Let Russia Have Ukraine?

Edited Quotes:
The Rage Against the War Machine (RATWM) rally in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 19 was, if nothing else, a case of politics making for strange bedfellows. It was organized by the emphatically pro-big-and-all-powerful-government People’s Party and the emphatically shrink-or-abolish-government Libertarian Party.
RATWM seeks the withdrawal of all U.S. support for the Ukrainian nation. That would have the effect of letting the Russians decide whether they want to continue to annihilate that nation or just to conquer and absorb it.
“Disband NATO.” To do so now would essentially give a green light to Putin to roll into Poland, the Baltic states, etc. any time he feels like it.
“Global nuclear de-escalation.” Even if it’s unilateral? I’d find this more credible if RATWM had an active chapter in Moscow publicly protesting Russian aggression.
“Slash the Pentagon budget.” Like the call to disband NATO, the timing seems designed to hand Russia an unjust victory. It also suggests retreat to belligerents like China and Iran.
“Abolish war and empire.” Peace is the ultimate ideal, I agree, but everyone has to stop warring, not just one side. As for “empire”, I really get tired of Americans yapping about “American empire". Yes, we have military installations around the globe and we’re stretched too thin, but in most of the countries we protect, we don’t install puppet governments or deny them self-determination. The Pax Americana isn’t an “empire” in the dictionary sense of the word.
Unfortunately, the protest rally organized by RATWM targeted only the United States and not the Russian aggressor. We have seen this before: It’s the old “blame America first” routine favored by the anti-American left. That position is both intellectually dishonest and morally skewed.

The biggest flaw in Libertarianism - an attractive political philosophy in many ways - is a failure to understand the need for strong defense. Libertarians seem actually to believe that if the US disarmed, the rest of the world would leave it in peace.


Yes, to disarm would be really stupid.
We need to remain strong, because we have alot of enemies. And that’s one of the problems with our involvement in Ukraine - it takes our focus and our resources off of a far more important problem.
Our Republic is very close to imploding on itself, and being absorbed into a global tyranny. And our most dangerous enemies are within our own government, actively working to destroy us, with economic collapse induced under the auspices of “clean energy” policies, open borders, and cultural rot under the banner of the liberation of every “victim” group imaginable from the oppressive white “patriarchy”.
Our focus should be on stopping this grave and immediate threat and saving our own democracy, not the “ideal” of it that we may wish for in Ukraine.
Negotiate for Ukraine; fight for our own survival.
But since those who should be doing this are the very ones busy destroying us, neither one will happen. War will rage over the border of Ukraine, thousands more will die, and Putin will be crushed either before or after we enter World War 3.
In the meantime, America falls apart, and we’ve saved “democracy” in Ukraine as it dies at home.
Well at least we’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that in the process of saving Ukraine, we upheld the altruistic ideal of self-sacrifice.


I like and agree with much of what you say here, Liz, though not quite all, as you know.

1 Like

All part of the plan, Liz, and the coming world war is the icing on the cake. If the US were to pull back…and isolate, perhaps there would be a chance to rebuild as Americans a country that gave a crap about its own citizens and borders and constitution. But, not under the Biden/Obama administration, and that change is a couple of years away if…

The protests at lease draw attention to the fact that many citizens do not want war. No war. Not for Ukraine. Not for NATO. Not for anything that actually weakens the homeland’s own security and economy. They will not send their children to be slaughtered on this blood bath to reshape the world in a Great Reset. They do not support our President or any elected leaders that would lead the US into such disaster as a world war would wreck upon everyone.

What will we have at the end, except more chaos? Whether we join the war or not, what will we be at the end? So, does that mean we join the war…or do we pull back, save ourselves, invest in our nation, protect our nation?

I am not sure there is any wining situation here. What do you think, Jillian and Liz?

1 Like

As long as the leftists/globalists are in control, there can be no winning side to anything.
We lose no matter what happens, unless we can somehow remove them from power. And they are doing everything in their (stolen) power to prevent that from happening.


“Negotiate for Ukraine; fight for our own survival”

An empty slogan. And insofar as it suggests the national security attention must be diverted from the war in Ukraine to concentrate on elections, it is political nonsense.

I have tried many, many times to have you think through what “negotiation” actually means for practical diplomacy and real world balance of power. I haven’t received any indication that you know what sort of agreement you want to be negotiated. A ceasefire? (Like the failed Minsk agreements, or do you have, or think Trump has, a special sauce which would sell a new ceasefire. Do say what it might be.) An armistice? (What will be the borders of Ukraine? Will these be as provisional? Or permanent?) A peace treaty? (settling borders, sovereignty, international recognition…) If you have any economic bribe, or military threat - from Europe or America - that can induce the parties to sign a treaty - please say what they might be. If you have any mechanism in mind for enforcement of the agreement, any sanctions clause to make the agreement binding on Russia, and security assurances to Ukraine so that it can protect whatever remains of its territory, sovereignty and independence from future repossession by Russia, do tell us what they may be.

If you don’t, then I can’t even say that we agree to disagree. Policy debates are all about the probabilities of the “better” future proposed by the policy being realized, and what the betterment means substantively. Yes, not all the consequences of government action are unforeseeable, but many are. It is entirely predictable that laws or policies will exacerbate the problems that they seek to solve. I do not see that America’s stopping arms supplies to Ukraine while it is at war will save lives, enhance the probabilities of a stable world order, curb Putin’s imperialist aggression, bring an electoral win for Republicans, return the political culture to Reaganite positive patriotism and the economy to Trumpian winning, or save the constitutional Republic. Quite the reverse, in each case.

I will make a prediction: the political pressure to stop America from supporting Ukraine from the anti-war mob - mostly leftists ideologically wedded to unilateral nuclear disarmament for America - will cause a pre-election volte-face in the Biden admin. It is already giving more rhetorical military support than it is delivering in weapons. But there will be more talk of about talks, more Milley double-speak (i.e. America’s arsenals are being run down, which puts America’s national security at risk, he says, but his saying so - which is itself not “helpful” to national security - is not linked to his belief that the war will only be ended through talks) , more op-eds about the unthinkability of escalation; more head-shaking at quagmire and endless war. The Biden admin will be as vehement in their hypocritical moral righteousness to end the war (“saving Ukrainian lives”) as they were in supporting Ukraine to fight it (“saving democracy”). Their talk of talks will be as void of substance as your talk of talks has been. If the talks happen, we will see another Minsk agreement flutter in the breeze, only to be breached and war break out again.

If a Democrat were to be in power when the Minsk 2 (or is it 3?) ceasefire breaks and war breaks out again, the administration, if it is fancies America bound by the Budapest Memorandum, would have options in honoring its “security assurance” obligations. Like Obama it could send blankets, REMs and night-goggles, and pay lip service to the righteousness of Ukraine defending its sovereignty or even less. By then (2024), America may be have been re-imagined as an agency of the UN, have given up its veto in the Security Council or put it at the service of the developing nations bloc and their claims for climate equity. If Trump is elected to power again, would he send lethal weapons again? Would he stick up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and condemn the hitherto failed ceasefire agreements? Could he fulfill his election promise of stopping the war in Ukraine by brokering the best-deal-evah on Day 1 without arming Ukraine - and encouraging Europe to Ukraine - as a demonstration of America’s negotiating strength? Again, I ask what bribes or threats, military or economic, could Trump deploy to stop the war and hold the peace for a longer period than his four-year term in office.

Who will you vote for faced with a choice between an anti-war Democrat promising immediate talks to stop the war, to fix the immigration, to get to the root causes of poverty and crime, and re-purpose government and the economy for DEI, business for ESG, and America as facilitator for globalism, and Republican who believes America should continue to send arms to Ukraine to stop the Russian onslaught, that the Mexican border should have a wall, that police forces should be funded, that all lives matter, that the poor are not below the law, nor Democrat apparatchiks above it, that America’s superpower is essential to the defense of the nation as a free, democratic Republic.

America cannot negotiate for Ukraine. Nor can it broker a peace between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine is a client state, to which America has given “security assurances” under the Budapest Memorandum, itself a side-deal to Russian/American nuclear disarmament/non-proliferation arrangements. America certainly cannot in good faith, while pretending to be governed by international law, threaten to withhold military aid as a means of blackmailing Ukraine to surrender to Russia, to whom Ukraine’s nukes were given at the insistence of the Americans as a condition of America support for Ukraine’s independence. Russia has consistently used bi-lateral nuclear treaties to control American foreign policy and extort diplomatic concessions. Every pull-back of American security strength in Europe - the withdrawal of missile defense from Poland, for example - has been extorted by Russia by promising to void, or freeze, or not to enter into, nuclear treaties. Russia has the (socialist) American establishment’s number: Nuclear disarmament is more important to America than preserving a nuclear deterrent to Russian aggression. When Putin proclaimed, after the 2022 invasion had turned sour, that Russia would use nuclear force should a conventional war be an imminent existential threat to his nation (i.e. he threatened a first-strike), the European powers informed him that they would not respond with nuclear weapons, but prosecute a maximal conventional war - throw everything they have at Russia, except for tactical nukes. The nuclear deterrence baby thrown out with the MADD bathwater. This promise to spank Putin, resulted in Putin doubling-down on nuclear disarmament extortion: he “froze” the nuclear treaty with America. Cue the foreign affairs community (State Department, foreign policy lobbyists and think-tanks, Mearsheimer) into “negotiation” overdrive: America must withhold arms to Ukraine, so that Putin will unfreeze the nuclear disarmament agreement. The old Kremlin-promoted CND dream of a nuclear free planet (actually only America) must be kept alive at all costs. If Russia uses the Treaties to extort military concessions from the west in order to make its own military aggression less risky and costly, that is an acceptable price to pay. Dreaming the nuclear disarmament dream saves billions more lives on paper than can possibly be lost by Russian aggression to repossess the former soviet oblasts, and even fewer lives will be lost if Ukrainians just stop fighting and accept that they are Russian.

1 Like

“If the US were to pull back…and isolate, perhaps there would be a chance to rebuild as Americans a country that gave a crap about its own citizens and borders and constitution.”

No chance. See my comment to Liz.

1 Like

Well, you obviously already know more than everyone and aren’t going to be persuaded by my opinion. We’ll just have to disagree.

1 Like

I have spent many, many hours developing an informed opinion and a reasoned, substantive argument against a policy that will force Ukraine to surrender to Putin. You have not critiqued my arguments, or disputed my facts, or answered my questions or supplied counter facts. You have made no effort to persuade me about anything. You have not even acknowledged my efforts to engage a debate, except to disparage them in an off-hand way by saying I “obviously already know more than everyone”. All I know is that you believe it is very important to save America and that we have to “get out” of Ukraine to do that. That’s not enough to agree or disagree with. But is it enough to get your vote?
Would you not at least answer my hypothetical voting question?

I, and others here, actually have offered counter arguments, but you just blow them off as Russian propaganda, or as ignorant and uninformed.
Your arguments are informed and substantive, I’m sure, but based on what, in my opinion, is a faulty premise - that the U.S. had no role in provoking Putins aggression, that negotiations wouldn’t have worked, at the beginning, or now, and that the only solution is the annihilation of the Russians, whatever it takes.
(I’m sure you’ll say thats an inaccurate summary, but thats my general impression of it.)
I don’t pretend to have as informed an opinion as you, but I stand by my opinion that the opposite of your premise is true.
As far as who I’d vote for - it would be Trump.
Whatever he decided to do concerning Ukraine would frankly be of much less importance than the threats that must be dealt with in our own country.

1 Like

Well…for one thing, Claire, it is the tree-hugging, anti-war Leftists that are full steam ahead with support for this non-proxy war…oh, and the Leftist RINOs, as well.

Yes, we view this whole “event” differently. I don’t know what the hell anyone that supports continued US involvement wants from this war, nor what they will actually end up getting.

But…when you are trapped, you can cut off your foot to escape or proceed to the slaughter. That is the way I view this war.

Our allies and enemies know the US is weak, so appearing to be a bit more probably won’t make any difference. China will invade Taiwan before Biden leaves office…or doesn’t, gawd forbid.

Can the US win in a war against Russia aided by China and Iran and maybe India and North Korea? Do we and our allies have the money and military to do so? Do we and our allies have the resolve to use all our force to actually defeat Putin and bring about regime change to the next cold-eyed killer? Would all the above be better for the US and our allies, or would it be disastrous and end up nuclear? If we could do that and not begin WWIII, that would be the least worse of all the worst plans…perhaps. I don’t think we have either the resolve, the allies or the luck to pull it off.

So there we are. Liz and I are worthless members, who take up room on the forum, and should therefore stand down and shut up, because we are most likely siding with Putin against Ukraine…and obviously not thinking things through well at all.

But…yes, let Russians have Ukraine instead of bringing on WWIII. When all that happens here is bad choice after bad choice and idiocy on the part of the current administration when the US is in deep trouble all around…Yes, let Russia have Ukraine or let Europe take over funding this war to the detriment of their nations.

Or accept that this is the way it must be and get on with the Great Reset, because that is the end…and this “event” is just another of the means. That is what I reason with my merely common mind, which may be less informed and educated than yours. But thanks so for trying to get us to think.

But…then you actually think that Liz and I would vote for the Democrat-Leftist-Fascist in the 2024 election in order to stop the Ukraine debacle ?! :rofl:

1 Like

This is my last try to engage, because I think the Ukraine war is very, very important for the West and for civilization and not just a campaign issue. Without any acrimony, superiority or last-wordism, I offer the following response to your comment:

I do not base my argument on the premise that the US did not provoke Putin. Nor would my argument change if I believed that the US did provoke Putin. My argument stands on the acceptance of the fact that Putin, however he justified his action, invaded Ukraine aggressively, not defensively. That is a legal fact and an actual, real world fact. Suggesting that the US provoked Putin does not alter the fact: it doesn’t complicate it, or provide nuance to it, or problematize it, or contextualize it. Hand-wringing that the US should have or could have done this or that, or not done this or that to avoid his invading Ukraine is irrelevant to that fact. It is this fact of an aggressive invasion that you disagree with. And I still have no idea why.

I do not base my argument on the premise that negotiations wouldn’t have worked. Nor would my argument change if I believed that negotiations would have worked. I base my argument on the fact negotiations didn’t work, and didn’t happen. It is this fact about negotiations that you disagree with. I still do not know why. From the fact of failed negotiations, I make a prediction that calls for negotiations will also fail, as things stand now. You disagree with my assessment of the probabilities of the parties coming to the negotiating table. I asked for ideas that might so effectively change the negotiating incentives that a binding and lasting agreement could be reached. You did not supply them, so I still do not know why you think negotiations can be or are the solution.

I do not base my argument on the premise that the only solution is the annihilation of the Russians whatever it takes. Biden’s “whatever it takes to get Putin out of Ukraine” is empty posturing. It has nothing remotely to do with my argument that negotiations are not a solution, as things stand. What I base my argument on is the military fact that Russia is occupying Ukraine, the fact that he intends to annihilate Ukraine as a sovereign, independent nation, and has annihilated hundreds of thousands of lives - Russian and Ukrainian - to achieve that goal; the fact that he has promised to win the war “whatever it takes” - even tactical nukes, the fact that he is preparing for spring offensive and is drafting more soldiers (having lost 200,000), and sending his military-industrial complex into overdrive to manufacture more ammunition and tanks. There is no negotiating Putin out of occupying Ukraine. His military presence in Ukraine is all he needs to claim de facto possession of it. Occupying Ukraine is the realization of his war aims. Ukraine - with or without military assistance from the US - if it has any claims to sovereign nationhood, has no choice but to wrest back, inch-by-inch, the territory controlled by Putin. It is a war of attrition, but it is only by fighting it that Ukraine can force Russian withdrawal from its territory, and thereby nullify his claims to possess it. It is within Ukraine’s ability to achieve a total withdrawal of Russian forces (not the “annihilation of Russians”) - at least that is what Ukraine’s victories so far have allowed it to claim. But it will take years. Does time favor the occupier or the resistance? If the West continues to present a united front against Putin, if it continues to supply weapons - and upgrade them - the strategic advantage accrues to the resistance. Continuation of the ground war is the only option for both sides. Only the actual territory won and held - facts on the ground - will decide what the negotiated map of Ukraine looks like.

Do not feel obliged to answer this. It is not an attack on your point of view, merely a clarification of mine.

1 Like

I don’t deny that Putin made an aggressive invasion.
But the fact that the U.S., by its policies and actions, provoked that invasion is an important context to it. It suggests to me that those in control of our foreign policy wanted to provoke that aggression for a reason - they wanted to force regime change in Russia.
They “failed” at negotiations for the same reason.
Whether it was simply a result of a “Wilsonian” foreign policy view, or for more nefarious reasons, such as preserving their money laundering operation, or their bio-weapons labs, I don’t know, but I don’t think it will result in “democracy” in Ukraine. It probably will be long and drawn out, just like Afghanistan, and even if we avoid WW3, it will end in the destruction of both countries.
Negotiation is the only hope of preventing that destruction, and saving the lives of both Russians and Ukranians.

  1. The political make-up of the anti-Ukraine crowd has been outlined at the top of this thread. Which is why am interested to know why Trump/Tucker Republicans would join them.

  2. The political make-up of the pro-Ukraine crowd is Democrats and Republicans. I am suspicious of Democrat foreign policy and the administrations belief in American national interests, and power. I am attuned - as someone who lived in Europe during the Cold War - to the danger of Russian autocrats. So I am in sympathy with Republicans who remember communism and also see the danger in a reconstituted Soviet empire.

  3. What I want from this war is the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. What the map of Ukraine will look like in the end will depend on how much territory Ukraine can win back from the Russians, which depends on receiving weapons and aid from other countries.

  4. Ukraine is not “trapped”, and I have no idea what the foot-cutting-off metaphor means to the context of the war. There is huge amount of actual military analysis out there if you want to talk military strategy or war-game the situation.

  5. The US is not weak. The Obama/Biden admin’s “small footprint” foreign policy did much damage to our image for strength. Trump reclaimed some of it. The army - like all institutions - needs to stop prioritizing DEI. Readiness for lethal deployment in multiple theaters should be restored as it prime mission. There is no American military in Ukraine, so its readiness and lethality is not being put to the test.

  6. China will not invade Taiwan for as long as the US in alliance with Europe and the UK continue to show solidarity with and give support to Ukraine. China cannot afford to support Russia’s war efforts and invade Taiwan.

  7. Why isn’t Pakistan or Syria or Turkey in that Russia-China-Iran–North-Korea-India axis? Why not the entire developing world? Surely there would be room for a little Cuba? And Somalia would appreciate a cut of the action. Where do you see the spark occurring that will ignite their war against America?

  8. To date no European nation, no NATO member has resolved to use “all” their force directly against Russian forces in Ukraine, absent a tactical nuke strike by Russia. There has been no plan to invade Russia and remove Putin. (I do wish you and Liz would stop causing yourselves panic by sounding the “regime change” siren).

  9. It would be better for the US and its allies if Ukraine remained an independent sovereign nation, and became a member of the EU and NATO. Ukraine has a population of $43 million people, a 100% literacy rate, 55% of its land is arable, it is one of the world’s largest producers of grain, it has abundant reserves of coal, iron ore, natural gas, manganese, salt, oil, graphite, sulfur, kaolin, titanium, nickel, magnesium, timber, and mercury… And don’t think Russia is not aware of this.

  10. “Liz and I are worthless members”. Hmm. I rather think the boot is on the other foot and that my efforts are not valued by you. There is plenty of room in the forum, plenty of space to work out ideas, including why you want to drop Ukraine into the maw of Russia. I look forward to reading them.

  11. Dropping Ukraine into the maw of Russia will not stop the threat of nuclear war. It will encourage Putin’s use of it when he makes a move on Moldova, or Belarus, or any of the other former soviet dependencies that he wants to incorporate in Putin-the-Great’s new empire. We stand up to Putin’s nuclear threats by counter-threats. There is no risk of a nuclear WWIII if we don’t throw away our own deterrent power by constantly appeasing Putin’s threats. The nuclear scenario has been thoroughly war-gamed. Seek and ye shall find.

  12. There is a big difference between “letting” Russia have Ukraine and letting Europe take over the funding (actually, they have been funding Ukraine). But what are the “detriments” caused to America, and say, Germany, by supporting Ukraine’s self-defense? The supply-chain issues (which have been around since Covid)? Raised gas and oil prices (which the climate wallahs in the Biden admin and the German greens desired anyway)? No America soldier or German soldier is risking life and limb. Not only can we afford to supply weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia, but the restoration of American honor and strength that it buys is cheap at the price. I do not even put the saving of the Ukraine nation and stopping Putin’s imperialism into the cost-benefit analysis.

  13. How does Putin’s colossal blunder in invading Ukraine and the support of Ukraine’s self defense fit in with the Great Reset conspiracy? I don’t deny that there is a Great Reset plot. I just want to know how continuing to aid Ukraine furthers it. This is not an insult to your mind or your education. It is a request for the information that I have not come across.

  14. I do hope to stimulate discussion, and sometimes that requires thought. I am sorry if you feel that that is an imposition upon the members of a discussion forum.

  15. No, I didn’t actually think that Liz or you would vote for the Democrat-Leftist-Fascist in the 2024 election to stop the Ukraine debacle. It didn’t matter who you voted for in that scenario. That little thought experiment was merely to demonstrate that you don’t actually care whether Ukraine lives or dies. The international geo-political order holds no meaning or interest for you. Red State/ Blue State election politics does.

First of all, being against what could very well escalate into a world war is not “anti-Ukraine” - it is anti-war, period.
And it should be obvious why conservatives have become anti-war, if you’ve been paying attention to how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan turned out. We all supported Bush, who declared we’d bring democracy to them.
That didnt happen, and Bush turned out to be a globalist Rino.
Biden is worse than Bush - he’s up to his neck in treasonous corruption with both Ukraine and China.
Why would you trust him to bring democracy to Ukraine? Do you really think “saving Ukraine” will result in democracy for them? It will result in a return to a corrupt oligarchy, which will resume its corrupt partnership with our own corrupt oligarchy.
Zelensky himself is a WEF “Young Globalist Leaders” alumni, who has praised the globalist agenda.
There is a threat much greater than saving Ukraine, which is saving the U.S. (and the world) from a takover by a globalist/fascist tyranny. While everyone is focused on Ukraine, the U.S. is about to hand over our sovereignty to the WHO, which along with the rest of the UN, is a front for the CCP and other globalist tyrants.
And you twist our words with “there has been no plan to invade Russia and remove Putin”. Of course not, no-one has said that. Our CIA doesn’t work that way, as you well know. We don’t invade, we covertly conduct “color revolutions” to topple governments.
This has been well documented, and Nuland has been caught on tape admitting it.
If they’re capable of doing that very thing in our own country, to depose Trump and install Biden, you don’t think they wouldn’t try it on Putin? It is hubris, quite frankly.
And you can’t be certain that there’s no risk of nuclear war, or that negotiating for peace in Ukraine would encourage Putin to further agression, unless you have a crystal ball. If Putin, feeling threatened by NATO, attacks even one of them, it will start.
If we negotiate, and come to a truce, he may very well discontinue his aggression, to save what’s left of his resources.
Your little “thought experiment” doesn’t demonstrate that we hate Ukraine - it merely shows where our priorities lie. I could say the same of yours, but I have the courtesy not to call you “anti- American” just because you dont agree with my view of it.

1 Like

Claire, I agree with Liz.

  1. You are wrong about the political make-up of the “stop funding the war in Ukraine and get out of this” crowd. If there is a pro-Putin element to it that is what is driving the protests.

  2. The Leftist RINOs are the ones that see this as something other than fighting communism. They parrot the sentiments of Leftist Democrats, because they are Leftists too. I also understood the danger if the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and was fearful of their evil, when I lived through it, and am fearful again of the rise of Communism, as our government trends towards Fascism.

  3. That would be nice to imagine such a scenario, but we both know it won’t happen.

  4. Not Ukraine, the US is trapped. We cut our loses and get our of the trap.

  5. The US is weak and broke. There is no US military there, yet. All of what has occurred so far in recent times has been what our president called a line that he will not cross, but there is no reason to believe him or others that whisper in his ear. Worse, we are seen by allies and enemies as weak and broke and maybe as unable to present a front to either Russia or China, but certainly not them both.

  6. China will invade Taiwan before Biden leaves office, and as a country, they have been tasked with preparations for war, no later than 2025.

  7. Syria might be able to assist, but Turkey is unable, don’t you think. Pakistan may join. Even the BRICS group includes South Africa, and yes, Cuba may assist. And then, there are many Islamists that have entered the US and are awaiting a signal…and that is exactly what their leaders have told us. Yes, they all might join in to take down the Satan of the West.

The spark, the spark? I think it was Aleksandr Dugin’s daughter’s alleged murder.

  1. The world has been told by our president and either the head of NATO or a NATO nation president that this is exactly what the intent is. It has not been a hidden goal and Putin understands this, as well. Putin has encouraged Russians to panic over the idea and also over the idea that the US wants to destroy Russia and its traditions and its values…and bring the US wokeness and debauchery to destroy Russian faith and family and culture.

  2. No, Ukraine is a corrupt as it can be. Russia understood that NATO would not back up to their borders, but that promise was a lie in the 1990s and reneged again more recently. Actually, thinking of Ukraine…Obama reneged upon our promise to keep Ukraine safe from Russia, if Ukraine (which at the time was the third nuclear power in the world) if Ukraine removed all their nuclear weapons. Then remember when Obama was caught on a hot mic, saying to a Russian representative, “Tell Vladimir that I will have more leeway (?) after the election.” For his second term. Maybe that was the spark… Oh, and of course, Putin is aware of the natural wealth of Ukraine.

  3. Jeezus Cripes. I do value your efforts, Claire, but you have a bee in your bonnet about anyone who is on a different page than you on the Ukraine/Russian war, and have implied in your posts that Liz and I simply will not yield to your better judgment and that is mystifying to you.

  4. I do not trust the Biden/Obama administration, nor the military brass under them to avoid the risk of a nuclear war or to avoid the risk of a WWIII. I do not think that MAD is of importance to the other side, but only to those that have been dragged along to a world war. We have very nearly thrown away our deterrents to nuclear war over the decades. We have defunded the military and demoralized them, as well. We have depleted our Strategic Oil Reserves to half. We have stopped oil companies. We have few US landed corporations that could produce to prepare for war. We have allowed foreign nations to buy up farm, and we have encouraged farmers to build solar farms, instead of planting grains, and we have fought our CAFOs until some have given up. We cannot prepare for war against a section of the world that is against the West, and neither can our alllies…and our enemies know it…and the global elites know it, and they are counting on it.

  5. The US has funded over 75% of the war, with the largest contribution of an ally being 4% or so. And…whom do you think blew up the pipeline? Russia?

  6. Wow… I am fairly certain it is on the forum. I am very certain it is on more than a few online sites. I know that there are at least 2 very good books on the subject. I might have a post, which I saved on it, but that will have to be for another time.

  7. What have we been doing, Claire? If you feel that only your posts and your position is the only right way of thinking…well, I don’t know really what to write in response to that.

  8. Uh…you are so very wrong, Claire. You don’t understand us at all. What does that say about your thinking?

But, you maybe right that further posts here are not settling our differences on this topic and that such might be a waste of time hereafter.

1 Like

Well…shoot! I didn’t know that, Liz.

I did know about the WHO set to control the global response to any pandemic (and who knows what they might consider to be a pandemic?), which effectively hands them the right to rule us. That will go over well, as will the Central Bank Digital Currency test case in South Dakota, which will fail only if Governor Noem vetoes the REPULICAN majority legislature’s vote. What could go wrong with that?!

Indeed, for the first time the US has told the nation that we are warring against what it plans to do, and bragged about doing it. Of course, there was Afghanistan debacle, brought to us by this very same president. To me, that is very, very suspicious…and I do not trust this bunch to consider Americans our Constitution and certainly not our Bill of Rights.

It has all been a plan with a trap. But we don’t have to be trapped, if the US doesn’t want to be. If you accept Free Will, then our president and Congress can get un-trapped…the foot gnawing off thingie.

If you are of a more Deterministic mind, then …well, I keep my hope, and I hope that the West acts as if it has Free Will and ends this.

Oh…look, I am still continuing with my thinking. I guess as long as Liz does too, I may as well add to it.

1 Like

So, “those in control of our foreign policy” wanted to "force regime change in Russia, by provoking Putin into an aggressive invasion of Ukraine. How would that work: Russia invades, suffers defeat or a set-back - at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian lives - which would so incense the Russian public that they would vote Putin out of office? Would his generals stage a coup d’etat, to prevent their execution by Putin? Or would Ukrainian forces invade Russia under cover of a defensive war and topple Putin? But what if he defeated Ukraine? Russians would jubilate. He’d be reelected for life - if he hasn’t already been. And if it is a long-drawn out war of attrition? Would the Russian people protest at the Kremlin gates? Resist conscription? Demand his resignation? The entire Putin regime change plot is just — idiotic. Facetiousness aside, I would very much appreciate your walking me through the working of the plot as you see it. Your view that Ukraine be should be eaten - or reabsorbed, if you prefer - by Russia without hindrance from the US depends on the plausibility of this narrative.

I do not accept as circumstantial evidence for the plot for regime change in Russia, the reference to Nuland’s maneuvering for a pro-Western Ukrainian leader, countering Russia’s maneuvering for a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine.

(By the way, if it were in America’s power to influence Russian elections and effect a change of leadership - electoral regime change - exercising that influence would be entirely legitimate, not nefarious in the least. International political business as usual. But Putin’s paranoia has already crushed dissent, jailed opposition, and installed Putin-the-Great as boss for life.)

And if your nefarious plot is not verified by the foreign affairs record - including leaked secret documents and telephone calls - would you change your mind about America’s obligation to help Ukraine withstand Putin? If, on thorough examination of the record, this foreign policy plot that you say provides “context” to the war (and works to make it OK to drop Ukraine into the Russian maw) proves to be a mirage, would you accept that America foreign policy towards Ukraine since 1991 has been shaped by America’s nuclear stand-off relationship with Russia? i.e. the necessity of avoiding a nuclear war? That there has not, at any time, been a policy of regime change in Russia, nor the “annihilation of Russians”. (Wilsonian support of democracies was in deep freeze for a whole swath of Eastern Europe during the Cold War, with some partial thawing after the fall of the Soviet Union. The support of a democratic Ukraine - certainly more democratic than Russia - would be warmed-up Wilsonianism purposed to sell the idea of supporting Ukraine to the American public.) The referendum of 1991 saw the Ukrainians vote overwhelmingly voted for independence from Russia, and precipitated the formal dissolution of the USSR. Since 1991, there have been 6 US and 2 Russian Presidents with Putin in control since 2000. That’s 23 years of Putin, during which time Putin has regularly sent his military against other states. Were those operations provoked by the US with the aim of unseating Putin in a retaliatory action? If successive US governments had such a plot to depose Putin, it has been failing for a very long time.

1 Like

I didn’t say a regime change is what they did - I said it’s what their actions suggest they wanted to do.
I don’t know what may have happened.
The U.S. should have been working to maintain peace, but instead broke it’s agreement not to expand NATO, among other things, so it can’t claim to have done nothing to provoke the war.
When Russia presented terms for negotiation, the U.S. should have done all it could to arrive at an agreement, such as Ukraine remaining neutral and not joining NATO, as was our original agreement.
That’s not “dropping Ukraine into Russias maw”.

1 Like
  1. Reread the article at the top.

  2. So, you are saying that Republicans who see the danger in a reconstituted Soviet empire led by an autocrat - and would support Ukraine’s resistance to it are RINOs? Other than being an insult, how does that characterization of them impugn their reasoning?

  3. Who says it won’t happen? The people who do not want it to happen? Who want Ukraine disarmed and force to surrender?

  4. The US is not trapped. It can decide to stop supplying arms at any time, notwithstanding the promises and posturing of solidarity with Ukraine to the end. Biden - any Democrat - can turn on a dime. His decision are entirely political. Like the exit from Afganistan. It is political loss and gain that weighs with Biden, as it weighed with Obama. Money, lives, American image and reputation can all be sacrificed for political gain and the securing of a one-party state.

  5. Nothing would better signal to the world that the US is weak, broke and perfidious than ditching its obligations to support Ukraine. The readiness of the US military is not being put to the test, and there no plan - except in the minds of those against the war - for the US to put boots on the ground. The US is still stalling over certain weapons, precisely to avoid the appearance of escalating involvement in the war. Are you confusing war rhetoric with actual force? Are you saying that the more he promises, the more he exposes the weakness of America’s military? Because arsenals are being emptied? Because the military budget can’t meet the costs of replenishment? Your fear that ear-whisperers will persuade him to send in the army or actually deliver those expensive and sophisticated weapons in the numbers required to beat Russia back is unfounded. There is no scenario which would require Biden to put American lives at risk or expend too much treasure for the sake of re-election. The unpopularity of wars fought by America is deeply ingrained in the left. There is no war that the Democrats cannot be against, having been for it. (The Iraq war in particular.) If by some extraordinary turn of events, the public polling shows that 78% of the Democratic base (and Hollywood) wants to increase American assistance to Ukraine and would be in favor of sending the military, Biden will still not do it. He will raise the volume of the rhetoric. He will not have Ukraine hung about his neck as Iraq has been hung around Dubya’s. But if polling shows that over 50% of the Democrat electorate is suffering from war fatigue, and wants its supply chain back, just see how glibly the teleprompter will spell out the need for talks to put an end to the suffering and loss of life. Expect more Milley-speak: the war was inevitably going to be ended by negotiated settlement, not by expelling Russia.

  6. No, it won’t.

  7. Are you trying to justify your bunker purchase?

  8. Cite. Who, when, what. Putin can rely on Russian nationalism to back his imperialist wars. The fear of Nato’s militarism is for Western consumption - to appeal to the appeasers.

  9. So the US is to pure to aid a corrupt client state? Corruption in Ukraine’s institutions - the willingness of office-holders to be bribed and extorted by corporate interests (particularly Russian oligarchal interests), is now put at the exclusive disposal of the West. Anti-corruption bureaux have been set up by the IMF as a condition to lending to Ukraine. The State Department can work its deals under cover of anti-corruption directives to have the Ukraine government act in favor of American interests, including the interests of American government officeholders. America owns corruption in Ukraine. And better America than Russia. Corruption is a red-herring in the discussion of whether America should aid its client state. Russia would gobble up, corruption and all.

As for the rest of your 9… it has the ingredients for an argument, but isn’t one. The history of America’s policy to Ukraine is easily accessible to sort out your wobbly time-line. Obama did not sign the Budapest Memorandum, which was intentionally vague as to what “security assurances” to Ukraine meant. He did pres over Russia’s rehabilitation as regional hegemon, and appointed Russia as fixer in the Iran deal. Yes, indeed that showed flexibility. I have argued that Obama’s accommodationist approach to Russia was what allowed Russia to invade Crimea, with economic sanctions being the only response. Russia was allowed to take over Crimea in exchange for Obama’s continuing to exploit Kyiv for political and economic purposes, but without arming the regime. When Trump took office and did send lethal weapons to Ukraine, and did not like what he saw of Obama/Biden’s corrupt self-interested exploitation of Kyiv, it was clear the cosy accommodation was at end. But as soon as Biden was back in office, Putin tested whether Biden would return to Obama’s accommodation of Russia’s strategic take-back of Ukraine. One might say that the “spark” that got Putin moving on Ukraine again, was the defeat of Trump in 2020.

  1. I am still holding the door open for you, politely.

  2. You do not trust the Biden/Obama admin to "avoid the risk of nuclear war or to avoid the risk of WWIII? Of course you can’t: the “risk” is entirely rhetorical, and is Putin’s main psy-ops gambit. Biden cannot avoid Putin’s indulging in nuclear threats. First Putin announces has given the order to put his nuclear forces on alert; then he talks about pre-emptive first strike if his nation is existential danger; then he “freezes” the New Salt agreement. Each time Putin talks nuclear, he prompts his amen corner (Meersheimer, Carlson, an cadre of “containment” die-hards in the State Department and foreign policy think tanks and sundry isolationists, pacifists, old CND-ers, you and Liz, to call for immediate negotiations.) It might even be the other way round: Putin obliges the anti-war lobby’s fear of escalating to nuclear war, with a feint over the nuclear button. This call and response ritual can go on indefinitely, as the war grinds on. There will be no tactical nuke launched at Ukraine.

  3. So? This is not about America paying more than its fair share. (Echoes of Trump and NATO). You want America to stop funding the war. Presumably, the greater the share of the funds that America holds, the greater the impact on Ukraine when it withholds them, and the sooner Ukraine will surrender.

  4. Why don’t you walk me through this? If you are convinced of it, you should know the argument. Convince me. And it has to be something more that mere associations among the Davos crowd and American and Ukrainian government officials. That was the stuff of the Russia Hoax. I really do not want to read books of it.

  5. I don’t know either.

  6. What does it say about my thinking?

We can each be the judge of what wastes her time.