The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Zelenskiy on Why He Stayed in Kiev
Perhaps an insight on how many courageous actions actually come about.
I was watching "Year," a documentary by prominent Ukrainian journalist Dmytro Komarov about the first year since the full-on invasion of Ukraine (with English subitles); and I was struck by this exchange he had with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
Naturally, one always needs to be skeptical about such things: Zelenskiy is, after all, a politician, and a trained actor to boot, with a friendly interviewer and editor. But most significantly, he's a human being, and we humans are masters of spinning things, whatever our walk of life. Still, this had an air of the real, perhaps precisely because it wasn't particularly self-aggrandizing:
Komarov: Mr. President, on February 24, when there was an extraordinary atmosphere, when the [Russian] subversive and reconnaissance group was in Pechersk [in Kiev itself], did you think that the Russians could come in through those doors [pointing to the door of the President's office]? Did you think about what to do in such a situation?
Zelenskiy: Everyone thought about this, not because I was thinking about it, but the bodyguards constantly reminded me of this.
Komarov: Did you think that you could have been killed that day? Even when you hear that about yourself, it's chilling inside.
Zelenskiy: No, I was told to pack up because I was a target, that they have to do everything they can to get me to a safe place.
And at that moment, I think, one thinks about something else. I didn't think about what might happen, about myself. Again, this is not about heroism. I thought about the consequences of my leaving and what would happen.
The responsibility is on me. If I leave, no one will ask afterwards about who suggested it. There will be only the result: "You have abandoned your nation. We believe you have betrayed us."
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Shit, you give me 70 bullion dollars and I'll go live somewhere really dangerous, like Chicago. Lets see him go to Kherson
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/14/europe/kherson-zelensky-war-crimes-intl/index.html
OK, and Hitler went to Paris,
my money's on the Bear.
Frank
Why are you like this?
The Post commentariat would accuse him of being a Russian troll. In this rare instance, I can't disagree with them.
He has never posted anything that indicates that he is anything other than an illiterate, inarticulate, lonely, pathetic middle-schooler hiding from the world in his bedroom with his computer and Google and Wikipedia.
I looked for Frank Drackman on the Georgia medical licensing site.
No Frank Drackman.
There's two aspects to being the leader of a country (like the President). There's the performative aspect and the administrative aspect.
I think Zelenskiy is probably not that well suited to the job of peacetime President since it's largely administrative and he's not great at the administrative aspect
But, as an actor, he has a deep understanding of the performative aspect, and that's by far the more important quality to have during a war.
I think that's part of what drove his decision to stay, he knew what the role of President required, and to play that role well he needed to stay in Kyiv and stay visible.
Note, I mean this as a positive, every leader in public interactions is playing the role of leader. Ukraine was very fortunate to have a President who was so good at that aspect of the job when they were invaded.
You came by your knowledge of Zelenskyy’s administrative abilities how exactly?
Because that's where the money is?
He stayed because there were no awards shows or WEF conferences that week.
Zelensky certainly had no problem leaving Kiev to demand more tax dollars from the U.S., or have glossy photo shoots to bolster those demands. He wife had no problem leaving to travel on shopping sprees.
Zelensky now states that Americans will have to send their sons and daughters to Ukraine to die for that country. The left is now all excited about the possibility of WWIII and are happy to volunteer the services of the sons of conservatives so that they can then return home in body bags. No shopping spree for them!
I hate to tell them, but conservatives are going to sit out this war. Therefore, the left is going to have to tell their own sons and daughters to strap on their high heels and "get thee to Ukraine with your AR15 in hand" in order to defend the country Biden and his cronies have purchased with our tax dollars.
He said that if Ukraine loses the conflict could spread to Nato territory, in which the US would have to send its kids to fight.
And he is correct.
My son's ain't going to fight for globohomo and Satan.
I'll leave that to the queers, trannies, darkies and other assorted Democrats.
"darkies."
He's really committing to his anti-mask position - it's nearly all the way off.
"CindyF"....Russian troll?
I mean, going to a major western power who is currently supplying your country with a vast amount of aid and arms, and asking for more. There is zero wrong with that, from the Ukrainian perspective It is exactly what you would want your leader to do in this situation.
Now if they stayed there, and never went back to Ukraine....that would be different. But that didn't occur.
You are insane.
Unless you're planning to reneg on your NATO commitments, the question is whether sending money to Ukraine now would increase or decrease the likelihood of the US having to send its "sons and daughters" to Europe when an emboldened Putin acts against a NATO ally. I think it is clear that sending money now would decrease that likelihood.
Actually, I think Trump's solution is to pull out of NATO and avoid the problem that way, so I guess we know yours, too.
"Zelensky now states that Americans will have to send their sons and daughters to Ukraine to die for that country."
Source?
Oh right. Your imagination.
I hate to tell you, but there's nothing conservative about you. You're a lunatic conspiracy theorist with the IQ of rutabaga, not a conservative.
"Perhaps an insight on how many courageous actions actually come about."
I'm queer for Medal of Honor bios, and I think that's the norm: people run through enemy fire to rescue a buddy, or on civvie street jump into the river to save a baby, because they couldn't face living with themself if they didn't act.
The couple of times I have taken (pretty small) risks to help other people that has been my state of mind.
Not the first time I have posted this. Way back when I was at my last duty station before I was discharged I was befriended by a two star who was teaching at the War College. He told me the only war that was justified was the Trojan War because everyone knew what they were fighting for, Helen of Troy. He then went on to say that was not strictly true there was some economic tension between Troy and the Greek coalition especially with shipping. In any case his point was that wars have an economic factor. All one has to do is look at how much money the US and the West has poured into Ukraine since around 2000 and compare it to how much money Russia has poured in to get a better grasp of what is going on.
Not much question the US has spent an order of magnitude more money than everyone else (including the West) combined. There is also agreement that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world and Ukraine's leaders have sent a significant amount of that money back to peeps in the US/West. No one can really justify Hunter Biden getting paid what he was paid for a do nothing job on the board of a Ukraine energy company (along with John Kerry's kid too); it was clearly payola.
As the two star said follow the money to understand what is going on.
ragebot : “There is also agreement that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world”
Three Points :
1. A favorite analogy is the difference between two planes both 300ft above the ground, one gracefully ascending and the other plunging down in flames. Yes, Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries, but over the last decade it has taken serious (if imperfect) steps to fight corruption. It’s still doing so during wartime, with regular recent headlines about officials replaced or dismissed. The contrast with its enemy is pretty stark, because Russia was moving away from the equitable rule of law before the war began, and that process has accelerated since.
2. Whenever I hear talk about the underlying causes of war, I think (with laughter) about one of the signature “arguments” of Lost Cause types: That the South couldn’t have fought for slavery because a poll of rebel troops would have said otherwise. I’ve heard that one a dozen times from my southern brethren & it always cracks me up.
3. Little Hunter Biden? Really ?!? Look: Burisma wanted to buy a veneer of respectability. They bought names for their board, including a Biden & ex-president of Poland. They brought in a class firm to do their accounting. They bought a respected / well-known investment banker (Alan Apter) to chair the board. They did all these things at once. It was a cynical enough ploy (albeit not uncommon), but it strains the facts to make it the hidden cause of WWIII.
Its that the South didn't fight for slavery because most Southerners didn't own any. Did Kentucky/Missouri/Maryland/Delaware fight for Slavery? Even Lincoln didn't say it was about slavery until it became advantageous, which is why he didn't free any slaves in Kentucky/Missouri/Marlyland/Delaware.
I blame myself for wandering off-topic, but…..
1. The South seceded because Lincoln was elected president.
2. That wasn’t due to his personal threat to slavery, but because the very fact that he could get elected signaled the end of Democratic power (a north-south coalition) that ensured a government sympathetic to slavery.
3. And the significance of THAT was it threated the expansion of slavery into new states and territories – a long-time southern obsession based on their fear the South’s political power would be gradually diluted.
Please recall that the Democratic north-south coalition fractured over Stephen Douglas’ call for the issue of slavery to be settled by elections in each territory – a call for “state’s rights” that the South found abhorrent. Indeed, the South always led the way demanding raw unfettered federal power – at least where their human property was involved.
Its that the South didn’t fight for slavery because most Southerners didn’t own any.
Most White Southerners fought for slavery because even the poorest white people could take pride in the fact that they were above the black slaves.
Did Kentucky/Missouri/Maryland/Delaware fight for Slavery?
So them not wanting to enter the war somehow means it wasn't a war over slavery?
Even Lincoln didn’t say it was about slavery until it became advantageous, which is why he didn’t free any slaves in Kentucky/Missouri/Marlyland/Delaware.
It was completely about slavery. Every rebel state cited slavery as a central motive in their declarations.
The only reluctance on Lincoln's part came because he didn't want to end up fighting the border states too.
myself : "Most White Southerners fought for slavery because even the poorest white people could take pride in the fact that they were above the black slaves"
Indeed. I've several times asked Lost-Causers to explain this: If poor southerners couldn't have fought for slavery because they didn't own slaves, then why did they brutally lynch blacks for ninety-plus years after the war ended. They didn't own slaves then either, and were often as poor as the victims they murdered. As Sarcastr0 says below, economics can't explain everything.
"Even Lincoln didn’t say it was about slavery until it became advantageous, which is why he didn’t free any slaves in Kentucky/Missouri/Marlyland/Delaware."
Where would Lincoln have gotten the authority to free slaves in the border states?
No, he didn't free slaves in Kentucky/Missouri/Maryland/Delaware because he had no legal authority to do so. The Emancipation Proclamation was legally justified as a military measure. Freeing slaves in Delaware couldn't help the war effort.
Follow the money, 80% of federal taxes were being paid by the South prior to the Civil War.
Were there other factors sure. But the plain fact of the matter is slavery is not the highest and best use of human capital. As Hayek taught us incentives matter.
ragebot : "... 80% of federal taxes ..."
OK; I'll bite. Ten seconds with Mr. Google produced a reasonable sounding argument that your factoid is a complete fraud. However, I concede that isn't conclusive, and wait to see opposing evidence.
https://www.jacksonfreepress.com/weblogs/jackblog/2015/jul/10/flagmyths-the-civil-war-was-fought-over-tariffs/
"80% of federal taxes were being paid by the South prior to the Civil War"
I'm afraid I will need to see evidence of this statement. The South was significantly poorer than the North. Tariffs, excise taxes and land sales provided most federal revenue.
You want evidence?? what are you? some kind of Climate Change "Denier"?? you'll accept it because we say so or you'll be cancelled!!!
They were significantly poorer because they were paying 80% of Federal Taxes, who do you think pays "Tariffs, Excise Taxes, and Taxes on Land Sales"??
The advice to follow the money is sound: the Act of 5-Aug-1861, mere months after 12-Apr-1861, is worth reading.
Even today, if a capitation tax was levied and was apportioned by a method in which some persons were taxed at a 40% discount relative to other persons, some jurisdictions might find it more fortuitous than others; that is, it is rational for a jurisdiction to endeavor to retain its existing level of [voting] authority while paying less for such authority. The math is truly interesting, albeit a bit counter-intuitive.
Well, damn if you don’t have me confused. You bring up the Confiscation Act of 1861, passed as a anti-Confederacy measure after the South shelled Fort Sumter to start the war. Down what rabbit hole should we follow that money? What do you claim we’ll find?
As for economic causes for the war besides human property, here’s the problem: After Lincoln’s election the lower South seceded, starting with South Carolina in Dec60. The states that left first were the ones most dependent on slavery, but let’s say that’s not conclusive.
However, they sent emissaries to other states to convince them to secede. All those other states were slave states, but let’s say that’s not conclusive.
However, they had to make a pro-Confederacy argument to those target states. This came in the form of endless speeches to the public and legislatures advocating the South’s cause. And what was the subject of those arguments? Not tariffs, you can be sure. Again & again it was slavery, mixed with large gobs on “southern honor” – something that seemed indistinguishable from slavery in any practical context.
That’s pretty damn conclusive. Try reading Apostles of Disunion, Southern Secessionist Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081392104X/reasonmagazinea-20/
You're correct, of course, but you're wasting your breath. The people making ragebot's arguments simply do not have the first clue what they're talking about. They don't know what a board of directors is or what it does. They just see the word "Biden" and have a tantrum.
Not much question the US has spent an order of magnitude more money than everyone else (including the West) combined.
No surprise either. The US is the richest, has the strongest military industrial complex, meaning their "spending" is largely spent to support their own industry and advertise how awesome their gear is, and it's an extremely cheap way to contain a re-emerging hostile power (Russia).
There is also agreement that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world and Ukraine’s leaders have sent a significant amount of that money back to peeps in the US/West.
Ukraine is corrupt, yes (though getting less so).
Ukraine is sending money back to "peeps in the US/West" just seems to be your way of sneaking in your own conspiracy theory.
No one can really justify Hunter Biden getting paid what he was paid for a do nothing job on the board of a Ukraine energy company (along with John Kerry’s kid too); it was clearly payola.
No one tried to (except Hunter), but the corruption scheme failed. The corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor that Bursima wanted to keep around still got fired!!
Hunter Biden has jack shit to do with this war. And Ukraine is not bribing us to keep supporting them, weirdo.
But you’re also wrong about ‘all wars are fought for economics.’ That’s not even reductive, it’s flat wrong. War is *politics* by other means, eh? Not all politics is economics unless you want to get tautological with the breadth of your definition. And also faith can move a people to war all on it’s own.
Lots of counterexamples. WW1 springs to mind. The Spanish–American War. Rwandan genocide. The Mongol conquest went well beyond economic need because of a religious push. The shitshow of the peasant’s crusade.
"Mongol conquest went well beyond economic need because of a religious push."
I thought the Mongols were pretty tolerant as far as religion went. What was the religious angle?
They were - but their totemic religion included the edict of the Eternal Blue Sky that there could be only one eternal blue sky and only one ruler of men on the land.
Doesn't mean that ruler needs to convert everyone, only conquer them.
I had a big Golden Horde phase in my 20s.
"But you’re also wrong about ‘all wars are fought for economics.’ That’s not even reductive, it’s flat wrong. War is *politics* by other means, eh? Not all politics is economics unless you want to get tautological with the breadth of your definition. And also faith can move a people to war all on it’s own.
Lots of counterexamples. WW1 springs to mind."
Is this suppose to be a joke. The main cause of WWI was European Imperialism fighting over which country could make backwards countries their colonies. Not to mention the Ottoman Turks started falling apart and all the countries in Europe wanted to grab the leftovers.
The Spanish–American War.
You really need to get up to speed on this. The US was protecting it's business interests in Cuba in addition to grabbing Puerto Rico and a bunch of stuff in the Pacific that belonged to Spain. Not bad for no economics involved. Plus Hearst wanted to sell more newspapers.
Rwandan genocide.
The Hutus were about 4/5 of the population and the Tutsis were about 1/7 of the population but the Tutsis controlled the wealth due to different economic systems the two tribes employed. Not a big shock the poor majority was unhappy. Not to mention as a result of WWI the Germans who ruled were kicked out and the new Belgian rulers kinda screwed over both tribes economically.
The Mongol conquest went well beyond economic need because of a religious push.
The Mongols pillaged everywhere they went and set up vassal states that paid them tribute.
The shitshow of the peasant’s crusade.
Not sure what the peasant's crusade was but as with lots of things it probably was a shitshow.
WW1 was not fought over colonial holdings or even dividing up Turkey, that's quite a trip. It was the interlocking treaties and tight technology-driven timelines. One way to tell is that the war went on well beyond any hope of a good economic outcome for any party was possible.
The Spanish–American War was extremely unpopular in the US business community.
re: Rwanda. A dominant tribe and an oppressed tribe is not a conflict about resources, chief. Like you describe in your post here a conflict that was not economically driven; just noting one side was rich and the other poor doesn't prove anything. Unless you're a Marxist.
Your Mongol bit is not responsive to my point that they extended well beyond maximizing tribute.
'Not sure what the peasant’s crusade was' then Google it.
Thank you for bringing up the Peasants' Crusade. I haven't thought about it since my 9th grade Western Civilizations class, almost 60 years ago. (It's also an apt example that illustrates your point.)
ragebot : “Is this suppose to be a joke. The main cause of WWI….”
People started arguing over the cause of WWI just after the damn thing began. The one theory we can safely ignore is that it was fought over colonies, particularly since they were never more than a tiny sideshow to the main event on the European continent. One might suspect a war caused by the colonies would have focused on them more.
That said, colonies did play a bit part in the overall rivalries of the various powers reflected in an intricate web of alliances and balance-of-power calculations pre-war. Of course the Europeans would trip over those webs and fall face-first into pointless carnage.
There aren’t a lot of economic factors to find in all that bungling. Likewise, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian & Ottoman Empires were a major result from the war, but hardly a motivating aim at its beginning.
False. Not even close. We've probably spend more than half, but not by all that much. And as a percentage of GDP, we're tied for 14th.
Excellent answer to the wrong question. I don't know if it's close or not, but the allegation you're contesting involved the money spent by the US since 2000, not 2022.
It would be nice to check the figures for 2000 to date, but I doubt ragebot can supply them.
Right you are. My bad.
There are a couple points.
1. A better overview and tracking of the aid that has been spent on Ukraine actually is critical.
2. One of my major criticisms of the Biden administration is how that aid has been spent. The US has allocated roughly $100 Billion to "Ukrainian Aid". But only 17% of that has been for actual immediate weapons delivery during this war. (I.E, the items like the Javelin Missiles, or M777 Howitzer deliveries). The other 83% of the funding has been "other things" that can lead to graft and abusive spending. And that's a problem. For example, a long term contract to buy tanks in 2026....that doesn't actually help Ukraine.
So... what exactly do you think is going on?
So WWII wasn't justified?
In criminal law, murder is murder even if the victim was bad. Same with aggressive war.
Don't feed the troll (mad_kalak), folks. No attention kills them, just like sunlight.
And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
The interview reinforces the modified-initial-impression of Zelenskiy I gained after briefly interacting with the man: initially, I perceived in him a thirst for the limelight and all-things-shiny but now I perceive a maturing national fatherhood -- a nascent founding spirit, full of the fear and confusion and responsibility it entails.
To be sure, the playful puppy is still there, but the puppy is learning, in part due to the need to do so. I am reminded of the look in my dog's eyes as he glanced back at me during his first encounter with snow: although confused and fearful, he trusted that I would support him as he plowed into the cold white unknown. A hero's bravery is often grounded in trust.
Awwww Puppies!!!! And can't Jimmuh Cartuh put off his death for a few weeks and negotiate a Peace Treaty in You-Crane?? You know, like he did in the Middle East? Seriously, He's had "Terminal Cancer" for the last 10 years.
Frank
As a war leader, Zelensky is on a par with Churchill, both in inspiring his own people, and in attracting foreign support. I suspect that if Putin had his life to live over, he would have held back on the invasion until he had eliminated Zelensky, whether with conventional assassination or with a military strike. It is hard to imagine Ukraine resolving to fight without Zelensky.
"US backed coup"
FIFY, popular uprising
It was in 2014 anyway, Z was elected in 2019 so its not even true with your framing.
Except:
a) Not a US backed coup, rather a popular overthrow of a Russian puppet.
b) The US did however try to pick a winner, and they failed spectacularly and Poroshenko got elected.
c) Then Poroshenko got booted out and Zelenskiy got overwhelmingly elected.
d) I saw this "color revolution" nonsense you're talking about, as far as I can tell you confused 2014 with 2019 and you're now trying to cover for the fact that the Russian talking points you ate up left you with almost no idea what actually transpired in Ukraine since 2004.
Okay Ivan, back to your window overlooking the Moskva.
"Zelensky got the job as part of a US backed coup" -- he defeated an incumbent in an election. Are all elections following a violent change of government illegitimate in perpetuity?
I welcome every opportunity to agree with Bob, who’s spot on here. Dipping into the Wiki entry on Euromaidan uprising, here’s one snippet:
“On 18 February, some 20,000 Euromaidan protesters advanced on the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) in support of restoring the Constitution of Ukraine to its 2004 form, which had been repealed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine shortly after Yanukovych was elected president in 2010. The police blocked their path. The confrontation turned violent”
The police fired on the crowd with sniper rifles. That policy became official two days later, when the regime’s interior minster authorized live fire against protesters. Thousands continued to protest in central Kyiv and over seventy deaths were reported that day. On 22Feb, the Ukrainian parliament voted voted 328–0 to remove President Yanukovych from office (who had already fled to Moscow).
Maybe mad_kalak actually believes the tens of thousands of protesters were all “conflict actors”, staged-managed by a devious U.S. That would be pretty ironic though. After all, the Ukrainians only wanted the free life of a European citizen, rather than be the vassal of Putin’s mafioso regime. You’d think a fake-conservative faux-libertarian like m-kalak would sympathize with that wish.
It was a US engineered coup.
They probably would do exactly that.
mad_kalak : “Personally, I like those fake air raid sirens….”
Personally, I’m in awe of the courage of the Ukrainians and their leader, as they fight for the future of their country. At the start of this war (mad_kalak would say “special military operation”), no one gave them the slightest chance. But they earned the respect of people worldwide with their determination to fight.
But – hey – people are “personally” impressed by many different things. Some are serious. Some are petty, childish, & malicious.
our cross-dressing erstwhile ally Zelensky
Haha you suck dude.
Had you looked into this more than reading whatever garbage right-wing-talking-point site or meme factory this came from, you'd know that those sirens went off because the Russians had a jet capable of launching a hypersonic missile take off in Belarus. That meant Kiev could be hit in something like 20 minutes.
You'd also know that the U.S. had communications with Russia about the President's visit, so they may have tried setting those off intentionally to see what Biden would do. Had he run, it would have been a great accomplishment for them. So I can understand why the Secret Service would have him hold steady - at least until it had a better sense that there was danger to the president. And they would have known that it would have been a very risky move for Russia, as it would have immediately escalated the situation.
Slow day at the office Ivan?
No, it definitely is.
As Bob pointed out, the Euromaidan uprising occurred in 2013 & 2014. Zelensky was elected Ukrainian president five years later. Therefore your “came to power in a color revolution” isn’t just factually incorrect, but rises to the status of pure bullshit. No doubt Putin told you different, so all is forgiven.
And who is "advocating" for America’s youth to fight in Ukraine anyway? Do you have any talking points that aren’t transparently phony?
"Zelinsky came to power in a color revolution in 2019"
The Beeb is characterizing your 'color revolution' as 'an election':
"Ukrainian comedian Volodymyr Zelensky has scored a landslide victory in the country's presidential election.
With nearly all ballots counted in the run-off vote, Mr Zelensky had taken more than 73% with incumbent Petro Poroshenko trailing far behind on 24%."
That comports with my recollection at the time.
"Ngo Dinh Diem was popularly elected in South Vietnam after a youth uprising"
I think you are confusing his becoming President with the 1963 coup that deposed him. There was no youth uprising though either time that I'm aware of, he seized power illegally and lost power [and life] illegally.
Same. I (admittedly a man who knows little of their history and nothing of geopolitics) gave them a snowball's chance in hell and am deeply impressed by their wherewithal.
Zelensky stepped up and it resonated with his people; together they've gone beyond anyone's expectations. I truly hope they prevail.
I have a very hard time viewing Putin supporters as anything but insane or evil. We are long past the point in history where this sort of military imperialism is okay.
This man and this war will be studied as long as mankind studies war, and I believe history will judge him well.
You stopped reading when I listed facts.
Because you can't.
Drewski : "I have a very hard time viewing Putin supporters as anything but insane or evil"
We have the first new war of conquest on the European continent in over eighty years. I'd come to believe something like this was no longer possible in my lifetime. That Europe would never see Nazi-style imperial warfare, millions of refugees and the leveling of cities.
I have to wonder how the people who shrug their shoulders & sneer at the current carnage would have reacted to the events of 1938 & 1939. I suspect I know and it's a depressing thought.
So you know nothing about his administrative abilities. I figured.
No administrative experience...aside from starting his own production company. And running it. And then being a general producer for a television channel. As well as a member of the board there.
Aside from all that. No administrative experience. Just like Elon Musk
The people who elected the reality show host are complaining about the comedian?
Doubt it. She died fifty four years ago this month.
As you prove yet again, you can't appeal to facts. Everything you've said so far has either been misinformation or out&out lying. Whining about wikipedia doesn't change that in the slightest.
Because it's a secondary source rather than a primary source.
Go fuck yourself.
There was a election after the 2014 revolution, Z got elected in the 2nd election.
Did John Adams get the job as US president as part of a French backed coup?
I would like to think the US is leaning on China to stay out lest they be accused of helping dictatorial tanks roll through Europe.
This is not a good look for a leftover WWII ally.
"We have the first new war of conquest on the European continent in over eighty years."
Gotta call bullshit on this.
Crimea obviously comes to mind and also some shit in Georgia; not to mention the one that inspired a hit song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiP6q8JOZ1Q
In the case of mad_kalak, you most assuredly do not have to wonder: they've expressly said that they think the United States should have joined the Axis.
Recall that m-k thinks the US should have sided with Hitler in WWII. I think his judgment on these matters is poor.
The “color revolution” in Ukraine happened in 2014. Its why Russia seized Crimea.
"CIA helped Diem into power"
I do not think that is right. Nothing in Diem's encyclopedia Britannica entry to that effect. The CIA helped get rid of him, yes.
"What makes you think the US has clean hands?"
I don't. Neither do I have any moral objection to "meddling" by the US.
But the CIA did not cause the 2014 uprising. The deposed president was repressive and the people in Kiev got tired of it and protested/rioted until he left.
Well, sure. Giving in to the bully always makes them stop picking on smaller kids. It worked like that in school and it works like that in international politics.
The only exception has been ... every single example, ever.
Putin is a bully who's getting his teeth kicked in by the little kid. It should make anyone with a basic sense of justice and decency smile.
Russia doesn't have valid security concerns. They didn't have security concerns when they invaded Georgia. They didn't have valid security concerns when they annexed Crimea. They didn't have valid security concerns when they invaded Donbas. They didn't have valid security concerns when they invaded Ukraine.
They are imperialists, led by a guy who sees the dissolusion of the Soviet Union as the worst geopolitical event of the 20th century, longs to put it back together with himself at its head, and sees former republics proclaiming, enjoying, and defending their independence as an internal Russian concern because they are all part of Ryssia if he says so.
Russia won't start a nuclear war over Ukraine. Their allies and trade partners like China, India, and Brasil have made it clear that wouldn't be acceptable. The only way Russia can make getting their asses kicked by a much smaller country worse would be to unite the world against them by using nukes.
This isn't a "my country right or wrong" thing on the part of Ukraine and its allies (although it has been on the Russian side). One country invaded a sovereign country multiple times since 2014. They are the aggressor. They are in the wrong.
The US isn't going to put boots on the ground or planes in the sky. They will keep sending support to Ukraine so they can defend themselves, but this isn't our war. It never will be. If Ukraine ends up losing, that won't change.
Nelson offers an impressive summary, particularly in laying-out why it’s nonsense to believe Russia would use nuclear weapons because of an “existential” threat to the country. That’s always been assbackwards, because the biggest existential threat is the temptation to use nukes itself, an act which would decimate the country’s remaining support in the world. Obviously the threat still exists, but not for the reason everyone gives.
My only quibble is excluding Moldova from the list of Putin’s imperialistic adventures in Europe. But given it’s a tiny country, it’s a tiny quibble.
Ummmm --- there were Soviet nukes in Cuba in the 1980s...
Uh huh. The scores of thousands who protested for freedom were all unknowing puppets of the evil U.S. Looking at your comments below, I see it’s likewise for the thousands of Egyptians who sought to escape decades of dictatorial rule in 2011.
Gee, I thought the U.S. was perfectly happy with our autocratic ally ruling Egypt and concerned about the Islamic underpinning of the rebellion. But I must defer to your wisdom, since I don’t get briefings at the Super Secret Conspiracy Headquarters as you do, Mad. Do they hand out prefab tin foil hats or do you need to bring your own?
Likewise, Georgia. Both the state, who would never vote Democratic without massive voting fraud, and the country, whose citizens can’t possibly prefer living in a European state as opposed to a mafia-style kleptocracy. Conspiracies everywhere!
If you want to beclown yourself with this gibberish, please feel free. But expect push-back from those of us living on the planet Earth.
m_k...A better example OtisAH might understand. Imagine a government sponsored energy corporation in Ukraine hiring a drug addicted, alcoholic with no experience whatsoever in the energy industry and speaks no other language than English, to manage their public affairs and do international business development.
That could never happen...nah.
I read an article by someone named F.P. Sempa today, who insisted we should abandon Ukraine and focus on deterring China instead. At least he had the honesty to confront the perverse illogic of his own thesis:
If we ignore a European war of conquest, ignore the suffering and instability that results, ignore the pleas of people fighting alone & only asking for material support, ignore the concerns of our closest allies in Europe, and ignore all the commitments me made to Ukraine before Putin's invasion - AND - do so only to save a few dollars, military supplies being the only demand on us, how will China see that? Specifically, how will they see that in relation to Taiwan?
Honesty only carried F.P. Sempa thru the question; it deserted him on the answer. He said there was theoretically no U.S. interest in European carnage, but distant Taiwan was different. China would see it that way, right ?!?
Of course they wouldn't. The money invested in Ukraine's fight is also makes Beijing think twice before crossing the strait. People should keep that in mind.
I doubt the US has to lean on China to stay out of it, since no matter how this turns out, China wins, and China knows it.
It’s a valid objection, but there was so little fighting involved in both cases that it’s difficult to call them a “war of conquest”. There’s a reason why WWII is dated from the invasion of Poland, not the occupation of the Sudetenland.
(At least in ETO dating. Asia is another matter)
It's like a reflex, now. Relevancy is no matter.
Willie Sutton, not Dillinger.
The Democrats of the CIA are genuine enemies of the People. In every country, including this one.
"Is no Matter" ?? damn Roosh-un Troll
It's all fun and games until someone gets told to suck his dead mother's tits
There is speculation that supporters of Diem responded in kind down to Dallas...
I don't have any reason to believe it is true, merely stating that more than a few scholars believe that the Kennedy assassination was retaliation for the Diem assassination....
Oh shut the fuck up.
What you said was that we fought on the wrong side in WWII. That's not the same as "we shouldn't have been involved."
What Patton (wrongly) thought is irrelevant.
Red herring, my ass.
Or, better yet, you could stop quoting the virulent anti-semite Patton, because his claim that we should have sided with the Nazis doesn't make yours any less repugnant.
Ah, but he's against "Nazis" this time...
'The Democrats of the CIA'
You are a child.
You can cite secondary sources just fine in academic papers, and it happens all the time.
About sending him hundreds of bullions of dollars, if Senescent J wants to die in WW3 he can do it alot cheaper than that.
Whining about the money is one thing. Dismissing him as a comedian after electing a reality show host (with a history of fraud) is a whole other thing. Have you tried asking Putin nicely not to start WW III? Have you tried asking him with poorly-spelled semi-coherent edgelord posturing?
No, they don't.
There was a pretty good novel by Charles McCarry (Tears of Autumn) that used this as a premise, but I have never seen it anywhere else, particularly not in any sort of legit historical research.