Ukraine

Opposing War With Russia Doesn't Require Excusing Putin's Aggression

It's far too easy to find glowing descriptions of Putin on the nationalist right. Even some libertarians are making excuses for Russia's invasion. They should stop.

|

As a long-time critic of American military interventionism, I've been dismayed by the lack of moral clarity expressed by some libertarians and conservatives regarding Russia's inexcusable attack on Ukraine. There's a difference between opposing, say, direct American military interference with a nuclear-armed Russia and excusing its autocratic leader, Vladimir Putin.

Sadly, many of these folks haven't just gotten close to the latter. They've gone over the line. It's one thing to argue that perhaps the United States shouldn't have pushed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Russia's borders and another to sound like those old Soviet commentators spewing unsophisticated agitprop.

For instance, former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts made this argument in the, er, libertarian "anti-war" LewRockwell.com: "(T)he chance of a wider war would be far less if the Kremlin had committed all of the invasion forces and used whatever conventional weapons necessary regardless of civilian casualties to quickly end the war, while refusing to be delayed and distracted by negotiations and Western bleating."

Using "whatever conventional weapons necessary" doesn't sound like an anti-war idea, nor does the invasion fit Roberts' description of a Russian "demilitarization" of Ukraine. That description is so absurd it reminds me of the cheesiest efforts of Saddam Hussein's propagandist, Baghdad Bob, who always claimed that Iraqi was rousting American armed forces. I'm more concerned about war crimes than Western bleating, but what do I know?

Former GOP presidential candidate Pat Buchanan even called Putin "a Russian nationalist, patriot, traditionalist and a cold and ruthless realist looking out to preserve Russia as the great and respected power it once was and he believes it can be again." That's high praise from the nationalist, traditionalist Buchanan. His columns have blamed the Russian invasion on the United States, and excused Putin's seizing of Crimea: "Teddy Roosevelt stole Panama with similar remorse."

It's far too easy to find glowing descriptions of Putin on the nationalist right, and not just from Donald Trump. "Remember that Zelensky is a thug," Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R–N.C.) said recently. "Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies."

It's actually not that hard to understand this fascination with Putin and similarly minded autocratic leaders such as Hungary's Viktor Orban. "See, this is the thing," wrote American Conservative pundit Rod Dreher last year (who has made a pilgrimage to Hungary). "Putin, Orban, and all the illiberal leaders…are all completely clear and completely correct on the society-destroying nature of wokeness and postliberal leftism." Well, the Italians were right about trains, but you know how that went.

Dreher has criticized the Russian invasion, but like other populist conservatives he doesn't spend much time examining allegations that Putin's government murders journalists, poisons political foes, and imprisons people who participate in peaceful protests. These far-right conservatives like that he's a nationalist, so-called patriot tough guy who doesn't put up with open immigration, "fake" media criticism, or anything, well, gay-related.

Many conservatives seem willing to toss aside our nation's constitutional protections and market economy in favor of post-liberal autocrats because they're frustrated by our nation's cultural tilt. Prominent conservative writer Sohrab Amari famously tweeted that he's "at peace with a Chinese-led 21st century," because "(l)ate-liberal America is too dumb and decadent to last as a superpower."

Liberal democracy is perhaps too messy for them. But what explains the views of many libertarians?

"(L)obbyists for the military-industrial-complex are already 'explaining' to a very receptive Capitol Hill audience why the Ukraine crisis justifies increasing the military budget to 'counter the threats' from Russia, China, and whoever else can serve as a convenient boogeyman," wrote former congressman and libertarian icon Ron Paul, in a column remarkable for its level of free association.

Paul labeled Putin the "new coronavirus," and seemed more worried that Big Tech companies were censoring people who "question the U.S. government's claims regarding the Ukraine crisis" than he was about the Russian military's attack on hospitals and apartments. Such thinking is harder to unpack, but I believe it stems from the habit of perpetual outrage at our own government's abuses.

There are plenty of zany right-leaning hot takes that take an even more unusual view, such as this idea from a "Forbidden Knowledge TV" column: "Vladimir Putin is good friends with Henry Kissinger, the ultimate New World Order Deep State toady here, in the United States; the Rockefeller poodle who made his living serving as a shill for the New World Order." Yes, that explains everything.

The Ukrainian situation is not a moral conundrum. It's wrong for Russia to invade a neighboring country. The United States should avoid direct conflict but help Ukraine defend itself. Despite their flaws, democracies are better than tyrannies. The U.S. government does many awful things, but it isn't actually to blame for everything. I remember when conservatives and libertarians used to understand those points.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

NEXT: Economic Penalties for Putin’s Aggression Threaten To Impoverish the World

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. Also, understanding Putin's point of view doesn't mean agreeing with it.

    1. Yeah, that's the most dangerous one. Understanding why pushing NATO eastward is a bad idea makes you a Russian Bot.

      1. See: several formerly sane regular commenters

        1. Same as during the War on Terra. If you dared to say "Golly, maybe we're making people mad by drone striking weddings and occupying countries" then OMG YOU WANT THE TERRORSTS TO WIN YOU HATE AMERCA AAUUUGHH!

      2. It doesn't make you a Russian bot. It just makes you wrong! And there is nothing wrong with being wrong, but it seems that all of you people who keep preaching that the reason Russia is invading is because of NATO pretend your somehow enlightened and everyone else is an idiot when ... I mean, all you have done is absorb Russian propaganda.

        If you read Putin's speech it is obvious why he doing what he is doing. He said he is invading because Ukraine is not a sovereign state. He also said that its being run by drug-ridden facists. Which ... ok. He talked about NATO too, but that was far from the main point!

        If this was about NATO, he wouldn't have invaded Crimea. Or the Donbass. Or start proxy wars in Ukraine. Or invade Georgia. Or install puppets in Ukraine. Or install puppets in Belarus. If he was so interested in neutrality he wouldn't keep starting shit! It is very difficult for countries to remain neutral when they keep getting invaded! I don't know why this is ignored by y'all.

        If you can't understand why neutrality is an impossible demand after decades of unprovoked assaults on various countries ... then your lying to yourself. I am not saying the west is perfect, and certainly we made mistakes in the region! We were probably too enthusiastic about the 2013 coup!

        But at the end of the day, this isn't a function of NATO. Plain and simple, its a power grab. Its not that you are a Russian troll, but that you are denying the facts for what they are. Its overwhelming in one direction, and while smart adademics have made alternative cases, citing them ad nausium whilst ignoring the totality of information is dishonest at best.

        1. ^iron law of woke projection

          People are capable of looking at the history of NATO the last 30 years and seeing the picture it creates
          -30 years almost continuously at war abroad
          -invaded a half dozen plus countries despite any member only being attacked once (9/11 by al queda), and members with combat missions in twice as many more
          -multiple times rejected Russian offers to join while adding 14 countries, almost all in Eastern Europe
          -over a decade of hostile rhetoric directed at Russia
          -trearing Ukraine as a de facto member in all but article 5 (though they're 3/4 fulfilling article 5) since the 2014 coup

          NATO has no reason to exist once the USSR dissolved and no reason to reject Russian membership unless it's purpose is to destroy Russia.

          1. Dave Smith has an excellent analysis/rebuttal of this article at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgXX9PlJxWQ

        2. But at the end of the day, this isn't a function of NATO. Plain and simple, its a power grab.

          He has been very clear about what is at the root of the problem he sees. And you're right - it's not about NATO at all. And certainly not some NATO 'aggressiveness'. It's about the breakup of the Soviet Union. About the loss of what he sees as a 1000-year trajectory of expanding Russian influence across Eurasia. And he is attacking Ukraine not because Ukraine/NATO is a threat but because he viewed Europe in particular as appeasing/weak and 'sanctions' as an empty/decadent/ineffective response to stop him.

          He did miscalculate Europe - but he is absolutely correct that the mere threat of nukes cowed us into not actually stopping him beyond 'sanctions'. We don't have the balls to actually stop him - and his nuclear threats work - so he will keep going until he is stopped. It's not a power grab. It is a glory trip into eternal fame. He wants to be remembered as the tsar who restored the Russian Empire back to its rightful place in the world. And unfortunately that motive goes way beyond Crimea or Donbas or even Ukraine.

          1. Complete bullshit.
            With Ukraine in the EU/NATO 'sphere, western nukes in Ukraine, combined with Bush 43's withdrawal from intermediate range nuclear forces treaty means that Mutual Assured Destruction is no longer valid, and a first strike against Russia becomes "realistic", and Russia MUST adopt a "launch on warning" doctrine, destroying any possibility of "talking down" from the brink of Global Thermonuclear War.

    2. Yes. And this happens all the time. People make no effort to understand their opponents' actual points of view and often actively demonize those who do. Seems to me that if you don't even try to understand the point of view you are opposing, you will never understand anything about the situation. Most people seem to just want to assume that anyone who disagrees must do so because they are stupid or evil.

    3. As Sun-Tzu's The Art of War puts it: "Know yourself and know your enemy, and you'll fight a hundred battles and win a hundred victories."

      That</i* is the only reason to try and understand a thug like Putin, not for psychobabble loveburger snuggle-bunnies like the Pro-Putin crowd supports.

      1. You obviously don't have a very good understanding of Sun Tzu...here's a list of other quotes, I doubt you will be able to use them effectively without being a deep thinker...as Sun Tzu was more about winning before you even lifted a sword.

        https://parade.com/1074916/kelseypelzer/sun-tzu-quotes/

        1. You obviously don't know my reading of Sun Tzu. I've read all the quotes from that article too...without McPaper supplements and Senior Coffee at Mickey D's.

          But it's academic to talk about winning without fighting when the fight is already taking place, so there are other insights from Sun Tzu to apply here.

          Putin has attacked a nation flanked by a Poland that is hostile to Putin, a Hungary that no longer is enthused with Putin, a Romania and a Moldova that don't seem friendly, and The Black Sea. And no matter how they feel about Ukraine, none of Ukraine's neighbors want long-term encampment of Ukrainian refugees. Only Belarus is supportive of Putin, of all of Ukraine's neighbors. Putin has pushed Ukraine into a corner and as Sun Tzu observed, those who are cornered fight the hardest.

          Judging from 7000+ dead Putineers, it is very clear that Putin didn't follow Sun Tzu's advice to move with the terrain as water moves over the land, nor did Putin plan on resistance from Ukrainians, another place where Putin didn't follow Sun Tzu.

          Also, not only is Putin hated by the bulk of the world, but judging from the words of captured Putineer P.O.W.s, Putin doesn't even have the support and confidence of his own troops, who didn't even know what they were there for, yet another necessity from Sun Tzu's perspective.

          Finally, Putin is wanting a Revanchist version of the Old Soviet Empire. Herein is the problem with that from Sun Tzu's perspective: Empires have no exit strategy Once they seize something, empires have to hold onto them. This requires protracted battle and "An army that is not stopped will burn itself out."

          Sooo... am I still not deep enough to get Sun-Tzu, Wǒ de nǚshì?

          *Tips Chinese Coolie Hat qnd bows.*

            1. I wouldn't laugh too loud. Now Belarus soldiers are turning against Putin, even at the risk of imprisonment and maybe death at the hands of their own dictator Lukashenko:

              Putin hit with betrayal as Belarusian troops turn on Russia and vow to fight for Ukraine
              https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1583268/Belarus-Russia-Vladimir-Putin-Ukraine-Mariupol-siege-war-invasion-latest-news-vn

              Once again, it's burning itself out...

  2. It has nothing to do with "making excuses". Understanding Putin's motives and how the West's actions look from his perspective is basic to choosing the correct response.

    If I go to a biker bar and start banging on Harleys with a tire iron, that doesn't give the bikers the right to beat me half to death, or all the way to death. But it's incumbent upon me to have the sense to realize that provoking them may draw a violent response.

    1. If I go to a biker bar and start banging on Harleys with a tire iron, that doesn't give the bikers the right to beat me half to death, or all the way to death. But it's incumbent upon me to have the sense to realize that provoking them may draw a violent response.

      Now do Saint Babbitt.

      1. Why do you keep babbling at me about that? I've never suggested that Ashli Babbitt is a saint. I do believe the police officer's response was inappropriate but yes I will concede that participating in any sort of riot increases one's risk of experiencing violence. But if you are looking for complete exoneration of the cop, look elsewhere.

        1. Enjoy, someone should have been shot sooner - hopefully not fatally - to end that bullshit. Ashley was jumping into a space full of congress members who's protection is the job of those officers. He did not know if she was armed or how many others of the mob would follow. He did the right thing.

          1. Enjoy, someone should have been shot sooner - hopefully not fatally - to end that bullshit.

            It would have been better if no one had been shot.

            1. sarcasmic, in a vacuum, yes, but the physical harm, including the deaths of both rioters and cops were a result of a crowd allowed to run amuck.

              1. Damn, you are an evil piece of shit. Making excuses for murder. And the death of the cop was not a result of the riot, as far as anyone knows.
                The big problem was lack of adequate security. That doesn't excuse shooting people to scare the crowd you weren't prepared to deal with, which seems to be what you are calling for.

                1. Fire extinguisher denier!

                2. It wasn't murder Zeb.

                  1. If you serve tyranny it’s never murder.

                  2. If a cop at any of the BurnLootMurder riots had shot a protester, with the same "justification", not only would it have meant the cop would have been convicted of murder but it would have sparked dozens of other riots.
                    Using deadly force is not allowed unless the officer knows that his, or someone else's, life is in danger. Not knowing if Babbitt was armed admits that that scenario doesn't exist.
                    Any mildly intelligent, trained police officer knows that.

          2. We can only hope that someday someone shoots you in the throat and it takes you 10 minutes to die, choking on your own blood. I wonder if your dying thought will be, "He did the right thing."

            1. Maybe my dying thought might be, "Maybe I shouldn't have been a Trumpanzee gone apeshit, lusting after the demise of democracy"?

              1. Makes sense that your dying thought will be about Trump, sarcasmic. You haven't thought of anything else for 6 years now. It's more likely you'll be crying like a pathetic little bitch just like your child raping, woman-beating faggot buddies who got ventilated in Kenosha. Fuck around and find out you little faggot.

              2. Maybe your last thought will be "I should not have been born".

              3. The ones "lusting after the demise of democracy" were the ones who stole the 2020 presidential election.

            2. That's an interesting point Chuck, and no doubt at the limits of your mental capacity for debate. But on reflection, the only accomplishment of your wish would be one less of the very few voices on this forum not partaking of the daily circle jerks you all so enjoy. For that reason, I'm grading your response FAILED, but don't give up and be sure to pass on any other suggestions you come up with.

              1. Huh? You struggle to write with lucidity, leaving what you suppose to be a 'witty response' bereft of wit.

                1. Stop it Chuck, you're killing me!! That was real knee slapper!

                  1. At least that was short. Now I picture an old timer with an 8th grade education.

                    1. You’re too generous.

          3. someone should have been shot sooner

            Because they were trespassing, right?

            You're a real piece of garbage.

            1. Unicorn, we're not talking about hikers climbing a fence, and the result of the unleashed mayhem included the deaths of several cops and at least two rioters. Others suffered serious injury.

              1. Several cops? As far as I know, one cop died after the fact from an unrelated medical problem. One protester (possibly two) was murdered by police. I think a few others had heart attacks or something.

                1. "The Germans?"

                  " Forget it, he's rolling."

                2. Another committed suicide, apparently depressed by the hateful violence aimed at him and his fellows. Another woman rioter died in the crush of the crowd just outside.

                  1. How many died during
                    the 2020 summer of love, faggot?

                  2. Lol. So you lied, and when you got caught your response to confirm that you lied. Thanks for that, sarcasmic. We all know you're a psychotic liar but it's nice when you admit it. You usually just lie like a faggot and deny it.

          4. That's really not a very good description of what was going on. Some video recently came out that which pretty much shows that is nonsense. She was in there for some time before she was killed, talking to various police officers while few other people were in the area yet. I can't claim to have teh whole story, but from what I have seen it's pretty clear that there was no reason at all to shoot her.
            I don't think it's an accident that most of the video from inside the capitol on Jan 6 has been removed from Youtube and is never shown on mainstream news. People can't be allowed to make up their own minds about what really happened. It's really pretty clear (from what I've seen) that there was no planned attack going on. It was a protest that got a bit out of hand.

            1. I've seen it numerous times Zeb. She attempted jump through a broken sidelight into a hall completely open to Hose floor where congress members were located. There were cops like this one at all doors to it with pistols drawn and in firing position - their directions were clear. The cop who shot her had no idea of her intent, if she was armed, and who in the mob behind here would follow and possibly overrun his position if he tried to chat with her. Like the Secret Service, they were not fucking around.

              1. This is what needs to happen now. We need to not fuck around with you Democrats. Step down, follow orders, or you get put down.

              2. Actually sarcasmic, you lying socking faggot, no member of congress was in that part of the building. Also with both of her hands clinging to the frame of the broken window through which she was stepping, she quite obviously could not have been armed. Had she been armed, the 4-man SWAT team with fully-automatic M4 rifles trained directly on her back probably would have shot her before the racist faggot coward shot her in the face.

                But I'll be happy to hold you to your own standard and blow your brains out for trespassing. Be real, real careful where you step, motherfucker.

          5. It all could have been stopped years ago if we shot the Marxists before they managed to install a mush headed imbecile in the White House. That didn’t happen, and now thanks to democrats, we face the realistic prospect of nuclear annihilation for the first time in 60 years.

            Joe, if the missles fly, it’s YOUR fault.

          6. Christ, what an asshole.

          7. Please u fool. U r wrong about everything u puke on. U r what is wrong in the world as u throw your propaganda bullshit around. U've been tagged numbnuts. Soon the knock on your door will be coming. Goodbye moron. May u rot in hell.
            The Phucko Knows

          8. Yeah, and we should have mowed down all those antifa and blm rioters who were trying to burn down federal buildings. maybe we should have shot all those "protesters" who laid siege to the white house for a week. If all that took place, I might would agree with you.

            1. We still should. And more than them.

      2. Because walking around in a public building with a 4-man SWAT team standing less than 10 feet behind you and taking no action because they do not see you as a threat is exactly the same as destroying someone else's property. Good take, Nazi.

    2. You analogy posits the person as doing physical damage to baker's property, when it is closer to the person saying "Harley's suck" and they may like to buy a Honda.

      1. "Biker's" -damned autocorrect.

        1. But "baker's" is closer to the way Greenhut would look at it.

      2. The point of the analogy was not to draw an exact parallel. It was merely meant as an illustration of the idea. But I guess I forgot where I was.

        1. The point of the criticism was that it was not a parallel at all.

          1. To be fair neither was yours...

          2. Exactly. It was not a parallel. It was an illustration. I'll remember not to do that in the future.

            1. Mickey is exceedingly triggered and emotionally invested in the institutionally prescribed narrative.

      3. Yes, the analogy is wrong, because Putin didn't act in haste or out of anger. Putin is a brutal psychopath. He made it clear what actions he will and will not tolerate from the West. Western diplomats and governments ignored that and adopted policies that not only made it likely that Putin would react with a war, but also made Europe exceptionally vulnerable.

        By definition, a psychopath lacks moral agency; as far as humanity is concerned, from a moral perspective, a psychopath is no different from a natural disaster or a rabid dog: talking about their moral responsibility is absurd, and for politicians to deal with them in moral terms is a dereliction of responsibility.

        This is a case of Western government screwing up policy badly, the same way they screwed up COVID, energy, and the economy. The issue here is incompetence and arrogance by Western governments vis-a-vis a serious, dangerous, thoroughly amoral threat.

        1. How is that any different than what the West has ever done...that's what the whole Ukraine thing is about, the United States trying to dictate to Russia how they should handle things inside what they consider their own sphere of influence. Large nations like to have some regional control. That's nothing new, its the source of almost every conflict in history. The west just doesn't view it that way as they have had the cards stacked in their favor and dictated the terms for so long. Nobody has flinched as the USA has started wars and overthrown regimes, even some that they put in place themselves.

          1. Pretty foolish reply. "Spheres of influence". Sounds like the usual realist garbage.So Putin gets a pass. Grow up, try some critical thinking beyond that of a 4 year old. You deal with Putin like you deal with a rabid predatory animal. He attacked, wants to kill. He is dangerous (he has nukes). The moral, rational thing to do is strangle the Russian economy. There is a lot of noise about how "sanctions" do not work. Maybe they don't. But what the west is doing now is not just "sanctioning". It's economic warfare. A good thing. No shots fired, no bleeding. It strangles the economy of Russia. It's all good. The Russian leadership is a sort of cancer- sometimes in remission, currently malignant and lethal. Get rid of it. It's amazing how libertarians have started to play footsie with the right wing cement heads.

            1. I generally want to destroy anyone or anything that is a threat to me. Like democrats.

            2. There 0 critical thinking in expresso's post. It's just a regurgitated neoconlib talking points.
              Russia views NATO as an aggressive alliance whose sole purpose is to destroy Russia. NATO's actions over the last 30 years support that view, and Ukraine is a red line that Russia cannot allow to stay crossed.

            3. Because being a realist is somehow worse than being an idealogue nowadays. Dangerous when you believe the current administration has the answers and that all prior administrations such as those considered with great regard such as Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan, all had it wrong...

            4. Spoken like a true war monger.

    3. If the bikers are terrorizing my neighborhood, I'm nailing 2×4s and turning them into "stop-sticks' and rigging cable across the road for when they ride through, then sniping them from behind buildings if that doesn't stop them.

    4. Exactly. It was sort of the same thing with the War on Terror. If we didn't understand why they were doing what they were doing, how could we possibly hope to stop it?

    5. To quote the article:

      ""Remember that Zelensky is a thug," Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R–N.C.) said recently. "Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies.""

      I'm sorry, thats not "understanding" the other side. That's just fucking stupidity.

      1. That's de facto "our" side he's speaking of.
        I don't know if they're pushing "woke ideologies" (other than the woke portrayal/conception of Ukraine as a whole), and Zelensky isn't a thug.
        But he is corrupt, a liar, and pushing for world war instead of making very reasonable concessions to save the people he's supposed to represent.

        1. Reasonable concessions like disarmament?
          Or "denazification"?

          1. Yes, it is completely reasonable for Russia to demand Ukraine not station units of Slavic ISIS on their border and stop taking offensive weapons systems from governments dedicated to the destruction of Russia.

            1. Slavic ISIS? I can't wait to hear you elaborate on that.

              I will take your lack of response about denazification as a concession that this is in fact a totally unreasonable demand by Russia.

              Finally, anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons are inherently defensive. Their main purpose is to blunt the offensive power of a mechanized military. But please, keep explaining how Russia's demand that the Ukraine surrender their ability to mount an effective defense is reasonable.

              1. You clearly have no clue what the fuck you're talking about and think this war just started a couple weeks ago, so I will leave you to keep jerking yourself off to State Department propaganda in peace.

                1. Thank you for a perfect illustration of what happens when a moron encounters an argument he cannot refute.

                  Non sequitur, insult, run away.

        2. Zelinsky has been shelling the Donbass area for the past several years.
          Yep, he's a thug.

  3. The United States should avoid direct conflict but help Ukraine defend itself.

    Greenhut is pro-proxy war.

    1. Cold war kids are hard to kill.

    2. Yeah, I don't understand this proxy and economic war to break Russia's back mentality. Neither side are saints in the matter, the West wouldn't have pushed for a Nato Ukraine and Ukraine would have followed through with the Minsk agreements if they were serious about keeping peace in the world. The United States has done nothing to encourage de-escalation.

      1. US politicians love this war: it lets them spend more money, clear out old military hardware and sell new hardware, gives them a seemingly righteous cause, and it hurts Russia.

        The US will keep sending weapons and money to Ukraine for as long as it can, damn the consequences and damn the civilian deaths. And a--holes like Greenhut actually delude themselves into thinking pouring gasoline on the Ukraine fire is somehow the moral thing to do.

        1. You're not wrong, Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex in his 1961 farewell address.

  4. https://twitter.com/JGunlock/status/1504776680119975937?t=uzwMj8Hr1On-XS-3jPPWqA&s=19

    BREAKING: Rape, forcible sodomy, and aggregated sexual battery of a child in Alexandria VA by multiple assailants covered up by Alexandria public school @ACPSk12 officials in order to advance anti-police agenda.

    [Link]

    1. Followed it as far as finishing the National Review article and comments thereon, still don't get what kind of anti-police agenda was in play.

  5. https://twitter.com/AurelianofRome/status/1504759910906712078?t=HqdfS4k0hwZBADs5ftxM2A&s=19

    Be brutally explicit…

    1. These ideologues aren’t vulnerable.

    2. They are exploiting your fear of being ostracized for “insensitivity” to extract concessions from you.

    3. It’s all a pathological game to receive elevated social status with preferential treatment.

    It’s a fraud.

    Cultivating fear of dissent is the beginning and the end of the entire enterprise.

    [Link]

  6. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1504804943953383432?t=EGQEqvCzzONid0qEz-KTQw&s=19

    One of the most bizarre aspects of Western discourse now - almost surreal - is hearing political/media elites claim "the whole world" is united behind them over Russia.

    The reality: many of the world's most populous countries, including 1 and 2, refuse to join this "consensus."

    This NYT article on the nations/populations which reject the Western consensus on Russia -- including Vietnam, Brazil, Kenya, South Africa, China -- is one of the most condescending things you'll read. Depicted as primitive and dumb for believing this

    For decades in Western discourse, the phrases "the international community" and "the civilized world" always meant: "the US, its English-speaking allies, Western Europe and whichever other countries happen to agree with the U.S. at any given moment."

    That's what it still means.

    [Links]

    1. Most countries that aren't dependent on the United States for welfare, be it monetary or militarily aren't jumping on board with condemning Russia, because they want to maintain sovereignty over their own decisions. The West is showing how far they will go to enforce globalism...the United States is showing her willingness to use the dollar as a weapon. Most nations don't want to be in a position to be destroyed economically if they do something that the USA doesn't agree with. That's a bit different than agreeing or encouraging Russia but it doesn't put them in alignment with the West. When two Mafia bosses are having a spat do you really want to take a side.

      1. Boomers sure do.

    2. So do you also support the oppressive, Authoritarian, and even Totalitarian policies of Vietnam, Brazil, Kenya, South Africa, and China as well?

      1. You speak nonsense, nobody is supporting oppressive regimes. If a nation doesn't like something another does then they shouldn't do business with them. That's far different than encouraging globalism and making enemies out of nations who continue to do business with that country. America want's it both ways they want to do business with oppressive regimes and also tell them how to behave and who to deal with and gets mad when it backfires. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

  7. https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1504782683125084161?t=YJwgsuiCSrdnWYg7SADu6Q&s=19

    The Biden administration -- not just the campaign -- told us the Hunter Biden laptop was "Russian disinformation," falsely accusing it of election interference. Now we are on the verge of war with Russia, and it is worth asking how Biden's lies have contributed to that situation.

    1. The election interference was the censoring and misinformation that the laptop was a Russian plant.
      Just one of the ways the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

  8. https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1504629908286459905?t=9XkfYHM84mOlXfyZ-9TMgQ&s=19

    The Squad has better and more sober-minded takes on the war in Ukraine than many establishment Republicans. That’s not a compliment of the Squad. It just shows how completely deranged, stupid, and morally bankrupt the Republican establishment is.

    1. Putin's Puppyboy is triggered.m

      1. Globalist simp resorts to npc State Department and corporate media fed personal attack because it is too simple minded and pathetic to admit reality is what it is.

        When you volunteering for the front, faggot?

        1. Nardz, one doesn't have to be going down on Putin in public, like you do here regularly, or join the marines, thanks to Joe Biden, our president and leader of the united front of Europe and the world's democracies.

          1. PS My tile man told me Home Depot has a sale on knee pads Nardz. You must be going through them like a Thai whore.

            1. Way to go full racist Joe. I will save this one for the next time you pretend you aren't one.

          2. This is all Biden’s fault. You helped put him there, so by extension it’s your fault too. So best you apologize to everyone here and shit the fuck up from now on.

            1. It is Biden's fault that Europe and the world's democracies have come together in strong economic resistance to Putin's murder. I agree.

        2. You are an apologist for an unjust war of aggression, the blood being spilled because of it, and the authoritarian regime responsible for it.

          You have been in your arguments here, pro-war as a means for Russia to achieve its criminal goals.

          1. You are a cocksucking simp for totalitarian globalism committed to the lies of their mass propaganda operation, and willing to see countless people die so you can satisfy feeling self-righteous according to your ignorant, programmed, utopian moral code.

            1. Down, cur.

            2. Mickey is making literally the exact same arguments as Clinton, Graham, Biden, Soros, Harris, CNN, FoxNews, NYT, WaPo, Kagan, Sunstein, Romney, NBC, CBS, ABC, Google, Zuckerberg, Psaki, deceased McCain, Bush, Trudeau, Obama, Pelosi, Schwab, etc.

              Mickey is endorsing the party line of the people who wholly lied to spy on political opponents and the population, cover up their corruption, stoke racial hatred and political violence, censor factual information, destroy people's reputations, forcibly close their businesses, force you to participate in medical experiments, confiscate your bank accounts, and take away your rights.
              Mickey is telling you to trust and support these people this time.

              1. Yay, guilt by association fallacy.

                Do better.

                1. It's not association, it's the sources of your beliefs

                  1. You are quite mad.

                    If I do not accept that Putin's war is just, then I must agree with that parade of horribles on everything else? That logic just does not track.

                    1. Didn't say you have to agree with them on everything, I said you receive your information from them and are 100% in agreement on this subject.
                      You can keep calling people stupid or crazy or whatever else, but people can read our comments themselves.
                      Unlike your pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia allies above, you don't get to censor conflicting viewpoints.

                    2. It does track though, because you've literally regurgitated every single warmongering yellow journalist lie and hoax since the day the invasion began to justify putting other people's sons in harms way for no other purpose than enriching foreign and domestic oligarchs. And you know this is true, which is why you haven't defended yourself against the allegations and instead mindlessly attacked Nardz and anyone else who isn't bought into your warmongering Nazi death cult. Because you're a stupid piece of shit warmongering Nazi. Go get your guts spilled if it means that much for you.

            3. So Putin is not a Totalitarian? Where do you get that? He's fucking former KGB, indoctrinated his whole life in Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist ideology? You think people like that just change their stripes?

              1. What the fuck does Putin have to do with your life or mine?

                Putin didn't take away Americans' rights, your leaders/allies did.

                1. Putin is a nuclear-armed threat to humanity going against innocent civilians in Ukraine. No one has to support any corruption in the Ukrainian Government to see that and oppose that.

                  And I don't have "leaders/allies" who take my rights. Anyone who threatens my rights or anyone's Individual Rights is an enemy, whether foreign or domestic.

                  1. "Putin is a nuclear-armed threat to humanity going against innocent civilians in Ukraine."
                    So picking a fight is a bad idea.

                    "No one has to support any corruption in the Ukrainian Government to see that and oppose that."
                    That's exactly what you're doing. You're denying their corruption, as well as our government's, by dismissing concerns about NATO as illegitimate and supporting their corruption, as well as our government's, with billions of taxpayer dollars and weapons that will only prolong and/or expand the conflict.

                    "And I don't have "leaders/allies" who take my rights."
                    Sure you do. The same people pushing US involvement and your emotional reaction are the same people who locked us down and whipped up the same propaganda induced emotional reaction to covid.

                    "Anyone who threatens my rights or anyone's Individual Rights is an enemy, whether foreign or domestic.""
                    Ah, so straight progressive internationalism. All people are abstract and equal members of the collective regardless to their relation to you, thus their enemy is your enemy despite having no effect on your life.

                    1. The idea that youhave an interest in criticizing an act of injustice only if it directly affects you is bizarre.

                      It is as if the armed robbery going on in front you is of no interest, but if the person being robbed yells for help, then you become morally outraged, at the person being robbed at gunpoint for daring to object.

                    2. Hmmmm, wear a mask and get a shot that has saved millions of lives, or have my house and town bombed and relatives killed on the streets. Tough call for you Nardz? You really think the former was fascist tyranny? Well, I guess you do and have never witnessed the real thing, though it's on your screen now every night. What a fucking dummy.

                    3. The idea that you'd 100% trust the story told by mass media corps and government is beyond bizarre.

                    4. The idea that youhave an interest in criticizing an act of injustice only if it directly affects you is bizarre.

                      Not really, unless you're a collectivist sack of shit. The idea that you have an interest in provoking an all-out ground war with a nuclear power to satisfy your bloodlusting death cultism in order to signal your virtue to people you will never meet half the world away is bizarre. And sick. And bootlicking. And makes you a piece of shit warmongering Nazi.

                    5. Hmmmm, wear a mask and get a shot that has saved millions of lives, or have my house and town bombed and relatives killed on the streets.

                      As it turns out, nobody in America's houses or towns are being bombed or relatives killed in the street, with the exception of Portland and Kenosha where your goon squads operated a year-long reign of terror until they got ventilated by a little boy and then scattered like the pathetic faggots they are.

                      It also turns out that the vaccine has killed well over 60,000 Americans, with over a million adverse reactions and that wearing a mask to stop a respiratory virus is utterly pointless and had no effect on the spread of COVID.

                      But then, you wouldn't be a sarcasmic sock if you weren't a lying cocksucking faggot little bitch.

                  2. Anyone who threatens my rights or anyone's Individual Rights is an enemy, whether foreign or domestic.

                    Other than the Democratic Party that you relentlessly defend and whose policies you support without exception, of course.

                    1. I am not even registered to vote, much less as a Democratic Party drone. And if someone as pig-ignorant as you is registered, that puts me in good company.

                2. Put aside for a moment the question of whether Putin is a threat to America or the rights of its citizens; not because it's not a vital question, just put it aside for one brief moment.

                  Even if Putin is not a threat at all to America, even if not one American is in harm's way because of the fighting in Ukraine, even if the Ukrainian government is corrupt, even if Zelenskyy is calling on America to do things that aren't in America's best interest...you can still call a spade a spade. This is an unjustified war of aggression that Putin chose to pursue. None of those "even if"s preclude that fact, just as being honest about who started this war doesn't necessitate advocating for US involvement.

                  1. Exactly.

                  2. You can say the same thing about the second gulf war and the war in Afghanistan....justification is in the eye of the beholder. Its not rocket science to show that neither country was a direct threat of the USA. No proof was ever provided of WMD outside of Colin Powell holding up a glass vial and saying that was what it was. The Taliban aren't even the same sect as Al Qaeda, had no link to 9/11 and were fighting with Isis before the USA's invasion forced them into cooperation. You don't have to like either of those country but you can't deny the invasions were conducted under false pretense. Nations fight wars because they think they can win and to gain a sphere of influence over the region, not because they are "justified".

                  3. The constant lies from Ukraine, pleas for expanding the war from outside, refusal to make decisions for the well being of the Ukrainian people, mass propaganda, censorship of dissenting info/sources, 8 year long war on the Donbas Republics, and escalation from the western world belies your opinion.

                    1. The constant lies from Ukraine
                      Specifically which lies from Ukraine make this not a war of aggression by Russia?

                      pleas for expanding the war from outside
                      China invades Nepal. Nepal asks the US to directly confront the Chinese military, which would create a global conflict. Was China the aggressor in this situation?

                      refusal to make decisions for the well being of the Ukrainian people
                      Perhaps Zelenskyy is correctly channeling the desires of his people to not be subjugated by the same country that only a century ago intentionally starved millions of them to death. Is that not a possibility? And how does that change whether or not Russia was the aggressor in this situation?

                      mass propaganda
                      Turkey invades Greece. Turkish and Western media intentionally spread lies and half-truths to create domestic and international support for military action against Turkey. Was Turkey the aggressor in this situation?

                      censorship of dissenting info/sources
                      The United States censored dissenting info/sources during WWII. Was Japan the aggressor?

                      8 year long war on the Donbas Republics
                      The puppet states created by separatists armed by Russia and given direct military assistance by Russia? Yes, truly shocking that the Ukrainian government didn't take that whole thing well.

                      escalation from the western world
                      NATO saying that they might let Ukraine in someday after rejecting them repeatedly for decades is not aggression. NATO is a voluntary organization; if Ukraine wants to join and NATO sees fit to let them in, that's their right.

                      You're defending the aggressive actions of an authoritarian nation run by a former KGB member who has explicitly called the demise of the USSR the greatest catastrophe of the 20th Century. You don't have to do that.

                    2. You're defending the aggressive actions of a totalitarian transnational cabal run by deep state liars who explicitly call for you to own nothing and you to sacrifice for their corrupt interests. You don't have to do that.

                      I get annoyed by stupidity, superficiality that thinks it's important, and constant lying.
                      Also not a fan of collectivists who try to steal from me to support their rigid, misguided moral causes.
                      The former is irritating, but the latter makes you an imminent threat.

                    3. Perhaps Zelenskyy is correctly channeling the desires of his people

                      Probably not though, because Zelensky was installed in a US-backed color revolution that ousted the democratically-elected president who rejected American geopolitical overtures.

                      The puppet states created by separatists armed by Russia and given direct military assistance by Russia? Yes, truly shocking that the Ukrainian government didn't take that whole thing well.

                      Oh, so you do understand how puppet states work. Now all you have to do is get the timeline right and realize that we set up the puppet state in Ukraine for the express purpose of saber-rattling against Russia and you're halfway to acknowledging that the United States and Ukraine deliberately provoked a military response in order to draw the world into a war.

                  4. "If you just ignore all of these real-world conditions and look at everything through a black and white moralist lens, can't you just acknowledge that agitating for America to go to war with Russia over a corrupt oligarchy is actually a great idea?"

                    Sorry, but no. I won't deny reality and accept your simplistic, childish false dichotomy. Ukraine's taking volunteers, so you and Mickey can go polish each other's rifle barrels and suit up if you want. But you'd rather just commit someone else's son to get his brains blown out so that some piece of shit cunt at Raytheon can buy his next beach house. Fuck you. You want to go be Ukraine's nigger, do it yourself.

                  5. I'm with you here. I've never supported U.S. Troops or Taxdollars in Ukraine, only for private U.S. Citizens voluntarily supporting supporting private Ukrainian Citizens with, Food, First Aid, and Firearms.

                3. He's killing thousands of people you fucking idiot, including his own troops, and attempting to over throw international norms which have kept us mostly in peace for 76 years in a world in violent chaos prior to that. Yes, that threatens us all.

                  1. He's killing thousands of people you fucking idiot, including his own troops, and attempting to over throw international norms which have kept us mostly in peace for 76 years in a world in violent chaos prior to that.

                    So was Saddam Hussein, right? So was Osama bin Laden, right? So was Mohamar Gaddafi, right? So was Hosni Mubarak, right?

                    Man, it's a good thing the United States doesn't kill hundreds of thousands of people in foreign lands and destabilize foreign governments, violating international norms!

                    1. Gotta love the "kept us mostly in peace for 76 years in a world in violent chaos prior to that" line too.
                      LOL
                      Since 1946:
                      Korea 1950-1953
                      Dominican Republic: 1965
                      Vietnam: 1964-1975
                      Grenada: 1983
                      Lebanon: 1982-1984
                      Libya: 1986
                      Panama: 1989
                      Iraq: 1990-1991
                      Somalia: 1992-1993
                      Bosnia: 1992-1994
                      Haiti: 1994-1995
                      Serbia and Kosovo: 1999
                      Afghanistan: 2001-2021
                      Iraq: 2003-present
                      Libya: 2011
                      Syria: 2015-present
                      That's just an incomplete list of active, direct US military engagements I pulled from Wikipedia. Doesn't include several where we were unofficially involved or stoking conflict, such as: Colombia, Yemen, Ukraine, Georgia, Mexico, Phillipines, Indonesia, Korea (1953-present), Sudan, Pakistan to name a few. Other places we send subsidized arms to one side or another, and our NATO allies have been at war as well (particularly France) where we haven't. Oh, and there was the whole Cuba thing where we sponsored an attempted commando attack, then blockaded the island and threatened nuclear war in 1963... because we wouldn't tolerate the USSR giving them nukes.
                      The last 76 look less peaceful, more chaotically violent.
                      But hey, at least we got out of Afghanistan after invading then occupying the country for 20 years because the Taliban let al queda live there...

                    2. Since 1999 (23 years) the US and/or NATO have bombed
                      Serbia
                      Montenegro
                      Somalia
                      Afghanistan
                      Iraq
                      Libya
                      Yemen
                      Syria
                      Just off the top of my head.
                      The US and/or NATO have, or have helped, topple governments in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Georgia, Sudan, Honduras, Ukraine, Egypt, and failed in Syria. Again, just off the top of my head to name a few. Oh, and NATO bombed Serbia (78 straight days) to grant Kosovo independence.

                      Gee, wonder why Russia views them as hostile and Ukraine's partnership with that crowd threatening.
                      Putin must just be crazy.

                4. I get it. Our priority should first be to crush our oppressors at home and restore the constitution before they destroy America. That’s absolutely correct.

                  It is reasonable to say that we can pray for Putin’s death, and also acknowledge that we shouldn’t go to war with Russia. Especially given the possibility of a nuclear exchange.

                  At this point, the best possible scenario is for the Russian people to turn on him. I doubt that will happen.

                  1. That might make you feel good, but what comes after Putin is not likely to be better for anyone.

                    1. That’s very true. Just like getting rid of Biden leaves a massive rogue’s gallery of Marxist villainy ready to take his place. I still want them all gone.

                    2. Aye.
                      And it will be some sort of Russian strongman in charge of half the nuclear weapons in the world, or some globalist puppet, a la Yeltsin, resented/hated by the security state and military.
                      Either way, the Russian population and leadership are likely to feel a vendetta against Europe and the anglosphere.

          2. Yep, everyone who doesn't join you in your histrionic screeching and credulously regurgitates every piece of warmongering yellow journalism like you is a red commie, Mickey, you retarded prick.

            REMEMBER THE MAINE GHOST ISLAND! right, you jingoistic warmongering bootlicking Nazi?

  9. https://twitter.com/1984Andrew1984/status/1504188192492302339?t=wynAh8pAl6c3qRFpUNJ5JA&s=19

    Like a scene out of 1984.....almost like they have done it deliberately....

    [Pic]

    1. Gasp! A man talking to a roomful of people on a giant screen! It's basically 1984!

      1. Your life has no value.

        1. Sure it does, at least as far as any human life has value. Yours does too, by the way. So why waste it defending dumb takes by Twitter randos?

          1. No, yours does not.

          2. So why waste it defending dumb takes by Twitter randos?

            Why do you waste yours defending warmongering yellow journalism, militant jingoism, and lies and hoaxes by a bloodthirsty death cult agitating for nuclear war? Is it because you're a warmongering jingoist death cultists, Nazi?

  10. If Putin said the sun was bright, Greenhut would have it that anyone who didn't say it was dark....

    1. I would look up if he said that.

        1. It reveals that I don't take Totalitarian thugs like Putin at their word.

          1. But you obviously don't mind hypocrisy...I mean it's not like seizing private assets is a democratic or capitalistic principal. It's also not like Ukraine promised to make the Donbas semi-autonomous. Nobody is defending what is happening they are criticizing you for being blind and not being self-critical and not becoming what you say you hate.

            1. If you cannot say that Putin ordering a shooting war is wrong, while promoting all his excuses for it, then you are defending what is going on.

              1. Obviously, you struggle with logic...agreeing with you is not siding with Putin. You can both be wrong.

                1. that should have been not agreeing with you is not siding with Putin....

              2. If'n you ain't with us then you's agi'n us!

                Good take, you jingoistic warmongering Nazi.

  11. Remember that Zelensky is a thug," Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R–N.C.) said recently. "Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies."

    While the "woke ideologies" jab is hopeless signaling, is there any serious disagreement otherwise with this statement? The observation doesn't excuse Putin's aggression but it should help shallow thinkers realize the issue is more complex than good against evil.

    1. I wonder why those who protested the draft during the Vietnam War excused the aggression by the North Vietnamese.

      1. N/S VN was a colonial invention.

        "It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier...." Eisenhower

        1. N/S VN was a colonial invention.

          Tell that to my Hmong friend whose parents were shot in the head and thrown down the village well to poison it by Ho Chi Minh's forces. Oh, that's right, you can't because he is permanently deaf from the explosions when they shelled his village.

          Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance in thinking you have an original thought in your tiny brain, you Marxist parrot.

          1. Yeah we all know bad things happen when things get violent and wars start. Both sides perform atrocities in every war...You did nothing to address the valid argument that the West promised a election and never followed through with it. Just like Ukraine promised the Donbas semi-autonomy and never followed through with that. Nobody knows whether war could be averted but the fact that we will never know because one side decided not to follow through with their promises.

            1. Let me be crystal clear for you communist apologizers. The Hmong were systematically wiped out after the war. But the NVA had already begun the pogrom, which is why the Hmong assisted the U.S. That murderous asshole Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, but it was the direct continuation of his regime that unquestionably committed these atrocities in a time of 'peace'.

              There is no valid argument to legitimize the election of genocidal regimes. You need to shut the fuck up. Your ignorance provides cover for the communist genocides continuing to this day.

              After the War in 1975, the Hmong were singled out by the victorious communist governments of Laos and Vietnam. They were hunted down, taken to concentration camps, and persecuted. Their villages were sprayed with chemical weapons and bombed with napalm (yellow substance). It is estimated that more than 10% (35,000) of the entire Hmong population in Laos died as a result of their involvement with the United States during the Vietnam War. It is also estimated that an additional 20,000 Hmong died after 1975 because of persecution, starvation, chemical spray, drowning, and simply killed by the communist Pathet Lao. Many who survived suffered physically, mentally, and emotionally until this day. https://www.hmongamericancenter.org/ufaqs/what-were-the-hmongs-roles-in-the-vietnam-war/

              1. The elections were promised before the Vietnam war even started, and it was their delay that led to an escalation of hostilities. Nobody is apologizing or defending anything. You keep bringing up things that happened after the war started that has nothing to do with the failed promise of an election in 1956. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid that the Cold War ideologues feed you...nobody was innocent in the Vietnam War. Communism a failed a system that only even exists in modern times as a hybrid system. Russia is authoritarian and arguably corrupt but it's not communist, do some research before you post nonsense.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_in_the_Vietnam_War

                1. do some research before you post nonsense

                  Fuck you. Ho Chi Minh was a murderous asshole. What was happening all across SE Asia even as early as '56 was a far greater humanitarian crisis than what is happening today in Ukraine. Calling the schism a 'colonial invention' is fucking evil and so is providing cover for that asshole apologist Joe Friday.

                  Here it is in your own fucking link on '56:
                  Hundreds of thousands of refugees, mostly Catholic, migrated from North Vietnam to South Vietnam in those years with transportation and assistance provided by the U.S. and French navies. Dooley's vivid accounts of communist atrocities committed on the refugees were not substantiated by other sources.

                  Wait, what? How does propaganda get people to leave their homes unless it reflects what they are actually seeing. Were they stupid? Was that stupidity because they were Asian or because they were Catholic? Which flavor is your bigotry?

                  See the Marxists using Wikipedia to cover for what their ideological brethren did? 18 years later the exact same regime committed horrible atrocities, but the narrative implies that since there is no proof they were doing that earlier, the atrocities must have been the response to those that supported the U.S. That's just what you get for resisting.

                  Joe Friday once wrote that the Soviets broke the back of the Axis. Don't you dare defend that stupid motherfucker.

                  1. Don't get all emotional...it's history, the facts are there you can ignore them or not. Ho Chi Minh actually saved an American pilot during WW2. He petitioned Truman for help to stop French occupation of Vietnam which Truman declined. So he went to Moscow and learned Marxism. If you don't want to do the research and rather be an emotional idealogue I don't know what else to tell you. The further people get from an event the more people start to look at things rationally.

                    1. BTW you seem to be a confused individual...all that pent up anger and ideology makes you try and correlate things illogically. Put your motions away...atrocities and killing happen on both sides during wars, why we try to avoid them. Just because you want to only acknowledge one sides actions or point of view doesn't mean that both sides aren't contributing.

                    2. Ho Chi Minh actually saved an American pilot during WW2.

                      Because we were allies in WWII.

                      He petitioned Truman for help to stop French occupation of Vietnam which Truman declined. So he went to Moscow and learned Marxism.

                      And then oversaw the murder of his own citizens. Fuck off and die, you gaslighting piece of shit.

                    3. BTW you seem to be a confused individual...

                      You didn't state a single counterfactual to anything I posted. Everything you wrote is non-sequitur and goalpost shifting in addition to the extensive gaslighting. That is not honest discourse and not the least bit dispositive as to my knowledge of history. Try again dickhead.

                  2. You have to actually make a point and not rage against the "commies" to warrant a counter argument. Vietnam wasn't a country during WW2 it was French Colony. You keep trying to make points about something that happened 20 years after the Vietnam War even started and are raging about war atrocities. You're the one gaslighting and goalpost shifting...to your point, the NV would actually sympathize with the Ukrainians seeing as they were fighting for independence from what they viewed as an imperialist power. The NV considered the Americans as a continuation of the French who they were fighting for independence from the prior eight years. The reason America stepped in was they didn't want a communist Vietnam as they were fighting an ideological war against the USSR. The Vietnamese were supposed to be able to choose whether they wanted to be democratic or communist but when the odds were against a vote due to the USA supporting a corrupt government, they halted the election. You seem to ignore historical fact to support your simpleton good vs. evil argument.

          2. Chuck you ignorant slut, I quoted Eisenhower.

            1. You are too fucking dumb to respond to. Fuck off and die.

            2. Chuck’s right. You should be euthanized.

        2. And Ukraine, as it exists today, with it's present borders, was a USSR invention.

      2. One suspects that the driving force for protesting the Draft was fear of losing their lives, or of being uncomfortable if not killed. It is typically true for most protests by folks who find they may have to do something unpleasant.

        1. Well, I would sure as hell protest if someone wanted me to go fight a war that I thought was unnecessary or immoral.

    2. Again, a False Binary Fallacy. You don't have to support Wokeism or the Ukrainian Government to oppose Putin. Madison Cawthorn is an idiot and an embarassment to my State.

      1. Reading your past posts, you seem to be an ideologue who believes in escalation and proxy wars that's why you're starting fights with people. You struggle with the nuance between disapproval and opposition. Encouraging war by providing weapons and putting the global economy at risk is not conducive to world peace or prosperity. Biden should have told Putin that a Nato Ukraine wasn't going to happen, and Ukraine should follow through with the Minsk agreement. Unfortunately, he is a cold war ideologue like yourself...

        1. You hit the nail on the head. Biden made this happen on every level.

    3. And We in the US have never had a president that could be described as a "thug?"

      Nor do we have a corrupt government?

      If that is the marker by which you feel that countries should be conquered and their civilians bombed, we'd all be screwed if the US didn't have such a massive military.

  12. This guy is also writing how-to manuals on stopping tanks with paintball guns...

    https://twitter.com/SpencerGuard/status/1502065604081201159?t=F9UpkMtaIQFCd0NmdS7aFargo?

    This makes me very sad. Like I am not doing enough. I have girls this age. We (the world) must do more to help Ukraine. I understand all the political and escalation lines. I don’t care. We can and must do more. [Pic]

    Just to summarize my responses to some of the messages I'm receiving about this image. No, I don't care where it was actually taken, no I don't care if it was staged. This image invokes a feeling in me about the #UkraineRussianWar That's all. It motivates me to do more.

    1. Always love it when some sort of narrative/picture is proven false and instead of retracting or apologizing, the people double down with the classic "Well, sure it wasn't true, but it's about the message it sends!"

      Falls right next to the excuse for false flagging stuff - "I was doing it to raise awareness!"

      1. Agree, if it makes a good story and triggers an emotional response that's all anyone cares about anymore. If it fits the narrative of the author, then that's all that matters. There will never be lasting solutions as long as people can't think rationally, and logically as emotional responses require you to be dismissive of the other side.

        1. There will rarely be lasting solutions, I am beginning to suspect, as larger populations cannot think critically, rationally, without emotion. Masses of humans incapable of grasping nuance are not indicative of long-term survival of the species.

          1. I agree!

      2. Always love it when some sort of narrative/picture is proven false and instead of retracting or apologizing, the people double down with the classic "Well, sure it wasn't true, but it's about the message it sends!"

        He's talking about you here, Mickey Rat, you jingoist warmongering Nazi bootlicker.

  13. https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1504732190663401476?t=SIPdQDM66q79R8oqYAq4Ug&s=19

    The propaganda campaign on Syria taught me that Western media isn’t simply biased, but knowingly & systematically creates an alternative reality in support of the US narrative to an extent that I had hugely underestimated. Many of the same tactics are being used now with Ukraine.

    One of it’s most powerful techniques is making anyone who questions that narrative or doubts the veracity of the claims used to support it appear heartless, which naturally makes people stay silent about doubts they might have & allows the narrative to become even more dominant.

    1. One of it’s most powerful techniques is making anyone who questions that narrative or doubts the veracity of the claims used to support it appear heartless

      He's talking about you here, Mickey Rat, you jingoist warmongering Nazi bootlicker.

  14. https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1504759784180011021?t=erEMO5T6jbnWToUiOn2b1Q&s=19

    *KREMLIN ON JOE BIDEN: “Given the irritability of Mr. Biden, his fatigue and sometimes forgetfulness, this leads to aggressive statements. We will not get into sharp assessments so as not to cause more aggression.”

    1. If we want the Kremlin line Nardz, you're the go-to guy.

      1. If we want our cocks sucked at the gloryhole of a Ministry concert, we'll jingle our fly for you, sarcasmic.

  15. https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1504803724908183553?t=6WfrmWk0U2xaukyC88CCxQ&s=19

    Catching up on Whitmer “kidnapping” trial this morning. Defense is cross-ex “Mark,” an undercover FBI agent who along with at least a dozen FBI agents, CHS (confidential human sources aka informants) were responsible for coalescing the group of “militia” misfits.

    The most…
    incriminating evidence so far is talk on recordings made by FBI agents, CHSs. These assets organized all the trips (field training, planning mtgs, recon) and lured defendants to each location to produce evidence.

    “Mark” had a phony girlfriend, also an FBI undercover agent.

    “Mark” testifying that FBI targeted Adam Fox, the alleged ringleader who lived in the cellar of a vacuum repair shop in Grand Rapids,bc he expressed “anti government” sentiment on social media. Including plans to “storm the Capitol” to protest lockdowns in Michigan.

    “Mark”…
    visited Fox at the Vac Shack on July 3, 2020. He recorded Fox not as FBI agent but a sympathetic “militia” member. “Mark” attended each set-up event and recorded it all.

    Defense now bringing up named people involved in those events who haven’t been charged. One is Sean Fix (sp?)

    I suspect there were far more government assets involved in this plot than we’ve been led to believe—more than the dozen-ish defense already identified.

    “Mark” admits he “cleaned up for court,” shaved his beard. DOJ wanted to keep his identity and face concealed to public, jury.

    LOL here’s the grand plan to kidnap Whitmer:

    Adam Fox, etc would steal 2 boats. They’d kill her security detail, kidnap her, take her on one or two boats to the “middle of Lake Michigan” and leave her.

    Then they’d all get on the other boat and return. For those unfamiliar…
    with Lake Michigan, this is totally unrealistic, especially in October. It can be as turbulent as the ocean.

    “Mark” can’t say who of the defendants would pilot the boats.

    “Mark” says Adam Fox smoked pot “socially” including when he talked about kidnapping plot.

    Now up is CHS Dan, the main informant. (He sounds nervous).

    CHS Dan paid $64k by FBI for 6-7 months work on kidnapping plot. Also received new tires, smart watch, laptop.

    He’s a combat Army vet (Iraq) and worked for USPS when he became an informant. Hmmm.

    Dan claimed he…
    was looking online for groups supporting 2A. He found Wolverine Watchmen.

    Important to note that another FBI agent testified that non-sworn FBI assets monitor social media posts for the government.

    He got into encrypted group chat of Watchmen, the Facebook militia. Dan claims…
    the defendants claimed they wanted to “kill” law enforcement. He went to police, contacted by FBI a week later. This is the story anyway.

    Dan hired as CHS in March 2020. Now explaining FBI gave him a laptop and other items.

    He took time off from postal service to act as CHS…
    says he was docked wages so FBI paid him. Also had to move so FBI compensated him for loss on his house.

    Now talking about April 2020 “storming” of Lansing Capitol. (Sound familiar?) Dan wore combat gear and carried a rifle.

    Dan gave FBI access to encrypted “Wire” chats.

    1. Important to note that another FBI agent testified that non-sworn FBI assets monitor social media posts for the government.

      I have speculated before that Joe Friday is a plant whose rhetoric is intended to inspire death threats which they can prosecute. I can't otherwise imagine why someone so stupid would troll the Reason comments.

      1. The mute feature is a wonderful thing

    2. HURRRRRRRRRR IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING THE FBI TELLS YOU THEN YOU'S A TURRURIST WHO WANTS TO KILL GRETCHEN WHITMER!!!!!!

      - Mickey Rat

  16. https://twitter.com/YossiGestetner/status/1504819056725082117?t=-f7_1o5l90eiQE2welJxXg&s=19

    1/12 The point isn't that Romney was right in 2012 that Russia was a problem or that Obama did not call Benghazi a terror attack (remember CNN's Candy Crowley at the debate?) or that collusion 2016 was a hoax or that laptop 2020 was real.
    2/12 The point is that time and again the public is being deceived by an industry that is supposedly the referee for truth in government/elections -- the national political press. They repeatedly act as Super PACs for the Democrats on whatever is the topic at the time.
    3/12 Being proven wrong down the road is immaterial because the moment is over. For example, the content of Biden's laptop - showcasing foreign work by Hunter that involves "the big guy" Joe - would be enough to upend the election if news media behaved as news media at the time.
    4/12 What good does it do that now the laptop is treated as authentic? The moment is other things such as Ukraine, inflation and COVID where the same liars of 2012, 2016 Collusion and 2020 Laptop are lying again. Worse is that many GOPs/Cons always go along with these lies!
    5/12 These guys will pile onto fellow GOPs/Cons based on those lies ("let Mueller finish his job", yelled GOPers) even if it can be known at the moment of relevance that lies are pushed. So what good does it do that those lies are exposed when they don't matter as much any more?
    6/12 What good does it do that lies are exposed down the road only for GOPs/Cons TO GO ALONG WITH NEW LIES WHEN THEY MATTER? House GOP had TWO Collusion Investigations and the Senate had one despite the hoax being known as a a hoax early on for those who cared about facts.
    7/12 Obviously, the media as a political hack institution will not change and they will continue to put the thumb on the scale for the Democrats. But most Republicans and conservatives playing along with those lies will also not change as you see it's happening again and again.
    8/12 Republicans and many Cons behave the same way when the next thing comes up.
    Why is it so?
    Simple: Idiots are Republicans and Losers are Conservative. Not everyone but clearly large enough members. Meaning, a certain mindset/personality makes a person a GOP'er; not policy.
    9/12 So if Stockholm Syndrome victims and rollover suckers make up large portions of your political party, they will continue behaving a certain way again and again no matter the facts and no matter how many times you yell at them they are being used. Again:
    10/ Republicans are not idiots because if this were the case you can show them where/how when not to behave idiotic. The problem is that idiots are Republicans and you can't fix stupid. The party continuously keeps drawing to itself idiots and the con movements rollover suckers.
    11/12 Now, there are Republicans who are not fully this way such as Reagan/Newt in their times, Tea Party and Trumpers a generation later but they too have their limits for multiple reasons: Media propaganda can be very overwhelming even for someone who wants to hold the ground.
    12/12 It's also tough to hold the line when so many factions in your own political parry or ideological movement undercut you. The final reason for their limits is the mere fact that they are GOPs/Cons... Had they been true brawlers, they would be Democrats.

  17. Good job, simps.

    https://twitter.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/1504794766990401541?t=x7U-xY7iFwHJnnWFHnuQZg&s=19

    Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has announced that Poland will submit a proposal for a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine at the next NATO summit.

    1. You do realize that Poland has ample reason to fear an aggressive, violent, imperialist Russia? Along with all the other former Warsaw pact and captive nations?

      1. You do realize Poland isn't the US, nor are any former Warsaw Pact states, and contributes nothing that benefits Americans?

        Amazing how collectivist Mickey has become, and how threatened he is that someone dare speak words outside the institutional narrative.

        1. Poland is an ally of the United States by treaty along with several other nations with similar history, You may not like that, but it is true, so your assertin is dubious However, that was not the gist of what I wrote. The actions of Poland's government are because they have great historical reason to fear the Russian state's new Imperialist behavior.

          1. So because they're an ally by treaty, we should empathize with them?
            We should cede American well being to their fears?
            Ukraine isn't an ally by treaty, but Americans should be forced to treat them like one?

            Fuck off, progressive shill.

            1. So because they're an ally by treaty, we should empathize with them?
              No, you should empathize with them because they've been unjustly invaded by a larger and stronger neighbor. I know that you personally won't, but people who believe in national sovereignty should.

              We should cede American well being to their fears?
              Nope. Where did Mickey suggest that?

              Ukraine isn't an ally by treaty, but Americans should be forced to treat them like one?
              Nope. Where did Mickey suggest that?

              1. Poland isn't being invaded, dumbass. I empathize by the people getting fuckex over by you and the establishment/leftists. Empathy is abused and weaponized by you progressives, a tool to weaken and destroy from within.*
                Mickey's response to Poland lobbying to kick off world war 3 was attempting to justify doing so. The Iron law of woke projection strikes as he's bitching about people justifying Russia's invasion. The difference is the Russian perspective doesn't require the US joining them, while the Polish perspective does. And it's hilarious seeing EU supporters suddenly supportive of Polish nationalism after the EU has spent the last decade attacking Polish sovereignty and bullying them for not taking enough mideastern refugees.
                Poland's/NATO's justification vis a vie Ukraine is of the same nature as Russia's justification vis a vie the Donbas Republics and Crimea.

                *for humans, as opposed to hiveminded boomers and progs, see Nietzsche's analysis of pity, which we call empathy these days

                1. You are so stupid in your assumptions about me that I am laughing out loud.

                  1. That you have a rigid, shallow, comic book moral code and are in full support of the anti-Russia, pro-Ukraine propaganda brought to us by the least trustworthy people in the world isn't an assumption, it's a summary of your posts.

                  2. Perhaps if you didn't say all of the same things that jingoistic warmongering bootlicking Nazis say, you wouldn't get confused for a jingoistic warmongering bootlicking Nazi. Just a thought.

                2. Poland isn't being invaded, dumbass.
                  My mistake! I misread your initial question as being about Ukraine (who are not a formal US ally, so I'm not sure how my brain ended up there). Granted I don't think you empathize with Ukraine either, despite them being the victim of aggression, but I'll admit my mistake here.

                  I empathize by the people getting fuckex over by you and the establishment/leftists
                  It's entirely possible to empathize with multiple groups of people, I promise. But I promise, I'm not fucking over anybody, I'm just a guy on the internet with little power over national affairs.

                  The Iron law of woke projection strikes as he's bitching about people justifying Russia's invasion
                  Wokeness really has nothing to do with any of this even in the slightest way, but go off.

                  Poland's/NATO's justification vis a vie Ukraine is of the same nature as Russia's justification vis a vie the Donbas Republics and Crimea.
                  Poland's justificiation (and I agree that their proposed peacekeeping mission is a mistake) is that the nation who subjugated them as a puppet state for most of the last century has launched an unjustified war of aggression on its neighbor. Russia's justification is that Ukraine wants to join NATO in order to prevent Russia from annexing more of its territory. So no, they are not the same.

                  for humans, as opposed to
                  Color me surprised that the guy supporting an expansionist authoritarian state sees his political opponents as sub-human!

                  As for WWIII, if it should occur, I think I would put most of the blame on the nation who kicked it all off by invading a sovereign nation because he didn't like what they were saying about joining NATO one day. But that's me.

                  1. "Victim of aggression"

                    Pure, dimwitted progressivism.
                    TV tells you who the bad guy is, that there is no such thing as cause and effect, that history just started in 2022, and that the perspective it commands you to have is the only one to consider.
                    You really have no value.

                  2. Poland's justificiation (and I agree that their proposed peacekeeping mission is a mistake) is that the nation who subjugated them as a puppet state for most of the last century has launched an unjustified war of aggression on its neighbor.

                    So Poland has every right to use NATO to drag the United States into a shooting war with a nuclear power, but you agree that that might be a bad idea. Mighty white of ya!

                    an expansionist authoritarian state

                    Like you, I oppose expansionist authoritarian states that use their intelligence agencies to orchestrate color revolutions in foreign countries to provoke war.

                    Oh wait, that's not what you meant, is it?

            2. We have more reason to empathize with the Poles, than with Putin.

              1. No reason to empathize with either of them. They are both fearmongering nations looking to their own self interests. Poland is weak compared to the USSR and is appealing to Nato to weaking Russia. Russia is weak to Nato and is invading Ukraine preemptively to ensure they aren't relegated to irrelevancy. That doesn't preclude that the West (Nato and USA) are becoming globalists and acting as a collective and stripping any nation that disagrees of their assets. It's almost like the more they proclaim a hatred of communism (which ironically Russia isn't anymore) the more they resemble it.

                My favorite last line is from Animal Farm by George Orwell. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

              2. You will invent any reason you need to empathize with anyone you need in order to agitate for a ground war against Russia because you're a stupid jingoistic boomer Nazi.

  18. Lol
    Few things less surprising.

    https://twitter.com/VoiceOfFranky/status/1504652043482542080?t=kNtzL8ZIdu2O4gqbGLRiwQ&s=19

    Shared via PowerPoint on Android.

    [Poll: Perceptions of war crimes by vaccine acceptance.

    "Please rate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:
    I believe Russia is committing war crimes in Ukraine

    Triple+ vaxxed:
    Agree- 88
    Disagree- 3
    Neither/undecided- 9
    Received two doses:
    Agree- 70
    Disagree- 12
    Neither/undecided- 18
    Unvaxxed:
    Agree- 32
    Disagree- 42
    Neither/undecided- 26

  19. https://twitter.com/aimeeterese/status/1504808740889198595?t=xdZ1mq_ZxZ3cBD8Z9QubFg&s=19

    Ukraine is a dirty war. You're not doing something morally righteous when you full throatedly support the US/EU escalation of a dirty war. You're the bad guy.

    1. The single biggest reason to avoid escalation, beyond concerns of nuclear war, is that the Biden administration is utterly incompetent, corrupt, and dishonest. They couldn’t even follow a pre made plan to exit Afghanistan. They have zero ability to deal with a nuclear armed opponent.

      1. This is a point the moral absolutists really fail to consider, and it puts us all in danger.

  20. https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1504821944558006275?t=exGcDGnXRb1PV_NVUmTRRQ&s=19

    Trucker supporters, Russians, and anyone who doesn't support the regime. Your assets will be confiscated without due process.

    [Link]

    1. HURRRRRRRR IT SERVES THEM RIGHT! IF THEY AIN'T WITH US THEY'S AGI'N US!!!!!!!!

      - Mickey Rat

      1. It's painfully obvious that this is a Nardz puppet account.

        Having your sock say the same stupid thing over and over does not make you seem like you have popular support. At best it makes it seem like some frantically muttering homeless dude at the library has fixated on you. At worst it make it seem like you are that frantically muttering homeless dude.

        1. LOL

          Another low IQ, globalist bot reveals itself.

          1. Come on, Nardz. This is amateur hour.

            You aren't supposed to defend your own sock puppet using your original account. It makes it a little too obvious that it's you who is agreeing with yourself.

  21. For instance, former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts made this argument in the, er, libertarian "anti-war" LewRockwell.com: "(T)he chance of a wider war would be far less if the Kremlin had committed all of the invasion forces and used whatever conventional weapons necessary regardless of civilian casualties to quickly end the war, while refusing to be delayed and distracted by negotiations and Western bleating."

    Paul Craig Roberts need to share Jello Pudding cups and rubber sheets with Joe Biden.

  22. So much for the Pro-Putin side being "De-Nazifiers":

    White nationalist praises ‘Czar’ Putin and Russian troops invading Ukraine: ‘The pride of Moscow’
    Bob Brigham
    https://www.rawstory.com/nick-fuentes-russia-ukraine-invasion/

    1. I wonder if it's possible to be described by a radical left wing propagandist as a "white nationalist" and not actually be a Nazi? That can't be though. If that were true, then there would be very few Nazis, and we all know that's not the case!

    2. https://twitter.com/RWApodcast/status/1504972430170800129?t=sCTzjCwgws5DLL_udtNaZQ&s=19

      In his latest address, Zelensky said that he has awarded commander of Azov Regiment Prokopenko & commander of the 36th Marines Brigade Baranyuk the title "Hero of Ukraine", the highest possible award for a Ukrainian citizen, for their valiant defense of Mariupol. Paulus moment?

  23. When Russia invaded Ukraine, again, I wondered how long it would be until the Right defended it, and who it would be? Well it was like the next day. And it was Trump. So then the Right was all "but he wasn't really defending Putin". But a few days later the Right was dutifully pointing at at Ukraine as the aggressor. What a bunch of tools. There's not a strong man dictator that they won't fap to.

    You don't have to support Biden in order to oppose Putin. Jeepers cripes, what a bunch of maroons.

    1. I don't fucking care what anyone says just as long we don't get in a war with Russia, directly or by proxy. There are a lot of other things we need to be worrying about in the US at the moment. Yes, Putin is a bad guy and isn't justified in his actions. OK, now lets get back to shit that actually matters here. If anyone wants to go help defend Ukraine, they are welcome to go do that.

      1. I would like to see people actually getting worked up about finally ending the Marxist occupation of America.

    2. When Russia invaded Ukraine, for the first time since the Soviet era, I didn't have to wonder how long it would be until bloodthirsty jingoist warmongering Nazis lined up behind the Democratic Party propaganda and agitated for thermonuclear war against Russia. It was immediate. And it was Brandyfuck and the rest of sarcasmic's sockpuppets. What a bunch of tools. There's not a strong man dictator they won't fap to.

      You don't have to support Trump in order to pause for a moment before foaming at the mouth to put American troops on the ground in Ukraine and start lobbing nukes at Moscow. Jeepers cripes, what a bunch of jingoistic bloodthirsty warmongering Nazis.

      REMEMBER THE MAINE GHOST ISLAND! right, you warmongering bootlicking Nazi faggot?

    3. Probably the most hilarious turnabout of the entire political history of the United States has been watching radical leftists go from defending Russia and shitting their pants about McCarthyism for half a century to demanding nuclear war against Russia in the span of less than 10 years. Remember the hearty chuckle you all got in 2012 when Obama schooled Mitt Romney on geopolitics by calling him a cold war boomer after he said that Russia was our key geopolitical foe?

  24. Finally, a Greenhut article I can agree with.
    It's been a few years.

  25. Saying that the US have pushed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Russia's borders isn't "excusing Putin", it's a recognition that Putin is a brutal, autocratic leader with access to a large nuclear arsenal who has made his limits crystal clear and will not hesitate to use it if pushed against a wall. Taking Putin at his word isn't "making excuses" for him.

    Western diplomats also shouldn't have repeatedly broken promises to both Russia and Ukraine. Western diplomats and governments shouldn't have acted as if the world was unipolar and they could dictate rules to the entire globe, as Cheney and Stoltenberg did. Making that observation has nothing to do with right or wrong (although there is plenty wrong with that world view from a libertarian point of view) and everything with the reality of the world we live in.

    As for Zelensky, he isn't much better than Putin. He is a used car salesman for WWIII who, like Putin, is obsessed with his status and place in history.

    And you, Steven, exploit the situation for self-aggrandizement and virtue signaling. It's people like you who enable people like Cheney and Stoltenberg. It's people like you who risk dragging us into a nuclear exchange with Russia and WWIII.

    Putin, Zelensky, Cheney, and you: you differ in degree, but ultimately you are all cut from the same cloth, and all of you are to be condemned by anyone with a working moral compass.

    1. Well said. Greenhut blathers on about his magnificence, as expected, and avoids all nuance in the typical libertarian in name only/arbiter of neutrality schtick. Reasonmag would do well to stop running this particular clickbait, and just pick up a open nevertrumper from one of the rightist sites that cater to greenhut's type.

    2. Well said!

    3. Exactly. Yes, there are ignorant right wingers who say stupid things, maybe even a libertarian or two. But thoughtful people, particularly those who are likely to read Reason understand that decades of idiotic foreign policy can drive a narcissist like Putin to the brink and they need to be free to say it. This author, it seems to me, went out of his way to find something he could use to imply that libertarian thought leaders support Putin’s invasion. What poor journalism. I’m disappointed to have this appear in a Reason publication.

    4. See this here, Mickey Rat, Brandyfuck, and the sundry sarcasmic socks? This is something called "the truth". You should try it some time.

  26. Remember that Zelensky is a thug," Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R–N.C.) said recently. "Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies."

    Also remember that Biden, Harris, Schumer, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Lightfoot and many other powerful Democrat politicians in the US are also corrupt and evil thugs (who also push woke ideologies).

    1. Yet no one is focusing on getting rid of them.

  27. The United States should avoid direct conflict but help Ukraine defend itself.

    Let's look at this objectively. This self-proclaimed "libertarian" advocates expropriating US citizens in order to send money and weapons to one side in a military conflict halfway around the world between two regimes that have not attacked us or harmed us.

    This is the kind of ridiculous viewpoint that passes for "libertarianism" in the pages of Reason.

    Many conservatives seem willing to toss aside our nation's constitutional protections and market economy in favor of post-liberal autocrats because they're frustrated by our nation's cultural tilt.

    How does saying "Orban and Putin are not our business" amount to "tossing aside our nation's constitutional protections and market economy"?

    It is you, Steven, who argues for expropriation of Americans to fund foreign military adventures. It is you, Steven, who is "tossing aside our nation's constitutional protections and market economy".

    See, our constitutional protections apply to Americans in the US. It is vain attempts from people like you to impose them on the entire globe that threatens those very constitutional protections and free markets here in the US.

    1. Let's remember, in addition to taking Americans' resources at gunpoint, too that the US invaded Afghanistan and occupied it for 20 years because the Taliban *let al queda and Bin Laden live there without harassment*.
      The US/NATO, in addition to expanding toward Russia and waging war in over a half dozen nations abroad for 30 years nearly continuously, has been training, funding, and arming Russia's enemy to attack ethnic Russians for the last 8 years.

  28. Seems like Greenhut has a nasty habit of making ad hominem criticisms against libertarians, conservatives and Republicans (while misrepresenting their statements and views to create straw men arguments).

    Ron Paul is correct, as it appears that Putin can be thwarted in Ukraine (and perhaps toppled in Russia) increasing the already enormous US military budget.

    But European countries would be wise to increase their military budgets, and reduce their dependence on Russian gas and oil.

    1. My comment above is missing the word "without" before "increasing the already enormous US military budget."

    2. I am of the mind that his weak pieces are here to generate hate-clicks from the libertarians and right-leaning crowd.

      1. That is my take as well. He is tedious.

  29. Beautiful. This kind of wisdom is so rare and overdue!! What has most astonished me in the last few years is what circumstances have revealed about our incapacity to entertain truths in tension with one another, specifically, the difficulty people have straddling informational fences. Most recent examples are Venezuela and Ukraine.

    VENEZUELA: I passionately oppose intervention and even sanctions but deeply resent the lies that some libertarian and paleocon heroes like Max Blumenthal have told about shortages in Venezuela, like the Potemkin village piece he did in a wealthy supermarket cited over and over by YouTube leftists as proof that there are no shortages. Blumenthal's justification is that if he is honest about the suffering in VZ interventionists will use the truth as an excuse to intervene, so the lie is better. In other words, we are all children and imbeciles who can't judge for ourselves. Never mind that along the way the lie teaches us to be calloused towards the suffering of 5 million people who've fled Venezuela.
    UKRAINE: Same is true for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It would be insane for NATO to get involved. But why would any moral, rational person think that he is justified in whitewashing the actions of Russia just to prevent some warmonger from using the TRUTH in the wrong way. Tucker's narrative is very tendentious in this respect, and by the way, he did the same damn thing with Venezuela by featuring communist Anya Parampil as if she were just a truth seeking journalist with "another point of view". Again, Tucker, like Blumenthal, believes he is justified in downplaying the suffering of millions, because he fears U.S. interventionists might exploit the suffering for their agenda. If we need to stage manage the truth like that in order to avoid wars and other disasters, our species won't be around much longer anyway, so why bother?

    Thank you, Steven Greenhut, for your moral clarity. I am unfamiliar with your work, but I will be watching for byline with you name in them from now on.

    https://youtu.be/_lCerJncxpk

    1. Thank you, Steven Greenhut, for your moral clarity.

      Ah, look, Greenhut's mom left him a comment.

  30. Many conservatives seem willing to toss aside our nation's constitutional protections and market economy in favor of post-liberal autocrats because they're frustrated by our nation's cultural tilt.

    Our government has been tossing aside our nation's constitutional protections for over a century now. Many conservatives are aware of this. Maybe libertarians will catch on some day.

    1. And so the solution is to toss them faster?

      No libertarian should be in board with this.

      1. Wow.
        Amazing display of psychological instability.
        Are you a jfree sock? Another Mike laursen maybe?

  31. It's far too easy to find glowing descriptions of Putin on the nationalist right. Even some libertarians are making excuses for Russia's invasion. They should stop.

    Let us not miss the opportunity to bundle all of the Democrat’s enemies into one convenient group.

    1. bAsKEt oF DEpLoRAbLeS

  32. Nardz
    March.18.2022 at 11:22 am
    There would be peace tomorrow if the US and Europe committed to cutting off "aid".

    Not Robbers=Nut Rubbers
    March.18.2022 at 11:35 am
    Conversely, there would be peace tomorrow if Putin simply said "my bad" and backed out of the country he invaded.

    R Mac
    March.18.2022 at 12:06 pm
    Which he can’t do.

    Not Robbers=Nut Rubbers
    March.18.2022 at 2:03 pm
    I'd love to hear your reason why he "can't" as opposed to "won't".

    Nardz
    March.18.2022 at 2:45 pm
    Why do you think Putin made the call to invade?
    Because he's crazy and wants to genocide the Ukrainian people on his way to conquering the former eastern block, like corporate media and our government would have us believe?
    If not, you have to ask yourself what his rationale was.
    Putin is among the wealthiest men in the world, and has never faced much threat internally. He's established a legacy by restoring Russian national pride and bringing the economy/standard of living up from the hell it was in the 90s.
    Invading Ukraine puts all that, and his life, at risk. So it is reasonable to assume he has motives that overwhelm those things.
    One such motive, the only one I can come up with, is that he sees Ukraine's current situation and geopolitical maneuvering as an existential threat to Russia (as diplomats and analysts have been saying about Ukraine for 30 years)
    If the status quo in Ukraine is, or is becoming, an existential threat to Russia then he can't end the invasion without achieving his goals* or, in his assessment, he's condemning Russia to death.
    *goals, same as they have been for 8 years:
    -Ukrainian neutrality codified in a constitutional amendment, thus no NATO
    -end of war on Donbas republics
    -recognition of LPR & DPR as independent
    -recognition of Crimea as Russian
    Added since invasion:
    -some disarmament, at least as regards weapons from NATO
    -expulsion of extremist (including neonazi) elements within the government and security state
    -elimination of extremist elements from the military/national guard

    What of those terms is worth Ukrainians dying for, and possibly expanding into world war 3 (which might go nuclear), with Ukraine completely destroyed because it is the initial battleground?

    1. From Ukraine's perspective? All of them.

      Putin is effectively demanding that Ukraine relenquish all claim to the land he has already stolen from them, let him hand pick their next government (That's what denazification actually means, unless you think Putin really is worried that Zelenskyy's government is a hotbed of anti-Semitic extremism), and disarm, so that if Putin decides he would like more land or wants make a few more changes to the government in 10 years, the Ukraine will not be able to offer meaningful resistance.

      Given any other choice, what sovereign nation would agree to that?

      1. No sovereign nation run by people who give a shit about their country and citizens would allow itself to be put in the position Ukraine did.
        Putin hadn't stolen any land from them, you fucking imbecile. Crimea, granted autonomy under the original Ukraine constitution, seceded via their legislature then held a referendum to request annexation by Russia than won overwhelmingly. LPR & DPR both held referendums on independence that won by 3:1 margins.
        Love it when you globalist establishment faggots whine about sovereignty, completely ignorant of the last 8 years and Kiev's war against it for others.

        1. You mean the referendum in the Crimea after Russia had occupied the territory, seized control of the chambers of Parliament, and installed a new prime minister whose party had previously received 4% of the vote.

          Even you aren't that stupid.

  33. https://twitter.com/BMarchetich/status/1504202707590131712?t=9oOQUajqZBi2BHoOgG9Nug&s=19

    This is an important piece that reveals Washington, via CIA paramilitaries, has been fighting a proxy war against Russia in the Donbas since, it's implied, 2014.

    I'm going to make this clear, because many people will comment without bothering to read the piece: "proxy war" is the chosen nomenclature of a Trump nat sec official.

    This is a slightly older but also valuable piece as we piece together the history of this conflict. US intelligence agencies determined Putin decided at the last minute to invade Ukraine. Lot of major implications here.

    [Links]

    1. The CIA executing a color revolution to stoke a war? That's just crazy talk! Sure, they may have done that in South America, Central America, the Caribbean, the middle east, and southeast Asia for 3/4 of a century, but it totally ended with Iraq! Just like how the NSA spent 20 years spying on Americans without warrants or due process and publicly lying about, but they totally stopped in 2014 after the Snowden leaks! What are you, a pro-Putin red red commie conspiracy theorist or something?!?!?!?!

  34. The United States should avoid direct conflict but help Ukraine defend itself.

    Zelensky and the Ukrainians are doing a damn good job of defending themselves. So far a bit of a Winter War surprise for Putin and his generals. But sending (mostly small) arms for the Ukrainians is a pretty chickenshit sort of 'help'. And it cannot prevent the inevitable. Russia will either win in the end - or they will kill every man woman and child in every Ukrainian city and turn it all into a wasteland. Russia's version of video game war from afar.

    Personally I'm beginning to think the idea of a 'Berlin airlift' is appealing. Send food and medicines (no weapons) to air drop into besieged Ukrainian cities - and make it all very public and transparent. It totally changes the narrative re who is the actual murderous threat here - Russians deliver bombs, EU/NATO delivers food/medicine.

    1. Join the foreign legion then.
      Otherwise you can shut the fuck up because you're obviously just virtue signaling.

  35. "Personally I'm beginning to think the idea of a 'Berlin airlift' is appealing. Send food and medicines (no weapons) to air drop into besieged Ukrainian cities - and make it all very public and transparent. It totally changes the narrative re who is the actual murderous threat here - Russians deliver bombs, EU/NATO delivers food/medicine."

    I mean... wow.
    "Let's just fly a bunch of NATO aircraft, that the Russians can totes trust don't have weapons despite all the "humanitarian aid" previously used to smuggle weapons, into an active combat zone! What could possibly go wrong?"
    And yea, changing the narrative is what really needs to happen... because constant lying, nonstop propaganda, and censoring all information that shows the former to be wild fiction/exaggeration and alternative viewpoints... hasn't set the narrative adequately?

  36. https://ejmagnier.com/2022/03/18/has-the-russian-army-failed-in-ukraine-and-at-what-cost-will-it-win-its-war/

    Except for the powerful and influential Western media, no one said that Moscow’s plan included breaking into Kyiv’s capital in one or two days or a week or two. Even after day 21 of the war, that is not the Russian plan. It should be noted that Ukraine is the most powerful country in the former Soviet Union after Russia. Its area is more significant than Syria and Iraq combined, or France, Belgium and the Netherlands. In addition, in 2015, President Barack Obama ordered US forces and NATO to begin training Ukrainian troops that participated in multiple military manoeuvres. To all intents and purposes, the Ukrainian army was equipped and trained by NATO to confront Russia. 

    Ukraine had 120,000 soldiers in 2014 and spent $1.9 billion on its defence budget, equivalent to 1.57% GDP. With the US financial and military plans, these figures went sky high, supporting and preparing the Ukrainian army for a US-proxy war on Russia. The Ukrainian security forces counted 363,000 in 2022, with President Volodymyr Zelensky signing a decree to add another 100,000 men to the armed forces. The US has been very generously financing the Ukrainian army, investing over $2.6 billion between 2015 and 2021, $1 billion in weapons supply during the war and billions more to come. However, in previous years, the US did not support the Ukrainian economy, which had collapsed:  several Ukrainian banks had declared bankruptcy.

  37. It's time, America!

    https://twitter.com/TheRealKeean/status/1504847690739331077?t=WQ6c2LmcxfKAu-DcfCW0Og&s=19

    SHOCK: Trudeau's Defence Minister announced to Canadians that Canada has "exhausted inventory from the Canadian Armed Forces," and "there are capacity issues," after sending all of our equipment to Ukraine's President. DISASTER:
    [Link]

  38. And on the right side of history:

    EU OFFICIALS ARE MULLING USING SANCTIONED RUSSIAN ASSETS FOR UKRAINE

  39. You’d think with all the money we’ve been sending him Zelensky could have bought a suit. We’re sending a president who addresses the globe in a t-shirt and hoodie javelin missiles.

    The US coordinated the coup in 2014 ousting the democratically elected president.
    The US organized illegal biological weapons labs on Russias border.
    The US funded extremist neo Nazi battalions to fight and terrorize in the Ukraine civil war.
    The US pushed NATO further eastward to the Russian border.

    These are all good reasons for an invasion. They aren’t excuses.

    If they existed in Mexico, the US wouldn’t hesitate to invade either.

  40. NATO not helping Ukraine today is exactly like FDR not helping Poland et al in 1939...

    The current U.S. Present is a great deal less of an invertebrate than a worm, and the other leaders of the NATO countries are no different.

    Some principles ARE worth dying for.

    1. Are coordinating coups, setting up illegal biological weapons labs, funding Nazi terrorism the principles you’re ready to die for?

      You have no clue what drove Germany to invade Poland in 1039.

    2. Then go die, you low IQ little bitch.

  41. HORSEHIT, Steve. You cannot push Russia into War then blame Russia when it reacts to you pushing. Invading is wrong but failing to react to an existential threat would be MORE wrong

  42. We never did get to read the transcripts of the private Trump Putin meeting in Helsinki. Was it about Ukraine ? We will never really know.

  43. Looking back on a long enough timeline you will see that this WAS going to happen. Everything accelerated in 2014 when the Ukrainian nationalists started a terror campaign against the people in the Donbass because they did not want to be part of that illegal Maidan coup.

  44. I have to doubt the honesty of an author that uses this sentence structure "seems like BLANK is more concerned with [thing] than [other, worse thing]" when it's not a direct quote.

  45. Dishonest reporting such as this is the reason why nobody reads reason anymore. It used to be my primary source of news when I first became a libertarian, now I briefly scan the site about once a month.

    1. Being "more worried that Big Tech companies were censoring people who "question the U.S. government's claims regarding the Ukraine crisis"" is now a zany right wing hot take according to the writers at reason. It's great that they're inclusive, but maybe they should limit the writers to those without three 21st chromosomes.

  46. This is one of those articles that make you want to bitch-slap the author, damn the non-aggression principle.

  47. For a good breakdown on this terrible hit piece against a significant portion of the libertarian community follow the link below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgXX9PlJxWQ

    Articles like this are the reason the reputation of Reason is poor among so many Libertarians with principles. I mean come on, who in their right mind tries to imply Ron Paul is not really antiwar?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.