1 Like
What do you think the West - which is to say NATO under US leadership - should have done about the Russian invasions (plural - they started in 2014) of Ukraine. Negotiate? There were negotiations, agreements were reached, and Russia (not America, not Nato) has broken its promise given at every one of them. So please do not say “negotiate”. Putin is not interested in negotiating.
I like Tucker Carlson very much. I almost always agree with him. Only his obsession with UFOs seems to me rather foolish, and - very much more importantly - his failure to see that the West could not allow Russia to swallow Ukraine amazes me.
2 Likes
The US is not at war with Russia. The US has not made war on Russia.
Russia invaded Ukraine. The war was decided on and is being waged by Russia. On Ukraine.
Russia is the perpetrator, not the victim.
If the US as the leading member of NATO had just allowed Russia to seize Ukraine, had refused to help Ukraine with funding and materiel, NATO would be in effect disbanded and finished. What wars would then have followed! Poland fighting Russia for its survival. The Scandinavian and Baltic countries ditto. The US no longer a superpower. (The Left’s dream of destroying it achieved.)
I despise Biden utterly. I think the State Department is almost always wrong and has been for a very long time. But when it comes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, even the Biden State Department had to see that it had to assist Ukraine’s resistance. It didn’t want to. It wanted to fly Zelensky and his family out of his country and let the Russians take Kiev. But it (aka Victoria Nuland?) came to its senses when Zelensky refused the offer. And no doubt when NATO spelled out the threat to Europe.
I am baffled by Tucker Carlson, and those of my respected fellow members of this forum, who find excuses for Russia’s appalling aggression and insistently blame Ukraine and the West and NATO and the US for it.
2 Likes
The West is destroying itself.
Doing nothing when Russia (yet again) invaded Ukraine would have hastened, not arrested, the destruction.
2 Likes
Well, you say “don’t say negotiate”, but I continue to say it. No-one can know for sure “what might have been”, but I think Putin would have kept a negotiation led by Trump, and we would have avoided the danger we are now facing.
As it is, now they are allied with China, and China has even agreed to supply them militarily.
Since China is already determined to conquer the U.S., I don’t see how they won’t use this against us, by depleting our resources as we wage war with Russia, and then attacking Taiwan and/or us, which would become a World War.
I understand the desire to protect Ukraine, but I think the consequences of attempting to defeat Putin in a war will be disastrous, and far outweigh anything gained.
2 Likes
Seeing the bigger picture is not siding with Russia over Ukraine. Acknowledging the corruption of Ukraine’s government is not siding with Russia. Realizing Zelensky’s desire to risk WWIII and Biden’s following blindly down that path is not supporting Putin.
The goal of NATO and any sane nation should be to avoid a world war and avoid a war that goes on and on and on. If this “war” is worth it to any side or participant, then…well… Have we learned nothing? What is the goal of the human species? Bring on the EMP and blast us all back to the iron age.
1 Like
What has the corruption of Ukraine’s government got to do with it? The Russian government is also corrupt. Very.
Are you saying that NATO must capitulate in order to avoid a world war?
The human species has no goal. History is a soap opera.
1 Like
Good one. However…have you seen Trumps latest speech about the conflict? Gateway Pundit has it under:
“We Need to Clean House of All Warmongers and America-Last Globalists in National Security Industrial Complex”.
1 Like
Thank you, Liz!
Here’s the link to a video of Trump making that speech:
1 Like
As we do not consider ourselves to be in a war with China, some imagine that we are not in a war with Russia. No, that is not the case.
Biden means to be at war with Putin. Putin is Russia, along with his “philosopher” Aleksandr Dugin, who Believes this to be the opportunity for bringing Armageddon, thus ending the modern era and returning, as conqueror, to bring about a Traditionalist Utopia after all the mess is cleaned up. None of these people are friends to the US.
Biden/Obama…well, we know that war is a re-setter and a world war is a Great Re-setter, when the elite global oligarchy can “mold the world closer to their desire.” Do we know if Biden/Obama is on board with Klaus and the WEF? Do we even think they are? I do.
If it wasn’t to be Ukraine, and I tend to think it was, it would be some other place to bring chaos.
Will this un-named war escalate? Will Biden send those fighter jets? Will Putin be true to his word to make that the line, which must not be crossed? Will Biden be true to his word to make China sorry if they help Russia? Do you think Putin is crazy enough to use an EMP on the US? China?
Who must back down or negotiate to de-escalate this war? Putin, Biden or Zelensky?
Why care who did what first or second? How can this insanity be stopped? And if the primary players (Zelensky, Putin, Biden/Obama, Xi) don’t want it stopped, what does the world do then?
2 Likes
I think those are some very good questions.
And that they are unanswerable.
2 Likes
I do not accept that NATO can’t ask them and get an answer. Congress can ask them and get an answer.
Where is Congress? Where is SCOTUS? Is what Biden/Obama doing constitutional? Is this a scenario that the corporate media wants? Why aren’t the always Dove Democrats seeing disaster in such a course? What is really going on?
I don’t think any of it is good and I don’t think there are any good guys in this mess.
And I use Biden/Obama because I have come to believe that this is Obama’s third term and he intends to finish what he started. Gawd help us if his wife runs and wins the Democratic nomination for President in 2024. That will be a hell of a nasty, no enemies taken alive, fight for America.
1 Like
“There are two endgames for the Russo-Ukraine War. In the first, the West grows bored and impatient and denies Ukraine the weapons it needs to continue the fight. In that case, Ukraine is once again an oppressed subject of the Russian Empire, and Czar Vlad goes to work using his enhanced position to split NATO. In the second, Ukraine maintains its territorial integrity — although perhaps only to its post-2014 extent rather than 1991 — and Russian losses are punishing enough to keep the bear caged for another 20 years. In that case, we’ll have bought, on the cheap, a generational handicapping of our number two geopolitical rival.”
He gives only 3 options, none of which involves negotiations. And it isn’t just being “bored and impatient” that makes some people want an end to the war. There are legitimate reasons, like wanting to avoid escalation into world war, or a “quagmire”, as he mentions. There’s no guarantee that escalating will resolve the conflict.
David Ignatius, the National Security columnist for the Washington Post, who also has ties to the CIA, admitted on mainstream media that the U.S. has been supplying Ukraine militarily since 2014, (which coup the U.S.was involved in), including such technologies as AI. You can say that Putin is the aggressor, but we have been giving him plenty of reasons for that aggression.
If we had been focussing on maintaining peace, rather than staging a “color revolution” to effect regime change in Ukraine, and then arming them against Russia, maybe Russia wouldn’t have been so inclined to attack them.
1 Like
The usual Trump campaign-mode schtick. What I focus on is his saying that he could have a peace deal signed within 24 hours after he wins another term as president.
“I know exactly what I’d say, by the way. I’d tell one guy this and one guy that, and say: you’d better make a deal.” As it will take longer that 24 hours - could be as much as 4 years - to get rid of the feeble national security establishment, undo the DEI corruption of our military, increase the battle-readiness and morale of our fighting forces, increase recruitment, replenish the arsenals, audit the weapons systems and ditch the carbon footprint regulations - he will not have the “strength” for “peace through strength”. Without that strength, what he will say to each “guy” to persuade them to sign a deal? He says he knows exactly what he will whisper to them. What might that be? A promise to Putin to lift sanctions, but in return for what? Withdrawal of troops from the Donbas region, stand-down of the Wagner mercenaries, and/or a ceasefire? Does he promise reconstruction money - no more weapons, Vlad - to Zelensky in return for what? An undertaking not to join NATO, formal ceding of Crimea and/or the DPR and the LPR and/or a ceasefire? Does he promise that the UN will monitor the ceasefire? Or does he threaten Putin to position missile defense systems in Poland and Ukraine unless Putin withdraws from Ukraine (partially or totally?) and unfreezes the nuclear arms reduction treaty with America? Does he imagine that he can fix up a something like the Abraham accords?
Trump could project strength during his Presidency, despite the national security and military establishment undermining him, but the respect he earned from foreign leaders largely rested on his unpredictability - or the cultivated image of unpredictability. It was his force of personality, not his policy, that earned him the strong leader image.
This is not to say that Trump did not surprise us with effective action. Working behind the scenes before announcing an action taken against the publicly aired advice and predictions, was his modus operandi - an m.o. forced upon him during his Presidency, but one that had worked for him as a business chief. That m.o. easily adapts to diplomacy. The diplomatic record is filled with secret side deals, used to boost the resolve of one signatory to enter into an international agreement, but not revealed to the other or the public. Trump is capable of speaking softly into the ears of one guy and the other - but what surprise treaty could emerge from these whisperings?
If President Trump has side deals up his sleeve, they cannot be outside the realm of political practicality or beyond his power to offer. Based on knowledge of the geo-political circumstances, we can and should work out what the terms of those side deals reasonable might be. Those terms must inevitably involve weapons and money. If Trump’s diplomacy is going to leave Ukraine with any stump of sovereignty, what security assurances can he give to support continuation of that stump - that could be credible to Ukraine? The Budapest Agreement offered security assurance - and look what Russia did. And how could Ukraine be bribed by economic promises into being a trading partner with the West, while being a political hostage to Russia, which is - and this is a HUGE geo-political fact - actually, physically, with armed men, occupying Ukraine?
I would really like to see in this forum some serious consideration of the substance of diplomatic negotiations and what the actual real-world terms of a deal (and side deals) might look like. Trump clearly doesn’t know and won’t say, and only Trump zealots could trust without question his promises to pull a big, beautiful, never- seen-before, peace rabbit out of his hat if elected.
2 Likes
Yes, we probably would trust Trump to do what former presidents have not been able to even begin in this era, and in fact have worked against. I trust his success with the Abraham Accords, which have nearly disintegrated under Biden/Obama.
Why not trust Trump? Got any better deals?
2 Likes
Jordon Schachtel has written a piece at “The Dossier” titled “Schrodinger’s Russian Paradox” which does a good job of explaining both Carlson’s (and my) view of it.
Here is the link:
The essence of the argument is that Russia is innocent.
But read it and assess the reasoning for yourselves, comrades.
1 Like
As must always be pointed out, it seems, finding fault with the motives of the U.S. government for escalating war with Russia does not automatically make one a “Putin sympathizer”.
1 Like