free to believe whatever they want.

                  I take issue when I see Kremlin propaganda spill over into the minds of my fellow Americans. And Putin really does want average Americans to believe that the CIA and NATO are the problem. If he can persuade enough Americans that NATO is the problem, that plays right into his hands. It's the same way with the Ukraine. Neither of us wants the U.S. to go to war over the Ukraine, but Putin really doesn't want us believe in the Ukrainian cause. He wants us to believe that the revolution against his puppet wasn't an authentic expression of the Ukrainian people but a CIA plot. Like I said, just because I don't want to see the U.S. go to war over the Ukraine doesn't mean the anti-war people among us need to sink our credibility by pushing Kremlin propaganda.

                  When I see my fellow libertarians doing that, especially, I can't get the image of Jane Fonda sitting on top of that North Korean AA gun. I can see her calling tortured American POWs liars--insisting that all the ones she saw were treated well. She meant well, but she couldn't have done the anti-war movement any more harm if she'd had bad intentions. When we become a victim of Kremlin propaganda, we hurt libertarian capitalism. The truth of what happened in the Ukraine will become a matter of record eventually, and I don't want to see us dismissed as a bunch of "useful idiots" for pretending the truth is what we want to hear.

                  1. You seem to be missing my point. You seem to be hung up on how effective the involvement was or wasn't. Which is besides the point.

                    It's the fact that we did, and the perception that we did. Especially if Putin is a megalomaniac. In that type of mindset, the perception tends to get blown out of proportion.

                    1. His posting the last 3 days is the most biased, ignorant, and emotional I've ever seen Ken on here before.
                      It's weird.
                      It's almost like he has a personal stake in people buying CIA bullshit and believing NATO is pure as the driven snow.

                      BTW, there's no conclusive evidence about who shot into the crowd. Ken would bar all questions if he could.
                      And I wonder: if "500k" college students protested for price caps, government run Healthcare, and universal basic income, does that mean those demands are legitimate and the rest of the country has to give it to them?

                    2. And I am by no means conceding Ken's assumption that CIA involvement was superfluous.
                      I certainly believe a bunch of poor people living in an economic shithole would be pissed at their government, whomever it was, but the CIA has been running operations to organize regime change ops like that for a decade plus.
                      There was nothing "organic" or spontaneous about the Arab Spring.
                      And why didn't those "500k" students organize more mass protests when things got worse under Poroshenko?
                      Probably because they didn't have foreign agents organizing and funding them.

                    3. "It's the fact that we did, and the perception that we did. Especially if Putin is a megalomaniac. In that type of mindset, the perception tends to get blown out of proportion."

                      Putin would deny that the Ukrainian people rejected him anyway--with or without the CIA's presence. And if the fact is that it was the Ukrainian people and not the CIA, that rejected him, then how are you supposed to get that idea across without pointing out that it was not the CIA that kicked out Putin's crony--it was the people of the Ukraine? Do you imagine that if only the CIA weren't in Ukraine, then Putin would have been honest about the Ukrainian people rejecting him?

                    4. Do you really not see that propagating the Kremlin's propaganda makes us look like Hanoi Jane?

                      The Ukrainian people are fighting for their lives and their freedom because they overthrew Putin's puppet government, and here are libertarians unwittingly spreading Kremlin propaganda--about how the Ukrainians didn't want to be free of Putin--that was just the CIA?

                      I'm not gonna shut up about that shit. People IRL know me as a libertarian and an opponent of a war with Russia over Ukraine. I'm not gonna be confused with some contemporary version of Hanoi Jane.

                    5. Go fuck yourself, neokeNN.
                      If we were in person I'd knock the taste out of your cock sucking mouth for calling me Hanoi Jane.
                      You're acting like a hysterical bitch because not everyone is 100% going to accept your corporate media and deep state narrative as unquestionable objective truth.
                      Your attempts to analyze other people's psychology and motivations are very poor. I'd call it autistic, but I don't want to sell people with autism short. Many with the condition are certainly more capable of self reflection and psychological insight.

                      Let's look at your thesis:

                      -The 2014 Maidan coup was completely organic, legitimate, and CIA involvement doesn't matter.
                      Maybe it was more spontaneous and genuine than astroturfed, but that's very far from certain (especially in the context of CIA activity at the time), and you can't deny that the CIA, McCain, and Nuland were at the very least prominent supporters of it.

                      -The people of Ukraine rejected Putin.
                      How collectivist. Truth is, some did, some didn't.

                      -Putin is a megalomaniac.
                      Maybe, though it's safe to say anyone who reaches his position is to some degree.

                      -Putin has no possible motivation other than gratifying his ego by rebuilding the USSR, and making himself more popular domestically.
                      You're way, way off here- to the point that it makes no rational sense. Putin has for 2 decades been one of the most rational world leaders. Invading Ukraine, no matter how weak the US may be, comes with huge risks and lots of short term pain. You really think Putin is so delusional that he'd think everyone in Russia would be celebrating? Lots of Russians have family on both sides, and nobody likes seeing their countrymen die. You think he was surprised there were protests? No. Putin invaded Ukraine because Russia's been backed into a corner and he came to the conclusion that it was a necessary course of action.

                      -NATO is wholly defensive and necessary.
                      No. NATO's nominal reason for existing was defense against the USSR, and the USSR ceased existing 30 years ago. Since then NATO has been engaged in continuous warfare for 2+ decades, from Serbia to Libya to Afghanistan and in between. At the same time as they've been invading nations worldwide, they've also added almost all of eastern Europe, including countries like Estonia and Montenegro that provide no benefit if the goal is anything other than targeting Russia, contrary to assurances Gorbachev was given when the USSR dissolved. And what justification was there for rejecting Russia's offer to join in 99 or 01/02? From Russia's perspective (and any unbiased observer's), NATO has taken an unmistakably aggressive posture against Russia. Russians are famous for loving chess. Well, look at NATO's moves over the last 20 years: it looks like they're putting their pieces into position for the endgame. Ukraine's inclusion would be checkmate- take Ukraine, knock over the king, game over.

                      -Putin is an evil dictator.
                      He's certainly an autocrat, but western leaders aren't any better at this point. Some of the sanctions on Putin and his pals? Freezing their bank accounts. Hmm, sounds familiar... because that's exactly what Canada did to peaceful fucking protesters who objected to forced medical procedures/experiments. Australia put healthy people in detention camps. 1/6 protesters have been held w/o bail or charge for a year. The capitol and white house were fortified with barbed wire fences. Mike Lindell was de-banked for political speech. And I somehow doubt that grade school and white collar Russians are subject to sociopolitical programming with the intensity woke is applied here. Yes, Putin is an authoritarian, but is his authoritarianism more objectionable than the totalitarianism overtaking us?

                      Alright, I've run out of steam. Didn't even get to russiagate or any of the other bullshit the Global World Order assholes have framed Russia for.

                      I like you, Ken, but also- fuck you.

                    6. Oh, and Ken, you keep throwing around that word propaganda. Accusing others of spreading Russian propaganda.
                      Hmm.
                      I can find your assertions on literally any cable news station I turn on. Had Fox and CNN on for a few minutes and heard exactly the same things you're saying here, right down to the crying for the poor little bunnies of Ukraine. I can go to NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Bulwark, Vice, Vox, the Atlantic and read the same arguments, albeit with slightly less emphasis on the lack of benefit US involvement would provide us.
                      These are all the same sources who told us about Russian collusion, and were *wrong*. These are the same sources who told us so much about covid that turned out to be *wrong*. These are even the same sources, going back to the way distant past, who told us about WMDs and babies tossed out of incubators. Guess what: those things also turned out to be *wrong*.
                      You're not going to find many (any?) people in corporate media making the points I have.

                      So who's the one more likely to be spreading propaganda?

                    7. You keep stating acknowledging a fact, that the CIA did involve itself twice in the Ukraine, is repeating Kremlin Propaganda and acting as Hanoi Jane. That is a completely false premise. And is not your normal, level headed critique. You can acknowledge something happened, without blaming the US. You can acknowledge something happened without being a Kremlin stooge. You are creating a false dichotomy. Which I am simply surprised by.

                      You are so focused on if the CIA interference was effective that you miss the point that it is perfectly fine to criticize that interference without giving aid to Putin and his goons.

                      Much like any conflict in the world, no one in this one are close to perfect angels, however, Putin initiated force first. Therefore, he is clearly the aggressor. I go back to my Pearl Harbor analogy. I can criticize FDR for his sanctions and his acts that clearly violated the US neutrality, while at the same time believe the US was fully justified in defending itself after Pearl Harbor and that we were right to destroy Nazi Germany. Just because I criticize our actions, or even acknowledge that they were hardly the acts of a neutral country, doesn't mean I support the Axis Powers. I can criticize the Continental Congress's decision to remove Jefferson's criticism of slavery, but still state the Declaration of Independence was a righteous act. I can acknowledge the conflict of Washington and Jefferson owning slaves while championing liberty, but still respect them for their other acts. I can acknowledge and respect Truman for his honesty, and his leadership, while criticizing his policies, especially his railroad draft proposal and his seizure of the steel plants.

                      By dealing in absolutes you actually sound more like the progressives, than those of us who condemn Putin's actions but acknowledge that the US and NATO and the Ukraine hardly guilt free too.

                      I can feel a war with Russia is not in our interest, and state as much, but if it happens I will still support our troops and the war effort, especially as my son and nephew and cousins will be part of that war effort. And if it comes to that, as much as I despise Biden, I will pray that he is successful.

                      I am just surprised by your absolutist take in regards to this particular, rather meaningless, point. You don't deny the CIA was involved, even if it had no impact, so why is someone stating that it was wrong for the CIA to get involved, the same as what Hanoi Jane did?

                      Is acknowledging that Israel's track record in Palestine isn't stellar buying into Hezbollah propaganda? Does it mean I believe Israel is the aggressor? No, it means Israel could do better, but Hezbollah is clearly the aggressor.

                    8. Notable:

                      https://twitter.com/25th_Prestige/status/1497609913836597253?t=PzKaXA1Yl7GqKkv_IhrGPg&s=19

                      The Chief of MI6 has pronouns in his Twitter bio and I cannot stop laughing.

                    9. "You can acknowledge something happened, without blaming the US. You can acknowledge something happened without being a Kremlin stooge."

                      There is no danger of people accidentally believing a false narrative about the people of Ukraine overthrowing a corrupt government of their own volition--because that is NOT a false narrative and it isn't being propagated through Kremlin propaganda by the Kremlin.

                      "False balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports.

                      ----False Balance

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

                      It's like you're accusing me of failing to engage in "bothsideism". There are not two legitimate perspectives on this. There is a false narrative being propagated by our enemy in the Kremlin, and giving it the fair consideration it deserves means debunking it. Again, it is a false narrative.

                      Lending credibility to the Kremlin's claims on this would require me to distort the truth; the truth being that the Kremlin's claims are not credible. And that's regardless of whether people are giving aid to the enemy by propagating Kremlin propaganda online.

                    10. I don't know if you remember Kwais. He was a commenter here at Reason that was fighting for a private contractor in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I was vocally opposed to the Iraq War, but not when Kwais showed up in the thread. When he showed up, I'd tell him that my family was praying for him.

                      I was absolutely lambasting the Iraq War, here, but my patriotism won't allow me to do the work of our enemies--by attacking our troops' support for the war--not even when I oppose the war in question. I oppose bad wars for patriotic reasons. No way would I carry water for the enemies of the Constitution by knowingly attacking the morale of our troops.

                      Putin's purpose in pushing this CIA narrative is twofold. On the one hand, he wants to convince the Russian people that the only reason the Ukraine doesn't want to lick his boot is because of interference by the CIA. That's the primary objective.

                      The secondary objective is to undermine western support for NATO expansion and NATO itself. People who knowingly keep pushing this false Kremlin narrative to their fellow Americans, despite that, should probably take any American flags they have down and replace them with Russian ones--to give people fair warning.

              2. The content and result of the action matter less than by whom the action was made.

                The CIA interfered against Russia multiple times. This pattern fostered predictable results and antipathy.

                1. This, you stayed it much more succinctly than I did.

                2. "The content and result of the action matter less than by whom the action was made."

                  The action was not made by the CIA. It was made by the Ukrainian people.

                  1. At this point you are either being purposely obtuse or so married to your conviction that you are failing to see what people are stating.

                    Neither he nor I stated that the overthrow was the result of CIA actions. We acknowledge that the CIA got involved, not that it caused anything. It's the act of getting involved rather it changed anything, that is our problem.

                    And to say that has had no impact on Putin is begging for facts not in evidence. It would require us to know what's in Putin's mind. The fact is, the CIA did get involved. It may or may not have changed anything. It may or may not have contributed to Putin and Russian paranoia, but we can never know because it happened. Arguing either way is a an exercise in futility, or should be left to alternative history writers. If we are dealing in the real world as it is, we can't ignore that the CIA got involved. We don't need to believe that it had any impact to acknowledge the fact that it did get involved (and I argue it's worse that we got involved if we didn't need to).

                    We can blame Japan for Pearl Harbor but at the same time acknowledge that Roosevelt's sanctions definitely didn't didn't help and likely made things worse.

                    We can argue that Putin is to blame for his actions, while saying the actions of the CIA (despite those actions not changing anything in the Ukraine) definitely didn't help the situation and possibly made things worse.

                    1. Ken is curiously dedicated to his autistic psychological assumption about Putin, thus Putin can have no rational motivations.

                    2. The point that the protests and the revolution came from the people--and not the CIA--is the important difference between truth and falsehood, between propagating Kremlin propaganda and countering it, and between being persuasive in an anti-war argument and undermining the anti-war argument.

                      Not understanding that the protests and the revolution came from the people of Ukraine--rather than the CIA--seems to be leading people to making all sorts of really bad arguments, too. Not really understanding this, for instance, appears to have led people to believe that NATO expansion--by the elites in NATO--was the reason Putin invaded Ukraine, when that is a false, Kremlin propaganda narrative.

                      The truth is that the Ukrainian people were the source of the protests and the revolution, and Putin isn't subjugating them because the elites wanted to expand NATO. Putin is subjugating the people of Ukraine because the people of the Ukraine rejected him--for NATO and the EU. He won't stand for that.

                      P.S. NATO expansion to include Finland and Sweden is probably the best way for us to avoid a war with Putin, and yet there are people here at Reason arguing that NATO expansion is the actual cause of Putin's invasion of the Ukraine. Not understanding this is probably the reason they're getting it all backwards, so if that point isn't coming across, then I'm not being repetitive enough.

                    3. Ken, you keep saying shit like it's God's word handed down directly to you- shit you can't possibly know for certain.
                      You're mistaking opinions for facts, buddy, then saying that pointing out what you claim to be facts are in truth opinions is just propaganda.
                      Looks like projection.

                    4. Ken my problem is that I never stated one way or the other as to the effectiveness of the CIAs actions. I simply acknowledged that they did happen, and that it was wrong. If for no other reason than what you are protesting about in your second paragraph. It's always wrong to get involved in another countries politics, though sometimes it's necessary (I don't think it was in this case). Saying it was wrong is not saying Russia's current actions are justified. It's saying our past actions were wrong. And even if it didn't contribute to Putin's decisions, it certainly didn't make the situation any better.

                      I am also saying that no one can know to what extent it did or didn't contribute to the current situation. It would have been better if we hadn't done it, even if it didn't change the outcome, because then our hands would be totally clean. By the CIA getting involved, even if it wasn't effective, gives Putin enough cover to muddy up the waters. To me this is probably the worst outcome, if we didn't need to do anything, and we got involved anyhow, and our involvement changed nothing, it gives Putin some cover. Which is the last thing we needed in this situation.

                      I am not certain about Finland and Sweden. I certainly don't agree that Putin should be able to dictate to either, especially Sweden, as Sweden was never part of Russia's sphere and Finland was only shortly. But I am not sure if it would or wouldn't avert war. I think overall, the best thing would be a split the baby for now. Sweden's never been part of NATO, but has always been under NATO's protection and the USSR recognized that. I think reiterating that and extending that to Finland may be the best route. Make it understood they aren't members of NATO, so we won't have troops stationed there permanently, but we consider them under NATO's protection. The same principle we used in the Cold War. If they ask to join NATO, I can't see that we deny them. But I don't think we reach out to them either. So far since Putin's threat against Sweden and Finland, only Finland has shown interest in maybe joining NATO.

                    5. "I am also saying that no one can know to what extent it did or didn't contribute to the current situation."

                      This is wrong.

                      The CIA does not explain 500,000 Ukrainian protesters chasing Putin's puppet out of power--in response to Putin's puppet firing on unarmed protesters.

                      Putin's puppet firing on unarmed protesters, however, does explain 500,000 Ukrainian protesters chasing Putin's puppet out of power in response.

                      And when you insist otherwise, that it might attributable to the CIA in some way, you are not only wrong--you're regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

                    6. If 70% of the West Virginians had voted for Joe Biden in 2020, Build Back Better would have passed the Senate. Build Back Better didn't stall because Joe Manchin is a principled opponent of inflation. Build Back Better failed because 70% of the voters of West Virginia voted for Donald Trump. And anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

                      Joe Manchin might have decided to be like Justin Amash or Liz Cheney and ignore the wishes of his constituents. But voting for a bill that encapsulated the essence of the Green New Deal would have been political suicide in a coal state like West Virginia that went 70% for Trump 2022. Joe Manchin didn't do anything principled--unless you consider it principled to NOT commit political suicide. The driving force behind killing Build Back Better wasn't Joe Manchin. The driving force behind the death of Build Back Better was the people of West Virginia.

                      It's the same thing in the Ukraine. Focusing on the leadership or the CIA instead of public opinion or market forces is like watching a leaf blowing in the wind--and imagining that it's flying around on its own accord rather than completely subject to the wind that's blowing it around. The reason Putin's puppet fled the Ukraine was not because of the CIA. It was because the people of Ukraine turned against him. And the reason they turned against him was not because of the CIA. It was because he tore up the EU - Ukraine association agreement and because he fired on peaceful protesters.

                      Putin is lying when he blames it on the CIA, and anyone who regurgitates his propaganda for him is at best completely wrong.

                    7. You've become a zealot, neokeNN.
                      Being skeptical of your propaganda, and I use that word because you're literally repeating the exact same opinions of every msm outlet and politician that's allowed to speak on this issue, is not blasphemy.
                      It is unreasonable and irrational to state the absolutes you state w/o doubt or acknowledging the possibility that pathological liars might be lying about this.
                      One should be suspicious for, at the very least, the fact that corporate media and politicians are all saying the exact same things, speaking in the same voice, and the rhetoric/narrative/coverage is completely one sided. Dissenting voices are being meticulously shunned- you won't hear them at all on cable news. This is a replay of the beginning of covid, you know when we were seeing piles of bodies in China and Italy. But sure, we're getting an objective picture this time...

                    8. Dude on fox said "we have to go to war so we don't have to go to war"
                      Infobabe said "why can't we just say Ukraine can't be let in NATO?"
                      Shocked and appalled silence, eyes shooting daggers in response. From everybody else on screen.

                    9. Kinzinger and others are lobbying to do a No Fly Zone, on top of the other aggressive acts of war (blockades, arming combatants, sanctions, confiscating assets, etc), which means NATO forces directly shooting down Russian Jets and killing Russian soldiers.
                      That is war with Russia, and it is the goal of your narrative.

              3. And, the Russia in the elections issue, it didn't impact anything, we both agree, but see what has happened as a result of them getting involved? That is my point, it isn't the impact but the perception that is important. It's just like the 2016 election. It's not that Russia got involved and how little it had any impact, that is the problem, it's how people perceived that interference and the results of that perception that are the problem. Hillary and the Democrats would still have acted stupidly, but public perception would have been different and most people would have written their reactions off as poor losers, rather than accepting the Russia Hoax for so long.
                Would Putin have still invaded the Ukraine? I don't know, but the perception of it, especially after we did the same thing in 2004, certainly didn't help (and all the times we did to other countries during the Cold War and which the USSR did as well). In fact, Putin was an intelligence agent, and was aware of Soviet's actions in the past, so, since he was aware of it, and may have even taken part in it, he would be more likely to fear it from others. That's human nature.

                I am not saying it would have changed anything one way or the other, I'm saying the fact is it did happen. And that perception is what counts. Also, for someone like Putin, the fact the CIA was involved, probably increased his fear of something similar happening to him. Especially as the west had made no bones about it's desire to see him overthrown.

                1. They tried to do it to Putin in 2012. Didn't work. Ukraine was plan B.

            2. "Instead of acting like the allies did after WW2 (think the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine) we instead acted like the victorious WW1 allies in spring of 1919, after 1991."

              This is factually untrue. The United States and western allies provided BILLIONS of dollars (When billions actually meant something) to Russia in the 90s to help their reforms. Far from the Versailles era when the victors extracted reparations from the defeated, the US was a net donor to the new country.

              Russia blew its reforms- and there is ample criticism for the US in there, but by and large this was Russia's fault. Its leaders flubbed the privatization of its economy, ultimately unwinding national production to a small cadre of oligarchs. This quasi-fascist regime is what Putin ruthlessly took over.

              Putin was writing about "winning europe" prior to ANY of this happening. And it is noteworthy that countries who did join NATO were doing it because Russia, as with Ukraine, had subjugated them within the Evil Empire.

              I'm sorry. I don't buy this, "Oh poor Russia, so beset by NATO incursion." It's bullshit. Russia was the center of a brutal and oppressive regime for almost 50 years. It tormented its neighbors and nearly destroyed their identity. That those neighbors felt the need to ally with western europe to avoid that future is not an indictment of the west, it is an indictment of Russia for being an asshole.

              I'm so sick of the "Whose to blame?" game. Russia is the aggressor. The only question is what the US ought to do about that, and the answer continues to be "Nothing". It is perfectly easy to recognize that Russia is the asshole, and that it is a problem those regional countries need to figure out.

          2. My biggest problem is that we aren't prepared and almost all of our NATO allies are even less prepared. If there is a war in Europe in the near future, we would be doing almost all the heavy lifting, the French and British will contribute, as would the Eastern European allies, but the rest of NATO have neglected their militaries to the point it almost isn't accurate to label them militaries at this point.

            We need to dial back a whole fucking lot our rhetoric and our hostility. Sanctions won't help and continuing to pile them on just increases the chance of war. This is also why I don't trust Biden when he says no troops on the ground in Ukraine (but Nardz stated there is growing talk of trying to enforce a no fly zone over the Ukraine, which would lead directly to war, and anyone who thinks differently is an idiot). He either is looking for an excuse and hoping Putin gives him one, or he is so stupid he (and the rest of our allies) doesn't realize the huge risk they are taking. That's why I wanted a quick Russian victory, not one that is drawn out, because then it's off the front page and cooler minds might prevail. Not because I support Putin, but because the longer this goes on, the more likely we are to stumble into a war.

            Maybe war is inevitable, but if then, delaying it may be better for us, give us time to better prepare for it. And if we do prepare for it, it actually becomes less likely. Putin is 69 years old. If we can buy some time, the problem might resolve itself. He is 13 years older than Hitler was when he offed himself at the end of WWII. He's five years younger than Stalin when he died. And 13 years younger than Mao when he died. He's a year older than the average life expectancy for males in Russia.

            It sucks for the Ukraine, but the question is are we ready to fight a world war over the Ukraine? And do we think if it does occur that it will remain limited to just Europe, or spread to the Western Pacific? We have to remember the other elephant in the room, China (and North Korea). All this fluffing Biden aren't taking any of this into consideration.

            1. We didn't win the first Cold War in day, and we won't win the second one that quickly either. Avoiding costly and self-defeating wars like the one in Vietnam was part of it. It's probably time to brush off the Weinberger-Powell doctrine.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine#Summary

              People misread it as a way to justify wars, but it's actually a means to exclude them. Vietnam and Iraq both failed those tests, and we'd have been better off without either one.

              1. I think we agree for the most part. I would argue that Vietnam was pointless and costly, but as much as we hate to admit it, Truman actually had a point in his intervention in Korea. He probably should have stopped MacArthur at the 38th or at Pyonyang at the latest and forced North Korea to the table, but by confronting North Korea he likely curtailed more aggression by the Soviets.

                That being said, doing it once may have been necessary. Twice wasn't. Especially as we had a chance after WW2 were Ho Chi Minh was an ally and friendly, and instead of embracing him, we submitted to the French quest to re-establish their colony. And we justified it because Minh had some Marxist leanings. So we ended up pushing him right into the arms of the Communist. Vietnam was a traditional enemy of China, and likely would have been a good partner against Communist China.

                In the name of combating communism and the USSR in particular we embraced and supported dictators much worse than Ho Chi Minh.

    3. "Right now, we're in that period where average Americans are still learning about this conflict. Six months after we invaded Iraq, 69% of the American people still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11. Part of that was because of the propaganda they were fed, but part of it was simple ignorance. Average Americans didn't know anything about Islam back then, much less that Al Qaeda and dictators like Saddam Hussein were enemies. You couldn't sell the American people that horseshit after 2004, but between September 2001 and April of 2003, people were still working their way up the learning curve."

      LOfuckingL!
      Your 2nd paragraph is a fatal indictment of your 1st...

    4. Ken totes doesn't want the US to go to war with Russia, he just wants to convince you that Putin is pure evil and that war with Russia is definitely justified.

    5. "Hopefully, they'll get there before supporting a big mistake like we did in the Ukraine [Iraq]."

      ----Ken Shultz

      Fixed!

      Y'all knew what I meant.

      1. Freudian slip

    6. These comments: We have MAGAs and their perpetual d***-sucking of tyrants and murderers. And “supposed” anti-war folk libertarians who talk themselves into supporting the military invasions of sovereign nations by authoritarian dictators.

      1. Your comment:

        pure asshole.

      2. No one is supporting Putin, we are instead saying fighting a world war over the Ukraine isn't worth it. But I know that is to difficult for a lot of people to understand, because most people don't get nuance.

        1. Under no circumstances should this administration engage in a major military conflict. It’s completely beyond them. Regardless of the merits of such an action. Biden, or more likely Ron Klain, is totally incompetent.

          The same people who couldn’t even follow an existing plan to get out of Afghanistan without utter failure Have no business getting into a major military conflict. Especially with another nuclear armed country.

          1. I agree that the Biden administration is incompetent, but I would argue that a war with Ukraine couldn't be executed competently. Even when you win that war, the risks still outweigh the rewards.

            1. "Even when you win that war, the risks still outweigh the rewards."

              Evidently that's not how the Russians view conflict with Ukraine. You need to take off those blinders.

          2. Solid Food for Lunch is beyond Biden.

            He managed his eyes half open yesterday, an improvement from a squint.

            And a Prostitute is his right hand man.

            Its a DAMN good thing were all armed Citizens.

      3. Yeah, I've posted that the United States shouldn't go to war over the Ukraine because it isn't in the best interests of the United States to do so in every thread for the past few days, weeks, . . .

        There is something very progressive about pretending something is true or false just because you want to use it for an argument on some topic. Here's a short list of the kind place where I am.

        Because it's against the best interests of the United States to invade Rwanda, it is not necessary to pretend that there was no genocide happening in Rwanda. Arguing that it's not in the best interests of the United States to invade Rwanda is more than sufficient.

        I opposed invading and occupying Iraq because it wasn't in the best interests of the United States, but that didn't mean it was necessary for me to pretend that Saddam Hussein wasn't a fascist or to defend him in any way. Actually, my willingness to concede that Saddam Hussein was a fascist dictator lends credibility to may argument that it isn't in our best interests to invade and depose him--because my argument accounts for the fact that Saddam Hussein was a fascist dictator.

        I oppose the United States going to war over the Ukraine because it isn't in the best interests of the United States to go to war over the Ukraine. And there isn't any good reason why I should pretend that Putin isn't invading the Ukraine for the primary purpose of subjecting the Ukrainian people to his rule--if that's indeed what's happening.

        In fact, the habit of pretending facts are true or untrue based on whether or not they seem to support my position, at first glance, is a tried and true strategy for progressives. It's fundamentally dishonest to do that, and if you're going around denying the truth in the name of dissuading people from supporting a war in the Ukraine, please stop. You're doing the anti-war movement great harm. We don't need to lie about the real reason Putin is doing this--because we're right about it not being in the best interests of the United States to go to war over the Ukraine.

        I don't need to lie about any facts because reality has a libertarian capitalist bias. Progressives need to lie about the facts to support authoritarianism and socialism--and do you know why? That's right! It's because reality has a libertarian and capitalist bias.

        1. Show me anywhere that I've been wrong. I haven't, for example stated the US was responsible for the color revolution, but I also don't dismiss that the CIA had no business getting involved in 2014 or in 2004. I also haven't dismissed the impact of the cold shoulder Putin got when he was first elected, and tried to join NATO. I'm not certain if that would have stopped him, but it hardly helped matters. No one can be sure. But we can't pretend this shit didn't happen either. I see parallels to the Treaty of Versailles.

          What ifs are great for fiction books, but I am not Harry Turtledove. But I can't deny that nothing we did made things better, and quite probably made things worse. Like the allies in 1919, we punished Russia, backed a weak and corrupt government to replace the government we didn't like (Weimar Republic, Boris Yeltsin), rested on our laurels, and turned inward, and then acted surprised when Hitler came to power and stopped playing nice. We could have embraced Russia the same way we embraced Eastern Europe and Central Europe. But we chose not to.

          Would the Russian people still have grown disillusioned with capitalism (which never really occurred) and turned to a strong man? It's possible, the west has always felt the Russian people responded to strong men. This could be ethnic prejudice, or it could be an accurate evaluation of the Russian culture, or possibly somewhere between the two (which is probably the most likely). We can't know, but we can't ignore the path we chose either.

          1. I can't help but think that 1,000 years from now, historians will refer to Xi as an emperor during the Mao Dynasty, or that they'll talk about Putin in terms of being a Tsar. China and Russia developed the political systems they had because of geographic, cultural, and other factors--over thousands of years. And the political systems that emerged after communism seem to be a lot like the political systems they had before communism. You can lead a horse to water, but it doesn't make him a duck.

            1. I would argue that the political system of the two countries under communism weren't markedly different than the systems communism replaced. Lenin and Stalin didn't act much differently than the Tsars and Mao acted like an emperor. The only difference is that the title wasn't passed on based upon genealogy.

              This is especially true in China. Chinese dynasties follow a fairly distinct pattern, and are overthrown due to corruption and economic issues. Then the new dynasty takes over and within a couple generations has grown corrupt and economic issues start building up until it's overthrown.

            2. "China and Russia developed the political systems they had because of geographic, cultural, and other factors--over thousands of years. And the political systems that emerged after communism seem to be a lot like the political systems they had before communism. You can lead a horse to water, but it doesn't make him a duck."

              "But this is only true of Russia and China, and couldn't possibly apply to any other nation/region/peoples that I'm using to make my points"

        2. "There is something very progressive about pretending something is true or false just because you want to use it for an argument on some topic"

          This is exactly what you are doing.

    7. "That is why Putin is invading Ukraine."

      Zelensky's threats to go nuclear days before the invasion probably played its part as well. Otherwise your ideas about Putin's motives seem tired and crass.

    8. You're combining all of Ukraine under one umbrella. Big mistake. It's got several different ethnic groups in it and you need to look at it as such. You might as well lump all Americans under one umbrella.

      Crimea is 90% ethnic Russian and Russia's only year-round port. Russia could waltz in and take it because he had the support of the populace. Russia needed it because Ukraine was looking like it was going to kick Russia out and deny them a critical military resource. That's why Russia took Crimea.

      Eastern Ukraine has been fighting a civil war with the Ukraine government for 8(?) years now. Again, mostly ethnic Russians. After this is over, my bet is those areas join Russia and the rest goes its separate ways.

      Putin is smart enough to know holding a hostile country is a losing proposition. Russia isn't going to try to hold territory where the populace is hostile to it.

      1. Correct.
        For the vast majority of its existence, the territory of modern Ukraine was divided between 2, 3, or 4 different sovereigns.
        Putin knows Russia can't hold all Ukraine directly (and the delivery guys, shopkeepers, and accountants shooting at Russian soldiers makes that pretty clear) for very long.
        It looks like he saw an imminent threat brewing and decided now was the time to delay and/or eliminate it.

    9. Nice try, except it's not true.
      Ukraine wanted to join the EU well before Putin became president.
      They wanted to join the EU&NATO because they wanted a higher standard of living, and the EU promises them billions.

    10. Russia turned Dark Side in 1948 when the UN was formed. Theyve played the Victim ever since.

      Theyve become marginalized by their own hostile aggression and are desperate to play Big Kid on the Block.

      That they wait till a Senile politician Bidet is in the White House to do so just proves how pathetic they are.

      Thats 'a Nation of cheap drunks with Vitamin D deficiencies due to lack of sunlight' for you.

      That and being N Korea- all military, starving their people. Or vice versa.

  7. The way I see it, the problem is the federal government has weighed itself down taking on every local problem instead of leaving it to the states. This creates the atmosphere in which our national leaders foreign policy views are obscured because Education, Housing... It also creates the problem of making the states themselves weak, where as soon as a bump in the road comes upon them, they look lost and are screaming for federal aid/assistance.

    1. With how these people work if we actually freed them up to think about foreign policy full time half of humanity would be dead within the week.

      1. It's a chance I'm willing to take? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      2. But the reason they work that way is we have made the federal government to strong. So it becomes the chicken and the egg type debate.

  8. Yea, let's just forget about leftist totalitarianism at home, their destruction of our way of life, their psychotic hatred of the individual, their complete rejection of the concept of inherent rights, and their forced mass medical experiments...

    https://twitter.com/P_McCulloughMD/status/1497284602540351491?t=HI1BV2qdP8awQO5zLbqTkw&s=19

    Alden et al, Lund University, Sweden, confirms one of our worst fears. The exogenous genetic material coding for the dangerous Spike protein is reverse-transcribed into the human genome; possible long-term constitutive expression/synthesis of disease promoting/lethal Spike.
    [Link]

    1. Nice.

  9. This is a good summary of what happened in the Ukraine and why Putin invaded the Ukraine:

    In that year’s Ukrainian presidential election, the Kremlin supported Viktor Yanukovych —a criminal with robbery convictions, who used election fraud and dioxin poisoning of his chief opponent to claim victory. In protest, thousands of Ukrainian citizens gathered on the Maidan Nezalezhnosti, Kyiv’s Independence Square, in what became known as the Orange Revolution.

    "For three weeks they froze, resolutely—and victoriously. New elections the following month brought their preferred, westward-leaning candidate to the presidency. But the Orange Revolution’s victory was ephemeral. The new president proved a disappointment. Mr. Yanukovych reappeared to run again in 2010—this time assisted by a slick Washington PR agent named Paul Manafort, who gave Mr. Yanukovych a makeover—haircut, clothes, body language—and coached him on how to scare Ukrainian Russian-speakers with threats that Ukrainian nationalists would persecute them. (Ukraine is a bilingual country, and Ukrainian and Russian are like Spanish and Italian, related but distinct.) The coaching was effective.

    Under Mr. Yanukovych, Ukraine was bound to the Kremlin, and the country’s resources flowed largely to the president and his inner circle of oligarchs. A younger generation, born after the fall of the Soviet Union, looked to the prospect of EU membership for the horizon of their future. Then, in November 2013, under pressure from Mr. Putin, Mr. Yanukovych abruptly declined to sign a long-anticipated association agreement with the EU.

    Thousands went out to the Maidan once again. They were largely students, young people who felt as if their future had been torn from their hands. They weren’t interested in ethnic differences or language politics. They were interested in Europe’s being open to them. Their slogan was “Ukraine is Europe.”

    Mr. Yanukovych sent riot police to beat them. It appeared that he was counting on the terrified parents to pull their children off the streets. But he miscalculated: Instead the parents joined their children there. At one point more than a half million people were on the streets of Kyiv, now with the slogan: “We will not let you beat our children.” All winter they stayed on the Maidan.

    On Feb. 18, 2014, Mr. Yanukovych sent a militia to confront a crowd with stun grenades, tear gas, truncheons and rubber bullets. An iconic photograph appeared on the internet: a 59-year-old father and his 27-year-old son, their hair soaked in blood. In the days that followed on the Maidan, people dug up paving stones and crushed bricks to reinforce barricades. They set fire to clothing and tires and anything else that could burn. The sky turned black from smoke. Snipers fired from the rooftop of the high-rise Hotel Ukraina, and bodies fell.

    More than a hundred protesters lost their lives in the revolution. After a cease-fire on Feb. 21, Mr. Yanukovych fled to Russia.

    "Why Ukrainians Are Prepared to Fight"

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-ukrainians-are-prepared-to-fight-11645801045?

    All of the following things are true:

    1) Since then, the Ukrainians have sought both EU and NATO membership.

    2) Putin may have annexed the Crimea for strategic reasons, but this latest invasion of the Ukraine is not because of NATO.

    3) Putin invaded the Ukraine because the Ukrainian people rejected his rule, and his objective is subjugate them.

    4) The United States should not go to war over the Ukraine because going to war over the Ukraine is not in America's best interests.

    1. Putin certainly fears a representative government on his immediate border. I think he also fears the economic potential of Ukraine, especially given the shared border with Poland. Putin knows Russia is saddled with some seriously intractable economic boat anchors.

      1. In the Crimea, there are legitimate bases that are apparently crucial to secure Russia's access through the Black Sea. Keeping military bases in the middle of hostile territory isn't impossible. We have a military base in Cuba. When the Ukrainians threw out Putin's puppet, he may have annexed the Crimea for strategic reasons. He wasn't about to hand strategic control of Russia's access the Black Sea over to a country that wanted to join NATO--among other rationales.

        That was not the case in the two "breakaway" republics, and that was not the case when Putin invaded the rest of Ukraine. It's just about Putin wanting to subjugate the Ukrainian people to his empire. He wants Russia to be a great world power, and he wants to be the Tsar of a great world power. He was a KGB agent in East Germany when the wall came down, and in his mind, all of those former satellites should be his to rule for Russia either directly or through puppets.

        He saw an opportunity, and he took it. Here's to hoping he chokes on it.

        1. I would agree that there is clearly more than purely rational considerations at work here. The real problem with that is that it leaves Putin with no graceful exit absent total victory. The Ukrainians know this too and I think they will accept complete destruction rather than leave anything Putin might consider a prize.

          So, economic and humanitarian disaster on a scale well beyond the Balkan conflict(s).

          1. Zelensky may surrender unconditionally before the destruction gets too bad, but there will probably be an insurgency even without him. And the Ukrainian people ousted a Putin puppet before for firing on unarmed protesters. What will be different about a Putin puppet now--even if Zelensky surrenders? This might not be as bad as Afghanistan was for the Russians, but it might be as bad as Baghdad was for the United States.

            Oppression by foreign invaders breeds revolt, and it doesn't stop until the foreign invader leaves. If Putin thinks this is about the triumph of his will, he's wrong. Central and eastern Europe waited out more than 50 years of communist repression by puppets and still managed to emerge on the other side screaming for freedom--Polish, Romanian, Estonian, Ukrainian and not wanting to be part of Russia. What's different this time?

            The universal laws driving this stuff don't care whether Putin is in charge--just like economics and physics. Oppression by foreign invaders breeds revolt.

            1. It seems you think Putin wants all of Ukraine. Yet you & he are smart enough to know an insurgency would happen were Putin to try that.

              Instead, Putin will take the ethnic Russia areas of Ukraine back into Russia or as independent republics. The rest or Ukraine will stay independent of Russia.

              1. He'll likely install a puppet and also likely take enough land to join the separatist districts to the Crimea so Russia has a land connection to the Crimea.

              2. I don't see it that way at all.

                Remember, Putin was a KGB agent in East Germany when the wall fell. In his mind, the good old days were when Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, were all satellites of Russia. All of Ukraine being part of greater Russia is as normal to him as Alaska being part of the United States is to you.

                1. I am not sure I agree totally with that assessment. It's definitely the way our government has portrayed him. And western Europe has portrayed him. I just don't know if it is true. If it's true then there is no hope for peace short of complete compilation. I hope you are wrong.

    2. Does someone think I'm not being fair to both sides?

      Okay, the other side, I guess, is this: Here's video footage of 500,000 CIA agents dressed up as Ukrainian citizens and demanding the ouster of their Putin puppet--for tearing up their agreement to join the European Union. If it wasn't for the CIA, they would have wanted to be ruled by a Putin puppet--whether he beat and fired on unarmed protesters or not. Now you've heard both sides.

      See the video below:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnZOwW3aXM

      1. This, is neokeNN.

    3. 1. True
      2. Ignorant, immature assertion
      3. Debatable, though Ken's hysterical, hate-filled wording doesn't indicate any sort of openness to other perspectives. Anyone have Ken's address? I'd like to buy the house next door and give to a local MS13 chapter after telling a couple of them that Ken fucked their mothers. And if Ken objects, it's just because he wants to subjugate his neighbors since they rejected him.
      4. True

      1. 3. Ignorant, immature assertion

        1. Calling something debatable is an assertion?

          1. (Yes, calling something debatable is an assertion)

      2. And if Ken objects, it's just because he wants to subjugate his neighbors since they rejected him.

        If he's Russia and you're Ukraine in this analogy, then I guess he'd be justified in storming your house and subjugating you right now because you posted this, even though the MS13 chapter isn't there now and may very well never be there?

        1. I don't live there, I just found some scrawny homeless guy to reside until MS13 gets there. Also, I'm going to pay the mortgage for the other houses around him and tell them I'm doing because Ken intends to break in and rape their wives and children. But since I gave the little homeless guy the deed, Ken might be wise to kick him out and take the deed.

          1. Oh, and as part of the deal I'm going to buy the homeless guy all the meth he wants, from MS13 who's numbers I'll give him, and a whole bunch of guns.

  10. This is all Truman's fault for starting NATO and the Cold War in the first place.

    1. If you think about, almost all of America's current foreign policy tensions can traced to Truman:

      1) Started Cold War, escalating tensions with Russia
      2) Intervened in Korean War, escalating tensions with North Korea
      3) Helped establish state of Israel, escalating tensions with Islamic radicals

      Worst president ever.

      1. LOL those are all on Russia, North Korea, and Islamist radicals, quit sucking up to the piece of shit bad guys. Are you a russian bot too?

      2. I'd say it started with FDR. If the USSR came out of the war in a position to take over half of Europe, perhaps we shouldn't have sent it quite so much help.

      3. That’s just victim blaming.

      4. I would argue all of those things were directly the result of Soviet aggression except Israel. Stalin chose to ignore the agreement he made at Yalta to allow free elections in Soviet occupied territories (including North Korea). Instead he set up puppet governments and then increased pressure on the western allies in Germany and Berlin itself. None of Truman's actions occurred until after Stalin basically told Truman and the British that he wasn't going to honor the Yalta Conference except for the part of declaring war on Japan (which he conveniently waited to do until we dropped the A bomb, which he was well aware of even before Truman told him about it) at Potsdam.

        As for the Middle East it's to easy to blame Israel but the problem actually predated World War 2 and can be traced back to British and French greed during the negotiations after WW1. They carved up the Ottoman empire with no thought towards cultural or historical perspectives and then added the carved up Ottoman empire to their colonial empires.

        As a result, Wilson remains the undisputed champion to be worst President ever. Open racist, elitist, progressive, and to weak to stand up to the rest of our allies during the negotiations.

        Additionally, it can't be overstated that he was hostile towards Germany to the point he blatantly allowed US goods to be shipped to Britain and France, despite our declaration of neutrality while not protesting the British led blockade of Germany. The fact is Germany and Austria-Hungary weren't any more culpable for World War One than the British, French and Russians were. And several Americans wanted to back Germany. By ignoring the German blockade of Britain but accepting the British blockade of Germany, purely for his own personal reasons, Wilson basically declared who we supported despite our declaration of Neutrality.

        1. You're 100% correct about Wilson (who also revived to KKK as a cultural force in the US).

          FDR was a bitch on his last legs who was smitten like a schoolgirl with Stalin. He stabbed Churchill in the back, and Churchill told him exactly what Stalin would do. He also froze out Truman, who had little idea of anything that was going on when he had to assume the presidency.

          1. Yeah, FDRs actions towards Truman are unforgivable. He wanted the known Communist sympathizer (if not outright) communist Wallace as his running mate, but was told the DNC wouldn't go for it and even if it did would cost him the election. So instead he played games, telling different supporters of other candidates for the VP slot that he supported their candidate. Then as soon as they left he would tell the next group he supported their candidate.

            Truman initially turned down being nominated for VP, and even at the convention initially withdrew his name until he was told he was FDR's choice (despite FDR telling three other people they were also his choice). Truman won the nomination (mainly because his backers had thought to get FDR to write it down, and even then FDR added another name besides Truman to the note) and campaigned far harder than FDR, because FDR was on his last leg, but hid it from the public. Despite this, and despite knowing his death was imminent he completely froze Truman out of the administration until the day he died. Truman had no idea about the decision at Yalta, the A bomb, and only knew anything about war production and overall strategy because he headed the Truman Committee while still a senator (which FDR also opposed, he didn't want congressional oversight of the war effort). The Truman Committee may have been one of the most effective congressional committees ever. Marshall credited it for how efficiently we ramped up war production and for saving billions of dollars (at the time) of money by rooting out inefficiency and corruption. It didn't get it all (and some of what they didn't find was because of resistance from the Whitehouse) but it would be impossible for a government project as large and complex as the war effort not to have some corruption and inefficiencies. It was far less than the open profiteering that Wilson allowed during WW1. As a result, Truman had little knowledge off the most important topics that he needed to be making from day one as President. But Truman was a researcher and student, he recognized what he didn't know and due to his lack of college education always suffered a sense of being intellectually unprepared.

            Unlike some, he actively studied topics, and listened to all his advisors, until he could see both sides, and then he made a decision. He felt that a leader needed to make a decision, and stick with it, even if it turned out to be wrong, because not making a decision was worse. But he also wanted to know everything possible before he made a decision.

            His work schedule from his days as a county official, until he left the Whitehouse was simply impressive. He worked seven days a week, often starting out at 5:30 in the morning and almost never quitting until 8 or 9 and it wasn't unheard of him to work until midnight if necessary. If he wasn't in a meeting, he was researching for himself the topics he needed to know. Even when he was campaigning for re-election as a senator and for VP, he only missed a handful of votes and almost no committee meetings. And he was an avid campaigner. When he was running for re-election as senator, no one gave him a chance to win. He had no money. He would drive from DC to Missouri himself, spend all weekend driving from one town to the next, giving two to four speeches in a day, and then head back Sunday evening so he could be there when the Senate opened on Monday. I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but after I've studied him, I respect the hell out of his work ethics, and his honesty (it appears from all the historic records, that while he was often surrounded by corruption he never was party to it, much like Grant). He also seems to have cared less about being popular and more about doing what he thought was right for the country. I don't agree everything he did was the best thing for the country, but from all sources it seems as if he really did do them based upon the feeling it was best for the country and not about how it would impact the polling or his re-election chances.

            1. Truman also, by 1940, had very little use for FDR as a person and felt he shouldn't have run for a third term and campaigned against his nomination at the convention. He kept most of FDR's cabinet initially but eventually ended up firing all of them. The only one he really seemed to have remorse about resigning was Stimson. He also hated firing people but wouldn't let anyone else do it.

              Truman also didn't like Hoover (but didn't fire him, which I think was a mistake) and considered the FBI under Hoover a little to close to an American Gestapo.

              Finally, despite being eligible to run in 1952, and encouraged by many (he was allowed an exemption under the 22nd Amendment) he felt that serving almost two complete terms was as much as any president should serve. Yeah by the end his polling wasn't great, but he made the decision in spring of 1950, when he was still fairly popular, before Korea, he didn't announce his decision until spring of 1952.

      5. You're missing the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 when the British drew the lines we have today. The Brits intended internal strife to keep the countries from becoming a threat.

        1. It's fairly typical of how England and France divided up the countries they colonized. They did the same thing in Africa, India/Pakistan and Southeast Asia. People think of India as a single country, but it was a bunch of different empires when England began colonizing it. Which England used to it's advantage.

          Hell the Americans did much the same thing in our westward expansion. Hey Crow and Shoshone, you don't like the Sioux and Cheyenne, we don't either, we can be pals and fight them together. While, now, the Sioux and Cheyenne are defeated so now it's time for you to go live on a reservation too. Sorry about that. Wink wink.

          1. Look at some of the reservations we created. The Ft Peck Reservation is Sioux and Assiniboine, who while related were mortal enemies. They also threw in some Chippewa for who knows why. The Cheyenne share a reservation with their mortal enemy the Crow. The Commander share a reservation with several of the former foes. The Blackfoot weren't a single unified tribe, but three loosely affiliated tribes that shared a common language (for the most part) and a common religion (for the most part) and sometimes were allies and sometimes enemies. The same with the Apache. The Kalispell share a reservation with the Kootenay, two completely unrelated tribes, that didn't share a common or even related language or culture. The Navajo share a reservation with the Hopi, though the Navajo spent a good portion of their time conquering the Hopi. The Shoshone have three different reservations, which they share with other tribes. In their case they did have close relationships and even alliances with those other tribes, but still...

            1. The Comanche not commander fucking autocorrect.

      6. You guys are missing the big picture. If Francis Drake hadn’t defeated the armada in 1588….

    2. 99% of this is on that piece shit Putin. Are you a russian bot?

      1. of* that is

    3. It's Truman's fault Europeans decided to fall under the sway of murderous totalitarian political and ideological systems?

      Okaaay.

    4. So Stalin actions at the Potsdam Conference had nothing to do with the Cold War? That requires a complete misunderstanding of history to make that statement.

      1. Government schools help.

  11. Hey guys.

    Last night White Mike said I'm a Russian bot because, well, who knows? I guess because I don't want war as badly as he does or something.

    So I need a little help will my new role as Russian agent here. Does anyone know how to pronounce сука блять? Also, where's the best place to buy an Adidas track suit?

    1. Was that white Mike or Ken who called you a Russian boy, because they've both been throwing that accusation around a lot lately?

      1. White Mike and Joe Sockday.

        1. Imagine Ken using the same rhetoric as white Mike, Joe Friday, and now Tony.
          Yikes.

    2. That's funny that they think Snowden who had to flee this country after exposing illegal spying under threat of arrest, for again exposing illegal spying. Snowden has no where else to go, he's already done more then either of them could ever dream of doing for this country and they want him to burn the only place he's safe - what trash they are.

      1. And it is noteworthy that Snowden didn't flee to Russia. The US arranged for him to be stranded there, while on a trip from Hong Kong, to Russia, to Cuba and then Latin America (he was deliberately avoiding countries with US Extradition treaties). Ben Rhodes in the Obama Whitehouse threatened Cuba that they would not continue warming relations if Cuba allowed Snowden to land.

        https://greenwald.substack.com/p/ben-rhodes-book-proves-obama-officials?utm_source=url

    3. Hey, Canadian bot, how is that popular uprising against Trudeau's authoritarianism that you were talking about coming along?

      Looks like the majority of Canadians have no problem with the Emergencies Act and wanted the jackboot of Canadian government to stomp down on the truckers' necks.

      1. Piss off, troll.
        If you haven't realized that big media opinion polls mean jack by now you're an idiot. Trudeau didn't cave and end the Act just because he suddenly felt like it. A run on the banks and people filling the streets in every city will do that.

        And yes, the protests are ongoing. Switch off the MSNBC and find out. Where's your protest BTW?

        Fucking idiot.

        1. Thanks for putting Canadian arrogance and gullibility on full display again.

          1. Arrogance??

            You've been following me around, calling us cowards and all sorts of other bullshit, even while we're actually doing something and you're doing sweet fuck all. But you have the nerve to call me arrogant?

            Go fuck yourself, windbag.

            1. Arrogance??

              Yes, arrogance.

              You've been following me around,

              I posted one (1) followup, given that your prediction about what was going to happen in Canada was so woefully wrong.

        2. Trudeau didn't cave and end the Act just because he suddenly felt like it.

          Trudeau got away with his original overreach but not his second overreach of keeping the emergency powers after the emergency is clearly over. But he isn't being held accountable for the original overreach.

          The message to Canadians is clear: if you engage in speech or political activities the government doesn't like, you are going to be unbanked and have your life destroyed.

          If you haven't realized that big media opinion polls mean jack by now you're an idiot.

          If only there were media outlets in Canada that aren't dependent on the government. If only.

          Switch off the MSNBC and find out.

          Is that where you get your news? No wonder.

          Where's your protest BTW?

          We don't have the insane Canadian COVID restrictions. People aren't getting unbanked for $50 contributions. Many places don't have mask mandates, and where they are, they are widely ignored and ridiculed. What would we be protesting against?

          I mean, the restrictions at the Canadian border and in Canada are ridiculous, but that's not for us to protest. I'm not planning on traveling to Canada again any time soon.

          1. We don't have the insane Canadian COVID restrictions.
            Plenty of states do, you lying fuck. Tell me again how California's are so much better than Saskatchewan or Alberta's.

            People aren't getting unbanked for $50 contributions
            CANADIANS are getting unbanked for fighting mandates and still protesting. How does that square with your horseshit accusation that we aren't doing anything.

            And if you think for a second that this isn't coming to America or that the constitution will protect you then you haven't been paying attention.

            "Switch off the MSNBC and find out.
            Is that where you get your news? No wonder."

            Literally "No U!!!"
            Good work champ.

            1. Plenty of states do, you lying fuck. Tell me again how California's are so much better than Saskatchewan or Alberta's.

              I have been both to California and Canada multiple times during COVID. The mandates in California were less strict to begin with, but more importantly, outside a few blue dumps, nobody gives a fuck about mandates, vaccinations, or masks.

              That's in contrast to Canada, where the government mandates were obeyed strictly and literally, everywhere I went.

              Canadians really are different from Americans, you know. Well, you don't, since you don't actually seem to understand America very well.

              Literally "No U!!!"

              No, literally, you pull an unfounded accusation out of your ass, and I respond with sarcasm.

        3. youre the fucking idiot feeding the Trolls.

          Kinda suggests YOU are one OF them, dont it?

  12. It is the Ukrainians fault for daring to think they were a sovereign, independent people who could make alliances and agreements without the approval of the successor of their former oppressors.

    1. They really should not have worn that skirt.

  13. https://twitter.com/HankVenture5/status/1496996979313766411?t=gYgDOvfAzigdVNan5rbsTw&s=19

    I am a bit gobsmacked by all the lefties who suddenly realize that regular citizens taking up arms and defending their homes, neighborhoods and country is a noble endeavor.

    1. Imagine their response if Canadians had responded to Trudopey's tyranny with violence.

      1. "Turd-eau..."

  14. President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq . . . further undercut the principle that superpowers should not violate smaller states' sovereignty or engage in wars to topple unfriendly regimes.

    Nonsense.

    Iraq was in clear violation of the cease-fire terms that ended the Gulf War, and it had recently repeatedly engaged in attempts to shoot down US and UK aircraft enforcing the UNSC-authorized no fly zone. Thus, Iraq had, as a matter of established international law, begun a war with the US. Sovereignty does not entitle a state to impunity during a war it started, and there is no international norm or principle whatsoever against a lawful belligerent in a war (superpower or otherwise) invading the enemy to end the regime that started the war.

    That does not mean the US escalation in Iraq was wise or even moral (or even that the no-fly zone was wise or moral), but the specific named principles, insofar as they actually apply to international relations, were not undercut.

    1. Ah the lie about Bushes war...

      The ALLIES...and War Hero Bush took out a murderous dictator.

      Good on them.

      1. Not our job to take out a murderous dictator who never did anything to us.

    2. We shouldn't have gotten involved in the Gulf War either.

  15. I never understood why Ukraine need to be NATO or Russian, why couldn't they just have been like Switzerland and stayed neutral and enjoy democracy and capitalism and built up their own military in the meantime to protect themselves. It's not like they are a tiny country like Lithuania or something, they had the resources and potential and now they're just going to become a puppet state of that piece of shit Putin. they'll stay that way until his isolationism and barbarism fucks up Russia enough that Ukraine can break away again and Putin is either assassinated by his own generals or by a coupe.

    1. Coup*, damn phone keyboards.

    2. I never understood why Ukraine need to be NATO or Russian, why couldn't they just have been like Switzerland

      Geography. Switzerland couldn't be invaded because it's mostly impassable mountains. Ukraine is mostly flat.

      Ukraine might have been able to remain independent if they had kept nuclear weapons. But they gave those up because Clinton promised them that the US would defend them. Whole lot of good that did them.

      1. And we ignore that Sweden and Switzerland only maintained their neutrality in WW2 by kissing Germany's ass, providing Germany with commercial products it needed, while telling the allies they were neutral.

    3. I never understood why Ukraine need to be NATO or Russian...

      The better question is, why was Russia never been able to join NATO? It would have solved everyone's security problems.

      1. I'll see your dubious claim and raise you a UN security council.

      2. They didnt want to.

        Since the UN was formed in 48, Russia have had their panties in a bunch demanding more power ( Avalon Project)

        They dont like the global order? Yes it has its problems.

        So they, and their buddies in China should be happy to have the SWIFT system shut them out.

        Have Roubles in a shoe box!

  16. https://twitter.com/SovMichael/status/1497188218223140889?t=eoWtl_tIbhpqAwpkCU5pAQ&s=19

    Does everyone remember all of the horrific "leaked" videos and pictures from China in January and February of 2020 that showed bodies lying in the street and the needed draconian response from the Chinese Government? You do realize that all of it was propaganda, right?

    And so you voluntarily destroyed your business by staying home

    You voluntarily helped to destroy our economy

    All spurred on by a gigantic fertile fallacy powered by reflexivity for the purposes of allowing technocrats to make a global power-grab

    And there was never a period of more than 10 seconds that you didn't receive the next push notification on your phone, never a moment that you didn't have legacy media, politicians, social media, and print telling you the latest news on the fertile fallacy:this lasted for 2 years

    And you joined in, because "we are all in this together" and you looked the other way when social media told you that it was dangerous to blame any of this calamity on a lab leak, or to say that HCQ might work, or to say that maybe that something was seriously wrong...

    And you obeyed and scrubbed your groceries, and skipped your Uncle's funeral, and skipped church - and in reality, nothing is different now than in April of 2020.

    And it was all propaganda.

    And so after there was mass collusion for everyone to believe this massive fertile fallacy ----

    Have you taken a second to say:

    "No, this time, I am going to watch what is happening, I am going to see what the other hand is doing, and I am going to watch for the real intention"

    "But here we must make an important qualification. The news event may be a real fact, existing objectively, or it may be only an item of information, the dissemination of a supposed fact. What makes it news is its dissemination, not its objective reality.”

    J. Ellul "Propaganda"

    1. How'd they get all those doctors and nurses to stick with the story and pretend to treat all those millions of fake covid patients?

      1. I asked my doctor. Among his hundred of patients, he hasn't seen any hospitalizations, let alone deaths. He still recommended getting the vaccine because a few of his patients were feeling miserable for weeks on end. But that's about the extent of it. (Quite a few of my friends and acquaintances have had COVID, none of them seriously.)

        So, the story my doctor tells is not consistent with the COVID panic that you and Fauci are pushing.

        1. Ah, you talked to a single person. Well that settles it. The entire planet's worth of medical professionals are in a conspiracy to make you wear a face mask.

          One wonders why you bother resisting power so vast yet so petty.

          1. Ah, you talked to a single person. Well that settles it.

            No, it doesn't "settle it" at all. What it does mean is that your statement about "doctors and nurses" is wrong.

          2. The entire planet's worth of medical professionals are in a conspiracy to make you wear a face mask.

            No, just a couple of highly placed assholes, their media microphones and useful idiots like you.
            The entire planet's worth of medical professionals think it's a virtue-signaling fashion accessory that does absolutely nothing to stop virions.

            1. Still, an odd way to use such power. I'd go bigger than masks.

              1. They did. Your little fascists pals tried to shut the economy down for a year.

        2. Anecdotal evidence.

      2. How'd they get all those doctors and nurses to stick with the story

        They paid them. They have never denied that.

  17. All European borders have been in a state of flux since the Romans made Europe a thing. They shifted during and after Napoleon, after the three French-German wars, in between and after. Stalin shoved Ukraine west into Poland, Poland west into Germany, and Germany shrank. There is nothing magical about the week-ago borders, or the pre-Crimea theft borders.

    The Ukraine government has piffled around for years, squabbling over corruption, instead of shoring up their own self-help military; now they scream that it is NATO's fault for not sending troops to do what they have done their worst to avoid since 1991.

    The Ukrainian people are less at fault, since it's hard for any people to overthrow a corrupt government, but it's still their fault at the heart. People get the government they deserve, one way or the other. Their elections seem to have been fairly honest, with each corrupt loser gracefully leaving office for the new corrupt winner to take over. What more do people need in a democracy? Yes, the corrupt government controls which kleptomaniacs become candidates, you guys didn't have great choices, but you still had choices. You marched in protests and overturned a previous government, maybe more (I have lost track, since you are not my responsibility), why have you not done it again?

    Sorry. I feel your pain, but it is your pain, your problem, your accountability. Don't blame me for your laziness.

    1. since the Romans made Europe a thing.

      LOLwut?

      You think the Romans were expanding into a vacuum?

      1. Europe isn't a true continent. There is no distinct difference between Europe and Asia. Europe is considered a continent more due to its cultural and political history, most of which was largely influenced by Roman conquests, either as conquered people or resisting Roman conquest. So in essence you could argue Rome really was responsible for founding Europe.

        Even the divisions we think of as existing within Europe are largely traced to Rome. Western Europe was lands conquered by Rome, and remained part of the Western Empire after the divide between the Western and Eastern Empire. Central Europe is largely made of countries that resisted Roman Conquest and remained, at least partially, independent. Eastern Europe is countries conquered by the Eastern Empire or were major trade partners of the Eastern Empire.

        Also, the split between the early Christian church was largely based upon the division within the Roman Empire. The Roman Catholic church dominated in Western Europe and the Eastern Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe. Central Europe was pretty divided between these two religions.

        The Eastern Empire continued into the 15th century as the Byzantine Empire. It's influence definitely influenced the politics of Eastern Europe. The fact that they even became the countries we recognize today was largely due to the establishment of the Kievan Rus trading empire, which was founded by Swedish and Danish vikings to trade with the Byzantine Empire. Originally they came as conquerors but then turned into a trading empire, that followed the Danube and the Volga into lands dominated largely by the Byzantine Empire. The Kievan Rus would eventually become the genesis of Russia and Ukraine. And influence the Baltics and Byelorus. Additionally, the Baltic countries considered themselves Nordic Countries, and feel closer kinship with Scandinavia than with Eastern Europe. Quite often throughout their history they have been parts of different Scandinavian kingdoms, from before the Viking Age up to the 18th century.

        1. I think it was the 4th crusade when French and Venetian mercenaries sacked Constantinople (1204) instead of the holy lands further south. This was the start of the East-West schism.

          Umberto Eco used this as a setting for his novel Baudolino (2000).
          http://library.lol/fiction/DAFF9C5E03859BA584C281454925A9A3

          1. Nah, the schism was before that. It's actually one of the primary reasons for the First Crusade. The Byzantine Empire had been begging western Europe for years to help fight off Muslim advances. In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent an envoy to the Patriarch of Byzantine to settle the differences over the doctrine of Papal Infallibility which resulted in a permanent schism and both the Pope and the Patriarch excommunicating the other their followers.

            When Byzantine again called for help, Pope Gregory VII saw this as a way of exerting Roman Catholic control over the Levantine, and made a call to the nobles of Western Europe to launch a Holy Crusade, the First Crusade. It wasn't aimed so much at the Muslims but was more a continuation of a long standing feud between the Pope and the Patriarch of the East.

            Really the division between the two started in the 5th century, when the Roman Empire divided. The Western Empire followed the Bishop of Rome, which eventually became the office of the Pope, while the Eastern Empire looked to the Bishop of Byzantine, which eventually became the Patriarch of the Eastern Church. And you could even argue it started at the First Council of Nicea.

            Heck, if you read Paul's letters, you can see the differences between the Christians in Rome and those in the Greek provinces. So you could say the schism always existed. But officially you either have to choose the division of the Roman Empire, or 1054.

            1. "Nah, the schism was before that."

              True, it's probably more accurate to say that the sack of Constantinople made the schism a permanent feature of European politics.

  18. How the Past 4 American Presidents Helped Escalate Tensions in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin is singularly responsible for the war that began this week. But the past four presidential administrations missed opportunities to deescalate.

    Good God, more of this progressive drivel, as if "deescalation" would have made an ounce of difference.

    Putin took Ukraine because he felt he could get away with it. And he felt he could get away with it because (1) Germany gets much of its energy from Russia due to their irrational energy policies, (2) the US has let down its allies time and again and has shown that the security guarantees it gives (including to Ukraine) are shit, and (3) the US president is a senile, incompetent fool surrounded by other fools (just look at John Kerry), and (4) Europe has no meaningful military capability and the US ultimately simply doesn't care enough about Ukraine.

    Ukraine and Putin's expansion could have been avoided if the US had left NATO as soon as Germany decided to get into bed with Russia economically, and if then Europeans had gotten their act together on their own defense.

    The way it is, Ukraine is going to fall to Putin and Taiwan is going to China. And hopefully, this will signal to everybody that (NATO and other commitments notwithstanding), nobody can rely on the US to come to their aid.

    1. Your big foreign policy take seems to be to give Putin everything he wants.

      1. Your big foreign policy take seems to be to give Putin everything he wants.

        Not at all. My big foreign policy take is that Clinton, Obama, Biden, and the Europeans have given Putin everything he wants, just like they have given Taiwan to Xi.

        It's a done deal.

        Idiots like you and your progressive heroes are responsible.

        At this point, we need to cut our losses. There is no reasonable way in which we can undo the damage you people have done.

        1. Interesting take considering you left off Trump, who is to this day going around being a proud Russian stooge. And Bush who saw a real straight shooter in Putin.

          1. Interesting take considering you left off Trump

            Please tell me: what is Trump supposed to have done that brought about Putin's invasion of Ukraine? I mean, Putin didn't invade Ukraine under Trump, did he.

            who is to this day going around being a proud Russian stooge

            Trump observed, correctly, that Putin is smart and rational. That is a correct assessment, not "being a stooge". A correct assessment of one's opponent is important for keeping them in check.

            A big part of Obama's and Biden's numerous foreign policy screwups is that they erroneously think everybody else is stupid and everybody else responds to the same incentives than they do.

            1. Biden predicted everything Putin has done.

              In fact, without his strategy of releasing intel, we might be in a much foggier war state. Instead, the entire planet, save China and, like, Syria, is united against Putin, to his apparent shock and frustration.

              One of the best foreign policy moves of my life. Better than when Obama killed bin Laden.

              By contrast, Bush destroyed the US's reputation by lying the country into a war, and Trump destroyed it further by being a fat, orange, vulgar buffoon.

              1. Calls for facts not in evidence. Your entire second paragraph is simply partisan talking points and is your assessment of Trump. No one is to blame but Putin. We can acknowledge we aren't free of sin, but the blame lays with Putin. Period, anything else is pure speculation.

                I don't know if Biden's Intel was correct, you can't either. It's also completely possible that by stating Putin was going to invade multiple times over the last three months Biden helped precipitate this crisis. That his actions goaded Putin. This is also a possibility, one I'm sure you'll dismiss out of hand because of your partisan leanings. You might be right, you might be wrong, we can't know.

              2. This wasn't the first time Russia under Putin has done a big build up on the Ukrainian border. It is the first time Putin decided to fully invade. Everyone is arguing about why Putin invaded. That's easy, because he decided, period. We can't know what prompted those actions and why in the past he has decided not to invade. Maybe his favorite horse died? Or his mistress wouldn't give him a blowjob? Who knows. The fact is despite Biden's actions and NATOs actions Putin decided this was the time to invade. We need to not worry about the reason and focus instead on how to keep this from getting worse and how we deal with Russia after this is over.

              3. Well, if Biden predicted everything that happened, why didn’t he do anything about it? Why did he support Nord Stream 2?

                The simple fact is that Biden is a blithering idiot who has screwed up every foreign policy issue he has ever handled. That’s why Putin invaded on Biden’s watch and did nothing on Trumps watch. And Biden’s response has been pathetic.

                And you only have to look at Kerry’s statement to see how woefully divorced from reality this administration is.

                Trump at least had the excuse of inexperience. Biden is simply incompetent.

                We had the failure in Afghanistan, now Ukraine, and next China is doing to invade Taiwan. And Biden is completely ineffective.

              4. More than half of Americans give Biden thumbs-down on Ukraine crisis

                Barely one-third of Americans approve of the way President Biden is handling the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to a new poll released days after Vladimir Putin ordered “peacekeeping” forces to two breakaway regions of the former Soviet republic.

                The Gallup survey found that only 36 percent of Americans back the president’s response to the “situation with Russia” while 55 percent disapproved.

                … the survey found that 86 percent of Republican respondents disapprove of Biden’s actions in response to tensions with Russia, while 53 percent of independents and 31 percent of Democrats felt similarly.

                https://nypost.com/2022/02/23/over-half-disapprove-of-bidens-handling-of-ukraine-in-new-poll/amp/

      2. Nope. It’s all on SleepyJoe.

      3. Putin took Ukraine because he felt he could get away with it. And he felt he could get away with it because (1) Germany gets much of its energy from Russia due to their irrational energy policies, (2) the US has let down its allies time and again and has shown that the security guarantees it gives (including to Ukraine) are shit, and (3) the US president is a senile, incompetent fool surrounded by other fools (just look at John Kerry), and (4) Europe has no meaningful military capability and the US ultimately simply doesn't care enough about Ukraine.

        There was really nothing in NOYB2s assessment that was incorrect. It may be incomplete, or need more fleshing out of detail, but all of the above was essentially correct.

        But Biden did give a forceful speech from the teleprompter, and he only fumbled over 20% of it as he squinted through it. So I feel confident.

      4. And your foreign policy position is more war mongering. Congratulations, you’ve allied yourself with George Bush and Dick Cheney.

    2. "and if then Europeans had gotten their act together on their own defense."

      NATO has always been equal parts protecting Western Europe from the Russians and preventing them from doing exactly that.

      Because well armed Europeans inevitably go to war with each other.

  19. I am skeptical that anything going on here can hold a candle to what the United States and Saudi Arabia are doing in Yemen. So if you could spare me the moral outrage, this looks like a couple of autocratic regimes in a dispute over a messy area half-way around the globe.

    This is a decent description of the Ukranian government in an article over at CATO.
    https://www.cato.org/commentary/ukraines-accelerating-slide-authoritarianism

    1. Typical Leftist bullshit.

      The evil you want to ignore is excused by blaming others.

      Go drown yourself.

      1. CATO is leftist. Got it.

  20. Did we get through the entire article without mentioning the Clinton administration going against the previous American policy of not moving NATO "1 inch eastward"?

    *checks*

    Why yes, yes we did. Nice one. To be fair, Clinton was BT (before Twitter).

  21. No past Presidents helped Putin make a unilateral decision.

    Unlike the pussy Globalists, NOT including Trump and Bush, Putins a man.

    Not worthless globalist NWO ass kissers like Obozo and Biden.

    Putin decides. He doesnt ask permission unlike Bidet who went sucking up to Putin asking him to please not hack us.

    Stop the blame Spreading, Reason.

  22. Kind of justifies all the moving the NATO borders east. Because Russia still is an evil empire and they just proved it even more just now.
    Poland and the Baltics were jumping at the chance as they had been russified already and wanted a way out. Didn't want to go back to "the good ole days".

    I think Russia is proving everyone's concerns right.

    Food embargo if they want to play "who run barter town"

    1. Russia is a huge agricultural producer. Food embargoes would be useless. And you are really dismissing any possibility that maybe better diplomacy with Russia thirty years ago wouldn't have turned them evil. It's like Tony above, saying if you lose you deserve to be treated like shit. Most experts agree Hitler only came and maintained power because of the Versailles Treaty. We didn't repeat that lesson after WWII and openly embraced Germany, Italy and Japan. The question is why NATO didn't do the same for Russia after 1991? Did helping Poland et al over the objections of Russia require full embrace by NATO? Remember Russia had been invaded four times by Western Europe from 1800-1945 (Napoleon, the Crimean War, the so called Polar Bear expeditions during the Russian Revolution and WWII). Russians have a long cultural memory.

      1. "We didn't repeat that lesson after WWII and openly embraced Germany, Italy and Japan. "

        Thats MASSIVE ignorance of WWII, accidentally or deliberately.

        Avalon Project..READ IT.

        Russia got all pissy bc they wanted more power in the 3 way split after WW2, G.B., Russia and the US.

        So THEY stomped off stage at the formation of the UN.

        Youre playing "Blame the Victims."

        1. Where the fuck did you get that interpretation from? Because it wasn't in what I wrote. I believe I already criticized Stalin for reneging on the Yalta conference agreement and for his actions at Potsdam above.

          I was making the point that we should have done more in the 1990s to help Russia in it's transition from communism. That isn't blaming the victim. Our embracing Germany, Italy and Japan after the second world war also isn't blaming the victim. We did embrace them, mostly to keep them from falling to the Soviets, but also because the way the allies (mainly Britain and France) treated Germany in 1919 was a total failure.

          As for western Europe attacking Russia four times, it's true, Napoleon, the Crimean War, the allies interference in the Russian Revolution and the Nazi invasion of USSR.

          This doesn't absolve Putin of his sins. These are just historical facts.

          1. You sir are interesting.

      2. Callung Bullshit on you, Part 2

        Seens as if youre a clueless opinion....

        Russia IMPORTS MOST OF ITS AG AND FOOD PROCESSING MACHINERY.

        https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/russia-agribusiness

        They are NOT a big producer without the US. They like much of the rest of the Third World will fucking STARVE without the US.

        Enough of your "RahRah for Communism"

        1. "...Avalon Project..READ IT..."

          Reality; get used to it. Your statement is totally worthless; you are really bad at this.
          Got an argument? Make it and offer cites; 'read something' ain't a cite.
          Grow up

        2. I often wonder if you're not drunk off your ass when you post; your responses range from "WTF" to "WIH does that have to do with anything?"

        3. The import processing machinery to process their own agricultural goods. I am well aware of Russian wheat production. I live in wheat country, and Russian wheat production impacts our prices. In fact wheat futures have been increasing all week, when this time of year the normally start slumping as Australia and Argentina are harvesting, and the Southern plains will be harvesting winter wheat in two months. One of the big reasons wheat jumped today, was Egypt cancelled it's orders from Russia, meaning they will be looking for wheat from other sources.

          Corn also has been increasing, because Russia produces quite a bit of corn as well. Unfortunately, for cattle producers like me, increasing grain prices has cooled the cattle market.

      3. "...Most experts agree Hitler only came and maintained power because of the Versailles Treaty..."
        I'm gonna suggest a more thorough reading of post WWI - pre WWII Germany. It is dense reading but Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" makes it clear that Germany's post WWI economy was not crippled by reparations payments; by various ruses and 'whines', Germany avoided paying the majority of them. Rather, the 'lesson' to the interwar Germans was the 'stab in the back' fantasy: That the Wehrmacht had not "lost" to the allies, but that internal ('Jewish', to Hitler) agents had caused the Wehrmacht to surrender when they had not been defeated. The lesson (despite my distain for that POS FDR) was articulated in North Africa: "Unconditional surrender".
        While claims (lacking any hard evidence) continue to sprout regarding that demand extending WWII (and some might be true); it has bought the world a lack of a world war for 76 years, far better than the last. Ditto the whining about the nukes.

        "We didn't repeat that lesson after WWII and openly embraced Germany, Italy and Japan. The question is why NATO didn't do the same for Russia after 1991?"
        The remains of the USSR did not suffer as a result of war with the US (Allies) - it died of its (predicted and inevitable) internal contradictions; linked a week or so ago the book which acknowledged the absolute importance of the (illegal) black markets and keeping people fed. Gorby understood he had no option (he's smarter than Kim).

        "Did helping Poland et al over the objections of Russia require full embrace by NATO?"
        I'd say no, but finding it hard to come down strongly on either side of the argument.
        In WWII, Poland was treated poorly by Germany/Russia (simultaneously) at the beginning, then by Germany heading east and finally by Russia headed west, all the while and later treating the Polish Jews only slightly better than the Nazis (fuck you, Misek).
        If you can find a good-guy in the lot of them, it'd be good to see.

        1. I don't necessarily disagree with you on the first paragraph. I obviously simplified. And should have included the stab in the back myth. However, the reparations did lead the Weimar republic to inflate it's currency, and the occupation of the Rhine Valley did cut off most of Germany's economic base. Also, the Polish corridor to the sea was an artificial creation, this doesn't mean Hitler's actions vis a vis Poland were justified, just it wasn't a good move by the allies. Poland wasn't even a country during the first world war. But once it was created, however, I'll advised that may have been they deserved to be safe within their own country. As to embracing Japan et al, I was really referring to the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, which were mainly undertaken to stop Soviet aggression.

          As for your second paragraph I think there is some confusion, by 1945 I was referring to Germany's actions from 1941-1945. I should have been more clear. The USSR fell because communism is doomed to failure, and in no small part to Reagan recognizing this and starting an arms race the USSR couldn't hope to meet and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

          As to embracing Russia afterwards, they Russian people arguably suffered the most under the Soviet government. But after the Cold War ended we kind of forgot about the Russian people. Kind of like we did to the Afghani people in the 1990s. We aided them in defeating the Soviets but then nothing. I think we could have engaged both countries more actively is my point. We embraced the ex Soviet satellite countries, we should have made more effort to engage Russia.

          Don't get me wrong, Russia's current actions are all on Putin. I just think if we had acted smarter after 1991 we may have avoided it. I read a good piece yesterday from a reporter who had lived in Russia during that time period, it was from a British paper. And his criticism was aimed at the British Foreign Office, but I think he had some points. Of course this is all Monday morning quarterbacking.

          1. "...As for your second paragraph I think there is some confusion, by 1945 I was referring to Germany's actions from 1941-1945. I should have been more clear..."
            Do not understand.
            Germany got little aid; food at the US GI level, and Japan got some since MacArthur pointed out that we hung many Japanese for starving the Allied POWs to death and he wasn't gonna do that. But they got subsistence aid and little else.

            "...As to embracing Russia afterwards, they Russian people arguably suffered the most under the Soviet government. But after the Cold War ended we kind of forgot about the Russian people..."
            We could, post WWII, afford to assist the Euros and the Brits, under the assumptions that 1) They would return to being trading partners and we'd all gain, and 2) In the hopes free money would cause them to listen to the Russkies being repatriated to torture and murder rather than the home-grown commie shits, and thereby remain trading partners so we'd all gain.
            Russia has never been a US trading partner, and from the trajectory of the Russian experiment in the 'looking like a civilized nation' competition, it seems had we poured a ton of money in there, it would never have helped 'the Russian people' at all. The oligarchs would simply have had Hyde Park condos a couple of years earlier.
            See N. Korea; we have no control over the distribution of the food aid; AFAWK, it feeds the military while 'the people' starve.

    2. How does this justify moving NATO borders east? Why in the world would we want a defense pact with a bunch of authoritarian shitholes who are incapable of doing anything for us and who are never going to come to our aid?

      What business of ours is it whether Ukraine and Russia get into a war? Why should we care?

  23. Oh, you wanna see the results of vapid, groupthink within the media. "Kyiv". Yeah, funny how that caught on faster than the Maskerana.

    1. ....like "Ka-mallah..."

      1. and " fuck off, tony"

        that ones popular too

    2. Do you ever wonder if you're wasting your life being pissed off about the fact that sometimes it's nice to be polite to people?

      1. Yeah... That is what happened.

        Do you run any of this stuff by the boss before you post? Or is it enough to just randomly interject nonsense when anyone points out how the sausage is being made.

        There indeed was instantaneous consensus across all American media on the new pronunciation and spelling. Ukraine has been an independent, non-Russian nation who pronounce their capital keev for 30 years. But we said Kiev until 2 weeks ago.

        Polite? Please.

      2. "Kyiv" vs "Kiev" is one political group vs another political group. Someone is always offended.

    3. Also the in unison sudden shift to pronouncing it "keev" instead of "ki-ev"

  24. Everyone knows nature abhors a vacuum, but people forget, in biology, nature also prefers an equilibrium, one sided power never survive very long. Competition for resources always favors an equilibrium. Geo politics also seem to appear to favor equilibriums over sole power. NATO, and by NATO I mean the US mostly, has remained uncontested for to long. It wasn't a state that could continue.

    1. Nice observation. I like it.

  25. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1497330425844445185?t=Pa6aAfTSh6hCxyZoKleP1g&s=19

    NEW - A national vaccine pass, the SMART Health Card, has quietly rolled out in the US – and Red States are getting on board.

    [Link]

  26. Based.

    https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/1497260123315703811?t=II8JOjOoaCOgdcF55IzjKQ&s=19

    Driving on the road towards Kyiv and the radio announcer is giving out instructions on how to make Molotov cocktails.

    1. Add some water... does wonders for combustion.

      O-H radical

    2. Cultural appropriation!

  27. https://twitter.com/BethCharron1/status/1497294833546838018?t=E1czSejmdHZAlFeRWFjhew&s=19

    What are the chances that the same woman from a bombing in 2018 ends up the exact same way in 2022? See thread
    [Links]

    1. BBC News has an article about the viral videos and images being shared from previous conflicts as if they were new.
      Two, in fact

      https://www.bbc.com/news/60528276

      1. it loons lije "early covid videos"

        Like the one reused from a Spanish hospital.

        For being WW 3, there sure isnt much action.

  28. https://twitter.com/BowTiedOx/status/1497311618455195656?t=0iYwgEbG3IHeir90nKXDFA&s=19

    I shit you not, and I cannot make this up.

    While everything is happening in Ukraine, we had a brief on “How To Treat Gender Transitioning Soldiers” this morning.

    We talked about pronouns..

    We are not a serious country/military.

    1. "“How To Treat Gender Transitioning Soldiers”

      Baseball bat.
      Front Line Infantry.

  29. Fuck this warmongering piece of shit:

    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1497354030904975364?t=hv9c_g0JnL1IEaPCExZ2mA&s=19

    1) The fate of #Ukraine is being decided tonight, but also the fate of the west. Declare a #NoFlyZone over Ukraine at the invitation of their sovereign govt. Disrupt Russias air ops to give the heroic Ukrainians a fair fight. It’s now, or later.

    1. LOL
      Double dumbass, but at least this one doesn't promise to get a bunch of people killed.
      HOW DOES HE KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THIS!

      https://twitter.com/kirk_bado/status/1497284651043467272?t=sEZClrtGZjeCzK0PWHbKZQ&s=19

      [@AdamKinzinger
      The #ghostofkyiv has a name, and he has absolutely OWNED the Russian airforce. Godspeed and more kills, Samuyil!
      Pic of Sam Harris photoshopped as fighter pilot.]
      Kinzinger is a bit out of touch

    2. I cannot believe our old mentor would advocate an actual military action in Ukraine. The geographical location and the renewed might of the Russkies would preclude such fantasies. Besides, the Ukrainians threatened to develop nuclear weapons and sealed their own fate.

      Nardz you are living in the past glories of the post-WWII environment and I mean the forties before Russia developed its nuclear capability. Join the modern world please.

      1. Hello Tom.
        If I post a link, everything following the link is direct quotation unless contained within brackets.
        That's Adam Kinzinger advocating for a no fly zone, not me.
        Unlike that elected official, I'm not idiotic enough to think such a move is anything other than committing to full on world War with Russia.
        It was stupid and dangerous when Clinton talked about it on 2016, and it's stupid and dangerous now.

      2. nardz is A Troll.

        Just mute it for best results.

        1. Thanks for your contributions, sqrlsy2

  30. A long list of stuff here. Most of it is on target. One major point isn't.

    Off the bat the author makes a major error. There was not much avoiding the expansion of NATO. The requests of former Soviet bloc members for admission was a completely understandable reaction to the situation they had been in, and needed to be honored.

    The Kosovo intervention was indeed a violation of international law and a serious mistake. Getting outside that NATO umbrella.

    Likewise the invasion of Iraq by the US, an epochal event marking American decline.

    Likewise Bush's idiotic push for a statement on Ukraine's prospective membership in NATO, venturing into the recognized territory of the former Soviet Union

    For both these last two points, the Blair-Brown Labour government in the UK also bears a major responsibility for the calamities that have unfolded.

    Obama for his part should not have put his finger on the needle of the Ukrainian revolution, nor should neoconservative Republican senators. At least he realized with the Crimean disaster that he'd overplayed his hand.

    Trump's policies were positively schizophrenic; pandering to Putin at every turn and doing his bidding, while seriously escalating military aid to Ukraine.

    Under the circumstances it seems to me Biden is doing as good a job as possible of playing a truly terrible hand.

    1. "There was not much avoiding the expansion of NATO. "

      Could have been avoided by disbanding NATO. Instead they turned an anti-soviet alliance into an anti-Russian one. Look where that's got us.

    2. "...Trump's policies were positively schizophrenic; pandering to Putin at every turn and doing his bidding, while seriously escalating military aid to Ukraine..."

      One more TDS-addled asshole!
      Thanks for your bullshit; hope you grow up one day.
      Naah; hope your TDS is fatal; fuck off and die.

    3. Another LYING LIBERAL with "bushes war?"

      Liar, the UN sanctioned Iraq. It was Allies and the US.

      1. The UN also said our invasion of Iraq was illegal.

      2. NEOCON stooge.

    4. That is just silly. When exactly did Trump do Putin's bidding?

      I could excuse not understanding Trump's rhetorical style in 2015. It took me years to see what the heck his elementary school sounding stylings were all about. But now?

      Trump plays tit-for-tat as a negotiating strategy. He praises everyone as a first move. If the other side responds in kind, the game continues. Deals are made.

      If the response is negative, he goes on the attack.

      Trump is, in essence, playing the prisoner's dilemma at all times. He follows the strategy dictated by game theory. He will cooperate unless betrayed. Then he will not cooperate.

      He also plays the modification... He occasionally will break that rule.. testing the waters. This is the absolute preferred strategy in game Theory. So he will go full scorched earth if betrayed... But then he will offer an olive branch. If accepted, all is forgiven. If rejected, more scorched earth.

      But if you are an ally, every now and again he will see what he can get away with. He will break a deal, testing to see if he can do better.

      This is Trump 101.

      1. The Great Negotiator. I firmly believe that if the Democrats had not pulled The Steal and sent our real President into exile. We would not be looking at the problems our Brandon has created in such a short time.

        Brandon's ability to mess things up is as Obama said, not to be underestimated.

        1. The biggest problem was the Russia Collusion Hoax. That may have prevented any deal, such as inviting Russia to join NATO, that could have been accomplished. Imagine if Russia was in NATO. Their security would be guaranteed, Ukraine would never have been an issue and never any threats mush less an invasion. We would be moving Russia closer to the West instead of China.

          1. Correct.
            And that's why Russia was chosen for the hoax.
            The cabal was worried Trump might actually establish an alliance with Russia, which would be in Americans' best interests, so they sabotaged it before he even had the chance.

          2. It's not a hoax. A Senate investigation even proved collusion.

        2. There was no steal, you lying sack of shit.

    5. That is utter bullshit. NATO is under no obligation to admit anybody, least of all weak states likely to get into wars with Russia.

      NATO is a mutual defense pact. Nations sign up for it if it is in their interest.

      At this point, being in NATO is arguably simply not in America’s interest at all anymore.

      1. Being in NATO, especially since it's eastward expansion, now is a huge liability to the American people with no benefit.

    6. Does no one on this comment page have a memory for Ukraine's rhetoric leading up to this invasion? They threatened to develop nukes.

      1. Probably not. I never heard of it until now. Yet its from last year! The US News memory holed it if it was ever covered.
        https://www.the-sun.com/news/2713461/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-russia-putin/

      2. "They threatened to develop nukes."

        Yes, and so what?

  31. Pretty fair assessment of our political blunders regarding Ukraine.

  32. It’s pretty tough to see things objectively sometimes. There are so many distractions. It’s hard to believe that we all have something in common, but we do.

    Peace in truth. Amen.

    1. Fuck off and die, Nazi scum; still waiting for the list of your bullshit regarding those other Nazis murdering millions.
      This time, as with turd, I'm going to copy your bullshit, along with mine and others pointing out you are bullshitting, and every time you lie that 'no one has refuted' your bullshit, you're going to get it jammed in your face, you pathetic pile of shit.

      1. You said that before but have never provided any evidence of it.

        Well?

        1. As a Nazi scumbag, you have never bothered to list the 'claims which cannot be refuted' asshole.
          This time I want to collect the answers all in one place, so like my responses to that other scumbag asshole turd, all I need to do is copy and paste.
          OK, Nazi steaming pile of shit, list your claims; I'm going to love to jam them up your ass:
          1)
          2)
          ...

          1. So you finally admit that you have never refuted anything I’ve said.

            You always have had the opportunity to refute what I say, but never have.

            I make comments that you deny without refuting them. You make claims without ever proving them. What do you think you’re doing?

            1. "So you finally admit that you have never refuted anything I’ve said."

              No, steaming pile of Nazi shit, I've pointed out that, as a lying pile of lefty shit, you've avoided lying such that your bullshit could be easily refuted.
              1)...
              2)...
              It's easy to those who have an honest argument; make the claims and have them refuted, asshole

              1. I have avoided lying. That’s called telling the truth.

                If you can’t refute what I say you can either accept it as true or irrationally deny it as you are doing.

                I’ve been making comments that you irrationally deny for years here. Lists and lists that you have never refuted. When challenged you run away never refuting them but always returning like a troll to claim you have, never proving it.

                You’re a tiresome troll that I feed only when I want to.

                If anyone else wants me to feed this feeble minded troll for our entertainment here and now, just ask. I will and even make it relevant to Ukraine. Though I’m just as happy to let it starve or diet on its own shit, as usual.

                1. Nice high road Mr. Misek.

                2. "If you can’t refute what I say you can either accept it as true or irrationally deny it as you are doing."

                  As a steaming pile of Nazi shit, you can't seem to "say" anything other than claim you're right.
                  Stuff it up your ass; your head needs company.

        2. I have refuted every one of your points, with links, photographs, physics, chemistry, etc.

          1. You have not at all. Provide your cite.

            You have at best, taken out of context under ideal circumstances which did not exist at the time, provided one improbable piece of evidence. As a whole your denial falls into the impossible category.

  33. "Russian President Vladimir Putin is singularly responsible for the war that began this week. But ..."

    There is no but here. Putin invaded Ukraine. Period.

    1. +1

      " but my ass!"

      Morris Day

    2. But Ukraine threatened to develop nuclear weapons. There is a but here.

      1. A soverign nation has that right.

        To defend themselves against a known agressor, russia.

        You Russian Trolls are too obvious.

        1. Who's invaded more countries over the last 10-20 years: NATO or Russia?

          So who is the known aggressor?

        2. A soverign nation has that right.

          I'm not defending Putin: he is a brutal dictator. But let's not kid ourselves, what rights nations have is defined by power, nothing else.

          The US has stomped all over "the rights" of other sovereign nations, over and over again, sometimes out of greed, sometimes out of good intentions.

  34. "...President Donald Trump broke with his predecessors by openly calling for a reassessment of America's role in NATO and NATO's role in the world, but those efforts were driven by domestic populist politics rather than a serious attempt at diplomatic realignment...

    We get a statement of Trump's motivations from a TDS-addled asshole.
    Stick with facts, Boehm; you ain't worth shit when your comments include your obviously assholish assessment of Trump's intentions.

    1. Trump who? You mean the guy who lost to Biden in a landslide and is headed for prison? Lol.

  35. I often claim that what I say has never been refuted. Truth cannot be refuted because it is reality.

    We all need to try to perceive reality to adapt and evolve.

    I welcome every attempt to refute what I say because I do value truth. Should what I believe is true ever be refuted I will discard my erroneous belief immediately.

    In the spirit of truth I can’t censor the evidence that refutes beliefs even when those beliefs are cherished.

    Logic, science, honesty and intelligence are the tools we have to discern truth.

    Logic and science prove truth but they are not always available. In this case we know reality exists but we can’t irrefutably prove it. Sometimes we have the luxury to simply say we don’t know, and move on to more pressing issues but sometimes we need to make a decision about reality doing the best we can with what we have. This is where honestly and intelligence come in.

    By honestly attempting to refute every piece of evidence we can put it in one of four categories, impossible, improbable, probable or proven.

    Something impossible immediately refutes the evidence but may not refute the belief. It may be added to the improbability of the belief.

    Similarly something proven may not prove the belief but is necessarily added to its probability.

    Doing this with all evidence takes commitment and effort but it also allows us to make the best estimation of reality, truth possible so we can make the important decisions we need to in good faith.

    Sometimes this is the best we can do.

    We must do this with the unproven beliefs that we must act upon to demonstrate acting with due diligence. The conclusion can be rationally shared as a belief of truth as if it were proven true by everyone who is honest, intelligent and values reality.

    Peace in truth, amen.

    1. 'I often claim that what I lie has never been refuted...'
      Fixed it for you, shirt pile of Nazi scum.
      Now go up thread and post your lies so the can be jammed up your asse every time you claim otherwise.
      And fuck off and die, shitbag.

      1. You’re such a troll.

        You demonstrate the spirit of censoring evidence.

        1. Nazis scumbag, please answer the up-thread question: Please deliver the bullshit claims you make so they can be demolished one by one and this time I'm saving your bullshit and the responses so the next time, as a Nazi piece of shit, your entire assholery can be jammed up your ass with out me having to do a search.
          OK, fuck face, let's see it; all of your 'non-refutable' bullshit:
          1)
          2)
          And so forth. there are no lack of people here more than willing to jam it up your ass, fuckface

          1. See above, troll.

            1. Hey, Nazi asshole, I see you have NO claims to be refuted, so jam your head up your ass and take a deep breath.

    2. You left out possible in your list of logical categories. The very middle, the very beginning of probable or or improbable.

      1. I don’t think so.

        Either probable or improbable includes the concept of possibility.

        It’s either going to be true or not, there is no neither option when it comes to reality.

        1. You don't "think" at all, pile of Nazis shit.

        2. Please notice that the pile of Nazi shit has such a list of "irrefutable" facts and evidence that he just can't quite get around to providing that list.
          Quite possibly because every time he *has* stated one or more of his bullshit "facts" and/or "evidence", it's been jammed back in his face as:
          1) Inference from weak claims
          2) Just plain false
          3) Unsupported claims for anti-semite organizations.
          This asshole has yet to provide one (that's ONE) credible bit of evidence that the entire world is wrong in properly noting the existence of the Nazi holocaust murdering millions of innocent Jews and others.
          This slime bag, instead, excuses that activity, which would be embarrassing to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
          Fuck off and die, shitbag.

  36. In an article about how the past 4 presidents created this situation, you failed to mention the salient points of the more recent history:

    Trump (and the US Congress) had created a regime of sanctions designed to block the ability of Russia and Germany to ignore Ukrainian interests.

    Biden abandoned that regime that was put in place as law, unilaterally and without debate. Such note as was taken in the media was spun as being friendly to Russia.

    I am not sure why we keep writing these articles that are desperate to paint a "it is mostly Obama and Biden" thing as a "it is both sides, but really, it is Republicans" thing.

    Bush going to war with Iraq and Trump being both skeptical of NATO and supportive of NATO policy? That is more important in this than both Obama and Biden giving Putin the green light? You sure about that?

    Because it seems to me that you have a lot fewer tea leaves to read to interpret "we are removing sanctions on this pipeline that will allow you to threaten Ukraine and we totally won't do anything at all if you only invade Ukraine a little bit" as having way more of a contribution than Trump pushing other NATO members to pay their share of the freight and Bush invading a country that we were in a creation of hostilities with for a decade (but not at peace).

    This really was a bizarre take. Did you guys spend the last 72 hours digging through past events looking for a way to "both sides" this into being Trump's fault?

    1. Trump's sanctions were an act of war because of a pipeline that is not a military threat to America. Biden was right to end them. Trump is a sanctions happy nutcase.

  37. Genuine question:

    Is there a difference between US/NATO giving Ukrainians weapons+training to kill Russians in Ukraine, & Suleimani giving Iraqis weapons+training to kill Americans in Iraq?

    1. Maybe maybe not. But sometimes you sound like you're running cover for Putin. Just saying. It doesn't mean you may not have a point, but we can't escape the fact that Putin decided to cross that line. The important thing is how do we stop this from getting worse.

      I don't disagree that NATO is past it's sell by date, but we did sign the Treaty and haven't withdrawn from it. At this juncture in time may not be the best time. I would definitely prefer a revision of our alliances. Forming alliances that are more pertinent to the modern world. I am not as isolationist as you are. I don't believe that isolationism is in the best interest. But military adventuring isn't either.

      I would prefer alliances that benefitted us more. Maybe Germany et al will wake up and start pulling their weight again. It would mean a vast rethinking of their social programs, but that isn't a bad thing. Maybe some of our progressives will realize that you can't maintain national security and cradle to grave entitlements. It could happen, not likely but it could. Maybe some libertarians may wake up and realize relying on others for commodities and manufacturing because it results in cheap goods, even if those goods are only cheap because of subsidies and market manipulation, isn't good for national security reasons. Maybe some of the pollyanna thinking will end and we'll get some real pragmatism, some real utiltarianism. I can hope.

      1. Understandable how it sounds that way, but the mainstream narrative on Putin/Russia is batshit crazy and being parroted just about everywhere.
        I saw dudes, multiple and at different times, come on TV and state the certainty that "anti nazism means Putin will carry out mass executions and imprison everyone in concentration camps". It's taken as a given that he is going to conquer everything up to Berlin. That his sole motivation is megalomania and lost for conquest. That Russia has been the most aggressive country since 2008 (which is laughable).
        Putin/Russia invaded. That's on them. I'm just not willing to uncritically follow the herd in thinking they have no legitimate motives or possible justification for doing so.
        The rhetoric on this is scary. It's not coverage, it's what you do when trying to whip up a frenzy to go to war. A week ago, 74% of Americans did not want the US to take a major role. Now you have people proposing No Fly Zones and a consensus, at least among the chattering class, that Putin=Hitler. I worry about what a poll this week would show regarding desire for direct confrontation, let alone a major role.
        How much of the American people's resources do you want to spend on Ukraine?
        The Suleimani comparison just struck me as interesting. We talk of giving weapons and training to Ukraine (to kill Russian soldiers) like it's no big deal and there couldn't possibly be any consequences.
        Seems a bit worse than what was alleged (made up) about Russia paying bounties to Taliban for dead US soldiers.
        At this point, I hope Zelensky agrees to terms because that's the only way I see this ending without much greater bloodshed and increased chances of US participation and world War.
        My fight isn't with Ukrainians or Russians. My fight is with the totalitarian cancer in the US, indeed the whole west and anglosphere, who want to destroy our culture and subjugate us into serfdom.
        What Russians and Ukrainians do to each other is their business. "Build back better", "the great reset", and promises that we "will own nothing" are an imminent threat to me and my loved ones. Racial marxism, not Putin or Zelensky, makes my life worse. Covid totalitarianism, not Ukraine or Russia, makes my life worse.
        That's where my fight is, and it's where yall's fight is too. Do not fall for their tricks.

    2. False question.

      Now back to the basement , Troll

  38. Non-threatening neighbor? Ukraine threatened to develop nuclear weapons and possessed a far greater capability than Iran or North Korea possessed at the the start of their programs. Just because the West is content to see nuclear proliferation amongst the smaller of their enemies does not mean Russia should sit idly on its hands while we wait and watch our doom develop.

    1. Troll.
      .Why doesnt U have the right to develop nukes?

      To deter Russia the aggressor.

      Youre a Russian TROLL

      We know youre Trolling and hacking now.

    2. Russia has nukes. Why can't Ukraine, moron?

  39. Trump had peaceful protesters gassed for a photo op.

    1. Vince Smith is a lying piece of shit with a raging case of TDS.

      1. The butt sore is strong with this one.

  40. The invasion of Ukraine shows why they threatened to develop nukes. Russia has been angling to forcibly return Ukraine to the fold for decades, and Putin has flat out said he doesn't believe in Ukrainian statehood.

    1. Pount. Score.

      The entire basis for the US mil over the past 40 or so years, nuke included was to deter Russia.

      No, this is not about that.

      .Russia has nukes or components or banned weapons buried at Chernobyl.

      Thats the logical place to have stored them.

  41. I disagree. This is one of the few times western provocation has not been a factor. Russia has never respected Ukrainian statehood, and Putin has said he doesn't think Ukraine is a legitimate country.

    The same goes for Ukraine saying they wanted to develop nukes. This would have happened regardless of what Ukraine did, and it's naive to think otherwise. They should have never given up their arsenal because that was probably the one thing that would have forced Putin to stay out.

  42. And yet ...

    Under Obama: Putin takes some Ukraine

    Under Trump: Putin doesn't take some Ukraine

    Under Biden: Putin takes some Ukraine

    1. Under Trump.
      .Syria got an airport blown up.

      Under Biden- a puddle of drool

    2. Correlation does not prove causation. What would Trump have done to stop Putin from invading Ukraine?

  43. So is this Russian TROLL " Ukraine CLAIMED to be making a nuke" day at Reason?

    You Russian Trolls English is good, but your agenda is poorly developed and too bloody obvious.

    Youre piss poor Trolls.

  44. Russia claims U THINKING about a nuke.

    Iran DOING IT.

    Russia ? Crickets.

    Russia invades Assghanistan and cant win.

    Maybe Alexander the Lesser can win closer to home.

    Lots of " thinking about making nukes by goat herders?"

    No, fucking rationalizing liars in Russia.

    Russia + Syria . Lied about " no chem weapons" and got caught.

    TRUMP blew Syria up.

    HA!

    1. Your WEF handlers are satisfied with your effort, sqrlsy2.

  45. I know this may not be on topic but (always a but). My government has already declared war on me. A war still prosecutted to this day. A war that at any moment might send men with guns crash through my door and kill me and anyone inside. So why should i give to shits about Ukraine? Solidary with you Ukraine anywise. PS. A war I pay for.

    1. So yes fuck Donald Trump. You declared war on me first!

      1. Pss. I may just be paroind, one of the simptons of drugs and bad spelling too

        1. Noted edir off topic not on but shit both work

          1. But that could just be ramblings in a sucide note, i wonder if men with guns with come for me then. And how millennial am i?

            Fuck Donald he doesn't win or get to live in my head.

            1. So fuck Ken Paxton would be my answer to mad casual for why I don't like the man.

              1. Stop mixing antidepressants and breakfast wine.

  46. Vlad was Bad
    He made Ukraine mad.
    Now hes gonna get a SWIFT foot in the ass.

    When they pull SWIFT. all MFSOBGD HELL will break loose.

    You think trucker strikes are bad, wait till commerce in Russia suddenly STOPS.

    Therell be more moaning and groaning than Kamala being banged by Willie.

    Itll be a WTC level event or worse.

    1. Oh, and Fuck Joe Biden.

      Almost forgot.

  47. On WSJ...Ukranians in basement mixing Molotov Cocktails...

    With DRAIN CLEANER.

    Partys about to start!

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/ordinary-ukrainians-rally-to-defend-homeland-from-russia-11645900464

    18,000 armed Citizens.

    Its not " single shot rifle"

    Its SNIPER RIFLE.

    HA !

  48. Whatabout Jackson and Lincoln? Jackson threatened the agricultural states with federal troops if they did not obey the new protective tariff laws--in an example admired by Stalin. Lincoln actually invaded states that broke away from the Union of Protectionist Republics and tried to revert to the Articles of Confederation instead. He even copied Lord Dunmore's Emancipation proclamation as a 2-part ultimatum with deadline. So... did Russia rush to impose sanctions on These States?

  49. Spin it all you want, it is Obama in 2014 and Biden in 2022 that caused today's problems.

    1. n 2014, the US overthrew the democratically elected Ukraine government and installed a neo-Nazi dictator in a CIA led coup. The following Presidents were no better. The current guy Zelenskyy used to be a clown – literally. He’s supported by the West because he’s completely sold the Ukraine out to western interests. The Ukrainian military is run by neo-Nazi’s. In fact, there is an entire regiment in the Ukrainian military staffed entirely by dedicated neo-Nazis called the Azov. The Ukrainian government is completely corrupt. Remember Biden had them halt the investigation in to Burisma because his son was being paid millions in kickbacks.

      The Donbass region of the Ukraine speaks Russian. Nearly half the people in the Donbass are ethnic Russians. They got sick of Zelenskyy the Clown screwing them over, so they held local elections to see if they should declare independence from the Ukraine, which the vote approved. The people in the Donbass are generally friendly toward the Russians. They are not the one’s fighting. They see this as a Russian peacekeeping mission.

      1. We have a similar problem in the US.

        Theres a Dumbass region on the East coast thats also aligned with Communists.

        Its called Washingturd DC.

      2. n 2014, the US overthrew the democratically elected Ukraine government and installed a neo-Nazi dictator in a CIA led coup. The following Presidents were no better. The current guy Zelenskyy used to be a clown – literally. He’s supported by the West because he’s completely sold the Ukraine out to western interests. The Ukrainian military is run by neo-Nazi’s. In fact, there is an entire regiment in the Ukrainian military staffed entirely by dedicated neo-Nazis called the Azov.

        1. Sorry, neglected to add you piled a lot of claims in one paragraph and not a single cite to support a one of them.
          Calling bullshit until you come up with *credible* cites for your claims; put up, or STFU.

  50. If you’re looking for a best monitor for Sims 4 that add shine while you playing it, Then you’ve come to the right place. Gaming Square guide will show you the best monitors for Sims 4, why they’re so good, and how to choose the right one for your needs. Don’t worry, and we’ll take a look at the best of the best!

  51. Putin belongs in the Hague.

  52. Every US administration since the fall of the USSR has become more aggressive, threatening Russia's alliances. This is blatant political opportunism, against a nuke nation. But they didn't care. Why?
    Will the US deep state do the same in Asia if the CCP crumbles? Is there any end to the US Empire's expansion worldwide, and at home? Tyranny at home, tyranny abroad.
    What is the risk? What does a tyrant do when he is about to be deposed for failing to protect "national security"? Would the stress get to him? Would his last chance nukes be too tempting?
    TPTB, the hidden US Deep State, are playing with mushroom clouds.

    And the US populace is told by MSM this is defense of democracy.

    1. "Every US administration since the fall of the USSR has become more aggressive, threatening Russia's alliances..."

      You're full of shit.

  53. Searching around for current info and of all places, DW News has a news reader who credits Trump with attempting to get the Euro NATO members to grow up and quit calling on daddy:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qfomj2SVEI
    ~23:16 and on.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.