It’s hard to be isolationist when your government is hell bent on waging war across the entire globe either directly or through proxies.
Make no mistake, this war is just as much Biden’s as it is Putin’s, maybe even more so.
I’m not isolationist. I’m anti-warmonger. I have been saying from the beginning that this conflict could go nuclear and therefore our government has a responsibility to negotiate and de-escalate. Instead DC has responded with tens of billions in weapons and bloodthirsty propaganda.
Please. You're no anti-warmonger. You're a Putin propagandist. Sure the Biden administration could've been clearer with its signals before Putin invaded, but there's no way in hell that this is as much Biden's war as it is Putin's. And possibly more so? Lol.
Did Biden force Puti-put to target and destroy hospitals and other civilian targets? Did Biden force the Russian army to commit war crimes? No, there is only one person responsible for this war. And that is your apparent evil buddy, Putin.
Actually one could argue that you are the Putin propagandist. Immediately dismissing another point of view is done to shut off debate. Who wants to shut off debate? Commies.
And if you look at Biden’s language, he gave a green light to Putin through his minor incursion talk. I’ll save you having to use the Google. “And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do,"
Because it totally ignores the fact that early on Zelensky signaled readiness to go to the table for peace talks and NATO allies, led by the U.S., shut him down and steered him back to the fight, promising our taxpayer money and weapons.
Also, it ignores the fact that the Bidens were in Ukraine during the Obama years doing enough shady dealing that Biden used his VP influence to shut down a Ukrainian investigation (remember Burisima?) by threatening to withhold US aid money (you’ve seen the video clip of Joe boasting about this to Dem donors, no?).
There are solid reasons to see this as Biden’s war, not just Putin’s, and to be skeptical of efforts to paint current US policy as heroic. More like CYA.
They aren't extraordinary, they're actually pretty well-known, ordinary arguments. So...C+ for effort. 😉
Fwiw, I'm un-woke in PA, so we likely agree on at least as much as we disagree on. I suspect I'll "like" your comments on a different topic, probably already have. 😏
Putin is not just invading Ukraine, he is rattling the saber in the Baltic states, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the small Baltic countries, like Estonia and its neighbors. They are scared to death that his armies will roll into their countries. Putin has already said he will take Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. and he is flying jets over Swedish air space.
If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, where is he stopped? In 1938, the allies caved to Hitler with "Peace in our time" and all it did was embolden him. The same will happen with Putin if we cave now. Too bad we have the ever senile Joe in charge. Knowing a senile idiot is in charge sure lets me well sleep at night. Thank God for the Democrats/Communists.
I generally agree with your positions but not this time. I think we can take it for granted that Putin does not have the wherewithal to advance into Europe. Unless of course this Ukraine debacle is the real Russian disinformation campaign.
Lynne, I'm just telling you what I have read that Putin threatened the small Baltic states with invasion and has been harassing Sweden and Finland. I take him at his word. I think he is a psychopathic nut case as was Hitler.
We can take if for granted that NOW Putin doesn't have the wherewithal.
If he'd swept through Ukraine like he planned? I suppose Your guess is as good as anybody's. But I think Sweden and Finland voted on Putin not stopping at Ukraine by joining NATO, right?
Not only did Biden tacitly approve a "minor" incursion into Ukraine, he helpfully shut down most domestic oil and gas exploration, making the U.S. and Europe more dependent on the Russians and other foreign producers. What perfect timing.
I agree with you that the Biden Administration sent signals, e.g. with the Afghanistan debacle, that encouraged V. Putin to think that he could get away with an attack on Ukraine. What no one reckoned on was the poor performance of the Russian armed forces, which proved far less formidable that most people imagined. Once this became clear and after some dithering, the Biden Administration got onto the right track. To quit now would be to give Putin an unearned victory. As long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight, we should support them.
Well, it's unclear to me that we should prolong this thing. An estimated 100K people on both sides have been killed or injured. How many more deaths is it worth? Would you send your own sons to fight the Russians? Would you go yourself?
My view is, the Russian invasion was unfortunate, illegal, and wrong, but we can't be the world's policeman.
We've already sent Ukraine $50B and now Biden's trying to get another $50B. That would make this the most aid to any country in any war ever (in one year). Are they worth it?
Ari Hoffman made a great point on Grace Curley's show yesterday. Ukraine was, and probably still is, a very corrupt country. We don't know what's been done with all that money. Shouldn't we at least find out, before we send them even more of our hard-earned cash?
Also worth thinking about: the Ukrainians were ready to negotiate a truce in April, probably cede some territory, but the Biden Administration basically told them to keep on fighting. Biden, for reasons known only to his inner circle, or maybe to the defense corporations that stand to make huge profits, has prolonged this thing unnecessarily.
The Russians can probably keep this up for many months to come, even years. Ukraine will just become a wasteland eventually, if their infrastructure keeps getting bombed. Tens of thousands more will die. Billions in "aid" will be wasted.
Furthermore, although Russia's been exposed as having a weak and inadequate ground force, they still have strong technical capabilities in the area of cyber warfare, and it's highly likely they will be seeking revenge for the many deaths the U.S. has caused with its high tech weaponry and satellite imagery.
The U.S. is in a proxy war with Russia, for reasons that are unclear. Did we really need to go to war at this time? Is corrupt, kleptocratic Ukraine really the hill we must die on, to preserve so-called liberty and democracy?
I mean, maybe it is, but I wish there were more discussion and debate, rather than this reflexive "if you're not with us, you're against us" kind of jingoistic talk. Online, the liberals of all people have latched onto Ukraine as a cause célèbre, with their little Ukrainian flag emojis and putting down anyone who questions it as a "Putin puppet". What stupidity. Not a one of these people would ever display an American flag, I notice.
More to the point, if Russia is pushed into a corner, it is possible they will finally deploy nuclear weapons and that would be a horrible thing for the entire world.
Actually, Unwoke, and this is not a rebuke, but your use of the word 'commies' stirs up memories for me. Sounds like Goldwater and Nixon all over again..
During Trump's presidency, the US armed forces were engaged in various combat operations around the world. And more generally, Trump was a lousy president. After squeaking past Hillary the Horrible in 2016, he proceeded to blow the 2018 midterms, his own 2020 reelection, the Georgia Senate runoff elections and now the 2022 midterms. That was the GOP's reward for allowing itself to be transformed into a grotesque cult of personality centering on Trump.
Trump gave the U.S. military in Syria the latitude to fully engage ISIS rather than the dicking around that the Pentagon career generals were engaged in up to that point. The commanders in the field then quickly routed ISIS within a couple of weeks and effectively ended their occupation of that region. Trump then withdrew most of those troops.
I would call that finishing a war, not just "being engaged" which purpose was apparently to simply keep the defense spending spigots running.
Saying he was a lousy president is nothing but a blanket condemnation with almost no factual basis. Trump was quite good, surprisingly effective considering the Democrats worked night and day to undermine him with false accusations, impeachments, media lies, whatever they could do. They are traitors to their country, liars and scum who should be themselves impeached and prosecuted for what they have done... not just to Trump but to the United States. They worked to weaken the United States just to take out one man.
And by the way, he started no new wars. He even resisted calls to hit Iran after they hit a U.S. base in Iraq. He asked, how many casualties might it cause, and the estimate was several hundred. He then stated it wasn't worth the loss of life, even Iranian life.
How??? How can you call a man like that incompetent? Obama, Bush, Bush Sr., and Biden all have blood on their hands. Trump actually took a fresh look, bucked the military-industrial complex, and tried to end these conflicts.
In support of my charge that Trump was a lousy president, I provided the fact of four electoral debacles. There is also the fact that on January 6, 2021, he was derelict in his duty as commander-in-chief. He sat around in the White House watching TV, doing nothing, while the US Capitol was being sacked by his MAGA goons. That was the climax of his truly heinous post-election behavior.
I don't say that Trump did nothing good. I am saying that when one balances the books, the bad greatly outweighs the good. He's a bad, bad man whose political career has thankfully come to an ignominious end.
Calling someone a “Putin Propagandist” is name calling just bc you have a different opinion! Agree to disagree should be enough, but sadly the last part of today’s article is obviously displayed in the comment section here. Be CIVIL, please!
Skinny, calling some a “Putin Propagandist” or a “MAGA Trump cult member” etc.) is offensive. I get that one may take issue with an opinion that differs from their own, but attacking a person, rather than their view isn’t necessary. Just be civil & agree to disagree.
There is no question this is a war of choice and Biden’s puppet masters intentionally walked past every opportunity to deescalate this conflict and took every opportunity to escalate it. There is also little doubt in my mind, the US destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline just like Biden promised they would do. The goal, of course, is to future enrage the bear and push for WW III.
I don't know if it's Biden's war but it more an American/NATO war than people realize. We pushed Russia too hard, expanding NATO even to the point of discussing admitting Ukraine. How would we have felt back in the 70s and 80s if the USSR had proposed adding Mexico to the old Eastern Bloc? It wouldn't have gone down well with us, and NATO expanding to the Russian borders hasn't gone down well with them.
Well, the Biden Administration signed an agreement in November 2021 with Ukraine allowing it to apply for membership in NATO. That continued 30 years of NATO expansion and attempted expansion, up to the borders of Russian, something George Kennan expressly warned against and Barack Obama opposed. Three months later, Russia invaded Ukraine. You may not see a connection, but many others do.
“Putin propagandist” is your opinion from reading just one comment?? Shame on you for immediately attempting to shutdown a conversation by name calling! It’s okay to have a different opinion, but to resort to responding to ideas you disagree with by making it about the person and not their opinion simply makes you look bad. Common Sense provides a place (unlike other social media platforms) where civil people can come together WITHOUT displaying bad manners! Otherwise, if one isn’t capable of doing so then Twitter is the place for them.
Despite what the media would have you believe, a lot of strategic thinkers cautioned that war was likely if the West continued down the path it’d been following since the fall of the Soviet Union, and they argue that the U.S. could have, and should have, prevented the breakout of war by offering to retract support for Ukraine to one day join NATO. For even the briefest review of history reveals it was evident Russia was willing to go to war over Ukraine’s NATO status, which it perceived as an existential national security threat. Putin himself cited this factor as fundamental to his rationale for invading Ukraine.
It was crystal clear that Putin was serious about an invasion, to the point where U.S. intelligence agencies were practically giving play-by-play updates to a disbelieving Zelenskyy, and yet the U.S. still didn’t table the NATO status question. Because of our obstinacy and reckless flirtation in dangling this carrot to Ukraine, we crossed a red line for Russia without even committing to Ukraine’s defense. The promise of future NATO membership comes with no security guarantees.
I rarely respond to you but I am going to violate my standards this time. It is actually the fault of the misguided souls who ushered Biden into office. And the notion you have a grip on "reality" is laughable. Virtual reality maybe. Real world reality? No.
Biden is not in control...his lackey, delusional DC leftists are. I always find it laughable that you continue to bring up MAGA and Trump. With all of the idiocy going on since the democrats have taken control of the government (both domestic and foreign policy), all you can do blather about is Trump. Nice thought process comprof.
Totally agree it takes two to tango. And weren’t those hospitals being used by Iraqi military to shield their troops and operations...? Not sure the narrative is simplistic on either side.
I see what you are trying to say, but its not similar really. It would be more correct to compare the UN giving the green light for Bush's invasion of Iraq and then saying its the UN's fault that Bush decided to invade Iraq. Interesting...so technically by the same logic it is not Bush's fault he attacked Iraq. Its mostly Europe's fault. Hahaha.
However, it is correct to say the EU bears a great deal of responsibility for joining us. Itwas not a NATO issue. They should have stood up to us.
So partially correct. But not mostly correct. I do think our policy on Putin's invasion was titally inept. I cannot know why we had such poor diplomacy on Putin when this was gearing up. Or why EU ever let Putin control their energy supply (cheap or no).
Seems to me that either our leaders are not very bright or they wanted this to happen. Take your own pick. The leaders were warned by many experts on Putin that this could happen. But they didn't really try to prevent this - that is a fact. They listened to a smaller number of experts who said Putin would never ever be so dumb (dumb like a fox). Those same people think he shouldnt be deterred now.
The West can provide Ukraine with Mutually Assured Destruction . But we seem unwilling to say it outright and unified. Putin is far more likely to try if he isnt sure we will absolutely nuke him if he dares.
We should point our nukes at all of his likely hidey holes and show him pics. Sit him down with every Western leader and show the slides.
The end. But it shouldnt have come to this. Yes, its Putins fault for wanting this. But he gave us months to talk him out of it. We barely tried. Maybe for cheap gas and diesel or maybe for more nefarious reasons. I am not psychic. But here we are.
Blame NATO. They expanded closer and closer to Russias border for no rhyme or reason. We used Ukraine as a vassal against Russia. It was left wingers pushing their anti-Russia nonsense for years. Zelensky is an oligarch sociopath who is trying to get the US into this war. This war could have been prevented but we goaded Russia over and over. Get some critical thinking skills.
I never said Putin wasn’t an autocratic leader but he isn’t a communist. You need to learn the difference and that is the answer to #2. Anti-Russia is not the same as anti-communist. Communists are preoccupied with equity and will kill 100’s of millions to achieve it.
#1: on the last day of January, 1990 there were agreements made with Gorby on the Eastward expansion of NATO. When Biden said he was open to Ukraine joining NATO Putin started massing troops on the Russia/Ukraine border.
The funny thing is: the Politifact “fact checkers” (aka: PC makers) are working triple time “debunking” all the stories about this from 2010-2019.
This is Biden’s war of choice and the 100’s of thousands of deaths are a stain on him and everyone that finds this war “virtuous”.
We had a chance to give Putin some breathing room. All Biden had to say was: "There is no plan to include Ukraine in NATO and we see no reason to have them join." Such a non-committal would have let Putin claim we backed down and save face. Instead he said he favored regime change.
When dealing with megalomaniacs one needs to feed their egos and prepare for the worst. Talk softly and carry a big stick. Trump did this with Kim and it worked well.
Please explain why V. Putin should be allowed to dictate US foreign policy. Actually what you’re suggesting is that the US and NATO should have allowed themselves to be blackmailed by an aggressor who openly declared his intentions.
Putin did not, and should not, dictate US foreign policy. Biden screwed it up on his own, as he has everything else he touched. But your comment illustrates to me a, maybe the, problem with modern day political decision-making identify an ogre and do the opposite, whether to do so is rational or not, or good policy or not.
I'm sorry. But Your hatred of Biden leaves Putin outta the equation. I'm not seeing that. Putin crossed the border and attempted a takeover. That's reality.
We survived the Cold War because the realists understood that simple fact. Why do we get to dictate what Russia must tolerate? We cannot, and compromise is part and parcel of diplomacy, something that the US abandoned in favor of a unipolar approach that the rest of the world is tired of.
Sorry, Big T, I don't agree. You're assuming Vladimir is a man of his word. If Biden in January/February of this year had said exactly what you propose, I can easily see Putin interpreting that as a NATO (read American) willingness to give Russia relative carte blanche vis a vis Ukraine, with no continued commitment to fund Ukraine's defence.
I think Putin would have still gone in, because he wanted (needed) Zelenskyy out. In other words, possible NATO membership for Ukraine was not the reason why Putin made his, as it turned out, mistake. He considered Ukraine part of Mother Russia, and that was that. He might think differently now..
As for your analogy re North Korea - Kim started firing his play missiles again while Trump was still in office. The 'love affair' was very clearly over..
This current situation reminds me of the escalation up to the Iraq war. I remember one young woman stood up on the Oprah show to express some reservations. Oprah shut her down. I have nothing against Oprah but it seemed like no one was allowed to express any doubt. When thousands—including a friend of mine—gathered in Times Square to protest the Iraq invasion, I remember the Times buried the story on the back pages, zero attention to thousands of citizens taking to the streets, while the first pages were filled with pontifications from supposedly knowledgeable pols and military. We know how that turned out.
I personally was okay with both Iraq and Afghanistan but wanted them wrapped up in six months. I wanted it as a “teaching moment” for any regime funding or giving sanctuary to terrorists. I am against “exporting” democracy.
This is positively Orwellian. V. Putin invades Ukraine, his armed forces committing countless war crimes in the process, and America is warmongering? Thank you for this excellent demonstration of doublethink.
The eastward encouragement of NATO is seen as an existential threat to Russia, and has informed their actions over the last decade. It's not specifically Bidens fault anymore than it was Obama's (who did not respond materially to the Georgian annexation). But pointing this out doesn't make anyone an apologist, acknowledging geopolitical reality helps us understand what's happening much more than RUSSIAN MAN CRAZY does
Regardless of the merits of NATO expansion, the truth doesn't matter in international politics. If the Russians see NATO expansion as an existential threat, then they will act accordingly (which they did). Is Putin justified in his war? No. Should we have done some better long-term decision making when it came to expanding NATO? Probably.
Well put. Well except for the not specifically Biden's or Obama's fault part. What I don't get is why they took the actions they did. Can it really just about the money?
The conditions for the current Ukrainian war have been brewing since the fall of the Soviet Union, but there’s people who are smarter than me who have laid those things out.
As to whether it’s all about money; I don’t think so. There’s probably a large dose of plain old stupidity involved.
It's a truism one should follow the money. But, no. That's not the sole (and mebbe not even the main) explanation in a situation as complicated as geopolitics.
The conditions for this tragedy have been percolating for well over two decades and at each step DC chose not to take the path that would lead us away from this conflict. This war was predicted by the man who built NATO to offset the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. He advised against the expansion of NATO to the East as it would unnecessarily turn Russia into an enemy. Or perhaps you think that Russia invested billions in gas pipelines to Western Europe only to sacrifice them as part of their master plan to rebuild the Soviet Union by reconquering Eastern Europe militarily? The cognitive dissonance that requires is pretty astounding.
Putin bears responsibility for invading, yes, But the willful ignorance about the conditions that led to this conflict and our part in it demonstrates to me that the ever pervasive Western propaganda works exceedingly well.
Yes, I'm familiar with this line of argument, which is that V. Putin has the standing to dictate to other countries what their foreign policy should be. Let's think a bit. Why should NATO expansion turn Russia into an enemy? Russia has nothing to fear from NATO—or wouldn't if it behaved like peaceable good neighbor. But with V. Putin's advent, Russian foreign policy has been focused on the recreation in one form or another of the Russian imperium that ended with the demise of the USSR. That's the reason for Putin's war on Ukraine and as a matter of fact he's made no bones about it, reviling Ukraine as a fake country with no right to exist. I take him at his word.
Biden is cognitively impaired but based on your comment so are you, or you are a partisan liar. This is Putin’s war. Russia invaded Ukraine. The invasion is completely unjustified.
The only way to end this war and all future wars is for the aggressor to be defeated. You are in fact a war monger who is using this war to wage war on the other party.
Not exactly, Terrence. Old Vicki Nuland was lurking about as usual, stirring things up. The truth is that Biden's administration of dunces was stirring up NATO membership for Ukraine while at the same time slow walking defensive arms to them. Not a strategy calculated for success, especially knowing Putin's paranoia about NATO on his borders. Not to exculpate Putin or his brutal and inhumane tactics that continue to this day. But we had a hand in this.
Lee, stop with the derogatory name calling please! Disagreement is okay, but the need to make those you disagree with somehow “a war monger, lying, a Putin propagandist, etc.” takes away your creditability to debate. Be CIVIL, please!
I haven’t exactly seen posters of Russian soldiers dripping with blood from their mouths. If anything I think there is an attempt to try to show ordinary Russians struggling to cope, from new draftees to families back home, despite the fact that they have allowed themselves to become essentially a nation of slaves.
What’s interesting this time is that the people who are more “pro-war” are on the left and those more “anti-war” are on the right, in contrast to Iraq/Afghanistan.
What changed? Just the party of the President who is leading the charge?
What changed? The left still believes Putin is the reason Trump won and TDS gets fully deployed to PDS.
Because the media won’t admit to lying to the American public for 5 years (because then they would have to question the Democrats act of sedition), we find us in another proxy war.
/s Good news is we have “military advisors” on the ground now./s
Agreed the Muller probe and Steele Dossier and whatever else I haven’t paid attention to is still alive in leftmimaginatios.
But Putin was a dictator long before Trump began running for office. He was murdering Russian citizens to create a pretext to invade Chechnya right after being elected president (the first time!).
He has eliminated all political opposition and independent media, and propped up various sponsors of terrorism (Syria, Iran). And we still allowed Russia to be the direct arbiter to the Iranians of the latest stalled Iran nuclear deal.
It was the left in the form of Hillary and Obama who had their famous “reset” with Putin, and the right went apeshit.
But yes, we must see everything through the lens of Trump and the left’s hatred of him and therefore can’t spot a first class dictator and mass murderer when he invades a few countries
Thank you for your service. I bought into that action post 9/11 but I now understand the sacrifices, both foreign and domestic, were far too costly. I am heartbroken for the way we left Afghanistan though.
I think as to the populace it is because it is coming from.the other side this time. But I think the heart of it is that both parties are different sides of the same coin. That actually works so long as the coin is the good of the nation. But that is, I believe off the rails at this time and it is about the good if each party, or more accurately the hogs at each party's trough. But we have the tools to fix it - the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Do we have the will? It will mean draining that swamp. And not just the Democrat side.
Damn, right. These same morons calling for us to get involved in Ukraine are the same people who were calling Iraq lost in 2006 and Afghanistan the “good war” from 2008-2012.
It’s a strange world we live in where the academia are more gung-ho than the veterans.
That’s a fair point but I don’t accept it fully. What would happen if in Afghanistan there had actually been an organized army to fight the Taliban, and the US gave them arms and money rather than deploy soldiers?
The situations (currently) aren’t the same.
It’s very possible a lot of the policy is designed with China in mind. And the US gains something by seeing the Russian military screw itself over, and gain intelligence on 21st century warfare, without losing soldiers.
The point about expressing dissent and the NYT circa 2003 is important, yet analytically the policy is simply not the same as our Middle East wars.
So Lee (how about that, we share names..), do I assume from your comment that if we had honoured our 'responsibility to negotiate' prior to or during the initial stages of this conflict, wily old Putin would have gone away back to his lair, satisfied? As we would be, apparently staving off a possible gateway to WWIII? Sounds pseudo Chamberlain, circa 1938, to me.
That would have left Russia's military relatively intact (in tatters, now) and perhaps lining up facing the anxiety ridden Baltic States, with Putin quite rightly feeling that NATO nor the West generally doesn't have the stomach to confront him. And of course China, eyeing Taiwan, would have learned the same lesson.
Stop him from what? Practically begging the West to not expand NATO into Ukraine? Pleading for the West to enforce the Minsk agreements and averting ethnic genocide in the Donetsk region?
You draw parallels to 1938, but you demonstrate that you have no knowledge of the actual current situation or the steps that Moscow and DC were taking prior to this escalation.
I don’t believe I’ll change your mind on this, but I would encourage you to broaden your sources a bit. Listen to John Mearsheimer, read Michael Brenner, experts on Russian policy that go back decades. The corporate media is worse than worthless in times of war.
Your points are valid ones, Lee. I remember Kennan's warning twenty or so years ago on the provocation of eastward NATO expansion. I also remember Russia's willingness at one time to join that very organization (an opportunity missed, in my view..). But the hard fact remains that Ukraine was not a NATO partner at the time of the invasion. Nor was there a hard promise to accept an invitation to join. Nor was it a part of the EU. Was Ukraine Western aligned, yes. Was it on a Western trajectory? Yes. And was that acceptable to Putin? No.
Putin considers Ukraine part of Mother Russia, and to me that undergirds his invasion. NATO is merely a sidebar.
The alignment of a neighboring sovereign nation should not be a justification for an attack. The very nature of Ukraine's savage defence of itself proves they are very serious in not wanting to be a part of Russia.
The irony that perhaps you as well can appreciate is that if NATO was indeed a part of Putin's worry, because of his invasion he now has two more NATO nations on his Northwestern flank, as in Finland and Sweden.
If he had not crossed the border into Ukraine they would not have joined.
Poor Putin, he has to beg the vile, aggressive NATO not to expand. Americans fresh from the great success of Afghanistan, Germans who can’t provide their soldiers even with thermal underwear, mighty Baltics, bloodthirsty Swedish and Finns, they all threaten little Mother Russia.
Yes, keep reading Mearsheimer, who after 2014 (the annexation of Crimea and occupation of part of the Donbas) stated that Putin will never go beyond that and he is absolutely not intent to recreate the Russian empire. After Putin started the war in 2022 and explained to everybody that Ukraine does not exist, that it’s part of the “Руский Мир” (the Russian “Lebensraum”), your Mearsheimer still published the same garbage about this being all about NATO (see The Economist). These are your “experts”.
Oh, so you’re an anti-warmonger ? So you must be totally upset with Putin, who single-handedly started this crazy war?
No, you’re just an absurd person who blames the victim and your own government for trying to help. Your bizzaro world is a perfect fit for Russian propaganda, where black turns into white and vice-versa.
Thank you for demonstrating that you zero knowledge of the geopolitical background to this war and have sucked up the propaganda like a dutiful useful idiot.
Don’t worry about Putin using nuclear weapons, it’s so much easier and cheaper for him to train an army of little blind propagandists like you. You’re a bit confused about who controls the propaganda behind “useful idiots”, in Soviet times as well as today - pick up a history book, maybe it will help.
"But countless Americans are now inclined to view the president, no matter who he or she is, as illegitimate—simply because that president hails from the opposing party."
Good grief - and we allowed such fools to lead our brave fighting men? Sorry but the current occupant of the Oval Office is viewed as illegitimate because he was installed in a flawed election, in which damaging information about him was suppressed by our so-called "free press" which is simply an adjunct of the DNC. Moreover, the senile imbecile who was installed - and who now shambles aimlessly across the world's stage sowing chaos and mayhem - is credibly corrupt. His own son's (not the one who "died in Iraq) laptop computer contains evidence that our current president took laundered cash from the very malign actors that these kooky cassandras claim are not our worst enemies. And finally, they ignore the fact that our current president is the very source of the demonization of half of our nation as fascists and white supremacists. And has elevated generals and admirals who have presided over the purging of our most effective fighting forces. Rather than playing to this destructive narrative, how about seeing that our military is led by people who are invested in its one, existential task, keeping America safe and killing its enemies efficiently?
It's a flawed election that the winning side insists was the "most secure" election in American history. That lie exceeds any of the lies told by Trump.
> "Sorry but the current occupant of the Oval Office is viewed as illegitimate because he was installed in a flawed election, in which damaging information about him was suppressed by our so-called "free press" which is simply an adjunct of the DNC."
The election wasn't flawed, Sir Bruce. The media? Yeah.
But the main thing is that Biden's not from the Rs. Could-a been anybody and You'd feel the same right? That Trump should be president?
No, jt, the "main thing" is that Biden is a senile imbecile who is corrupt and has no business being president.
Also jt please stop repeating the canard, that "the election wasn't flawed." It might not have been stolen as has been alleged but it certainly was flawed. For many reasons I have shown and repeated elsewhere. Not only the media, but a Niagara of unregulated cash, FBI involvement and suppression of information on a massive scale by media and big tech.
He lost the election. He lied about it. And You're believe his lies. I've said plenty of times the election wasn't fair, and even that a little fraud was detected, right?
Trump lost. That's the point. You can pretend otherwise all You want. Trump did.
I’m fairness jt Bruce’s point is valid. It is completely possible that Biden won AND the process was flawed. The concern here is in the credibility of the outcome
You make my point. The process was flawed, but it didn't effect the outcome. Like I've "said" all along. Biden won. Trump lost. Trump lied. How many people will agree with that, of the people in these comments?
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure that happened elsewhere.
Never said there wasn't *any* fraud. Just not enough to make a difference.
What it has to do with it is that basically the same election procedures were run in both elections. Only Trump came out with the Big Lie that it was stolen. Rather, Trump and mebbe Kari Lake. The rest of this years Rs manned up.
If one actually bothers to listen to Putin’s speeches, the official Russian nuclear doctrine hasn’t changed. It’s only retaliatory, not first strike. Whether that’s actually true or not is another issue, but this incessant misrepresentation of his actual statements is a perfect example of our propaganda. We have no such policy. We reserve the ability to use a first strike. We’re also the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons. There are no “good guys” and “bad guys”, just self interested nations executing foreign policy objectives from bad to worse. This isn’t some epic Manichaean battle between good and evil. This article is rife with war propaganda. More $$$$$ for the MIC. And no, I am not “pro” Russian. I am anti-war. This all could have been avoided if we acted like adults and strived for diplomacy, detente, and had worked to have the Minsk 1 and 2 agreements honored. Of course that’s apparently not in our “national interest”. Sigh.
The problem is that Russia - and Putin in particular - is very good at fabricating conditions to make a “responsive” strike.
Bush and Condi strived for diplomacy under Putin’s two lawful terms as President. At the time he was operating against Chechen terrorists and exploited that as common ground with Bush’s doctrine. And at the end of Bush’s term he had his puppet president invade Georgia for him.
The fact that Russians are “humiliated” when ex soviet states pick a new boyfriend is bullshit. They have nothing left but to apply force and invade.
You can be anti war all you want but don’t ever take Putin at his word.
I agree to an extent. I just think it is disingenuous to not recognize that Putin's interests and US interests are not aligned and clutch our pearls when he acts out.
Problem with that is that where in a situation now where rapid cut-off of Ukraine doesn't end well. And the bigger problem is that, while we can't be the world's policeman, there are things where if we let things just play out however they want, we're gonna end up an island of democracy in this world eventually, right?
Do we have problems? Uncountable. Can't argue against that.
Cui bono? What does the US get from sending billions to Ukraine? Do Biden et al think this will destroy Russia once and for all? How did that work out for Germany after WW I? Telling Americans we must send hundreds of billions of our printed money to help the poor suffering Ukrainians---just look at the photos---doesn’t cut it for me.
I always wonder HOW "the big guy" personally benefits from the massive influx of slush fund money. Not if. Yes, there are rationalizations to make, but in general I don't see the US commitment to Ukraine as being in US interests, certainly it's not worth a big war.
War is BIG business & actually war pays off. Look at ALL the politicians / people who benefit from building up and supporting the military contracts (stockpiles).
I support the military 100%, as I am from several generations of military men, so please do NOT misinterpret the point I am making.
Dude, ease up. Consider the possibility of alternatives. Charlie Wilson had the same POV and the result was the unleashing of radical Islam. That we suffer the consequences of to this day. Lots and lots of blood. Lots of treasure. It was not worth it.
But as far as these things go. I'm not gonna go into the long history of the area, and how we pushed Ukraine to go into NATO or any-a that. It's easy to say it's all our fault.
Too simplistic.
But that avoids the point. The point is the situation as it is NOW. If You think the withdrawal from Afghanistan was bad, and it wouldn't surprise me that figured into Putin's attack... Well, consider what letting Putin have Ukraine would do. Or even a big chunk of it. Rewarding the aggressor is the least of it.
We're in a bad situation right now. Because we hafta let Putin win *something,* or he'll never quit the war. Or, rather, I don't see how he could. His very survival may depend on it.
At the same time, if we *cave?* I don't think it's a good idea to announce we're approaching third-world status until it's a foregone conclusion. Does anybody see this? I'm guess not.
I’m not sure why we should give any credibility to the words or ‘insights’ from a man who oversaw, as NATO Commander, the disaster in Afghanistan for many years.
Damn right. Not a single one of the generals or admirals have been held responsible for the disaster in Afghanistan. I guess they were too busy giving each other medals.
Nobody considers Alleged President Asterisk illegitimate because he's from the wrong party. They consider him illegitimate because he was swept into office by a combination of fraud, a gutless opposition party, and a whimpering, fearful judiciary that wouldn't allow a single shred of evidence to even be heard, citing "standing" and other irrelevancies, lest it become immortalized in the public record.
A few months ago, we learned with the overturn of Roe vs. Wade that massive errors do not go away by the simple passage of time; they just fester like abscesses until they are lanced. Thus it will be with the Titular President's "election."
He's illegitimate mainly because he's mentally incompetent. Congress hasn't invoked the replacement amendment because of who the replacement would be. I'm not surprised at that. KH would become president and would get to name her successor, subject to approval. of the Senate. But the Senate is divided 50/50 and KH would no longer be able to break the tie--she'd then be president, not VP any longer.
Best case scenario would be for KH to be impeached in January. Joe is declared "unable." Next in line is Speaker of the House, who would ~no longer be~ Nancy.
It seems more than possible that Ukraine deliberately fired the missiles into Poland in order to bring NATO troops into the war or at the very least push for mo money mo money mo money. Because isn’t it fishy that firing missiles to the west against Russians somehow ended up go8ng east into Poland?
As admiral Painter said in The Hunt For Red October (in which literally everything can be explained) “This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
No doubt the US destroyed the pipeline. Funny how Trump was vilified for asking Germany not to depend upon Russia for energy. But when Biden crew literally blow up the pipeline…crickets.
"the Russian military, according to its doctrine, would employ a strategy of escalate to de-escalate. The idea is straightforward: dramatically escalate from conventional to nuclear weapons with the goal of shocking one’s enemy into quickly suing for peace. It is a philosophy of warfare that differs fundamentally from our own, and that’s designed for a nation, like Russia, with a nuclear capability that far exceeds that of its conventional forces. "
Have these guys forgotten "shock and awe" which was precisely this strategy designed to cause the Iraqi military to give up. Obvious errors like this seriously degrade the credibility of these authors.
"North Korea, which is also predictable in its unpredictability, has conducted six consecutive nuclear tests this year. One of those tests sent a ballistic missile sailing over Japan."
They are asserting that the missiles were nuclear. No where else have I seen this mentioned. Perhaps they are trying to say that any missile is potentially nuclear. Very sloppily written.
"Putin made unfounded claims that Ukraine was preparing to use a “dirty bomb”.... Those comments were part of a disinformation campaign conducted by Russia, which has itself used such weapons."
Sloppy writing? This borders on defamation. Next they'll be telling us it was the Russians who blew up the USS Maine.
I noticed that also. They are still testing their payload delivery systems; very unlikely they'd waste an unused nuclear payload in a test - or even in a provocative demonstration.
"If the war in Ukraine goes nuclear, there’s a good chance a dirty bomb will be the first rung on this ladder of escalation. "
A dirty bomb doesn't kill quickly or destroy much infrastructure. Why would this be a first choice? It doesn't advance short term military goals. I would expect a better rationale from these military experts.
By the way, I would like all those here supporting the rush to war — for as long as it takes!—to be sure to enroll in the military or pull their kids out of those Ivy League colleges and get them enlisted. The Iraq war had too many working class kids. It’s equity! Get your a— in the military! Let’s tell Putin who is boss. Why talk about negotiations!
When you mentioned Chinese sleeper cells activating I was unable to concentrate on the bulk of the article.
Here in Canada we have become aware of Chinese "police" that have set up camp in most of our major cities. With the permission of our government we can only assume, because they show no signs of leaving. The people who have escaped China are being chased inside the country where they sought refuge, and from what we can see no one cares. My concern is that these "police" may indeed be sleeper cells and they are here to take us by surprise from within when this World War begins. This won't be a World War, it will be a war against the working class.
In 2019 and 2020 we discovered the Canadian gov't under Trudeaus blessing had been training Chinese military on our bases and showing them... what exactly? They were officers. Why would we have them here for excersizes of any kind? Why did the US stand by and watch that happening?
I believe we need to be fixing the issues on our own shores of North America before we go looking for trouble anywhere else. Canadians are our neighbors and yet we've watched them be beaten, tear gassed and have horses ridden over them during a legal peaceful protest... we watched and did nothing. We have foxes in the henhouse but everyone is looking at countries overseas which have been at war with one another since the beginning of time.
The US dropped atomic bombs on Japan knowing full well what those bombs would do. Russia is not about to that to a country that is at least 1/2 Russian. If the US would simply back off and let the dust settle we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
The military does what it's told to do by those who are supposed to be at the helm. Think about that and then look at our situation here in North America.
Our prime minister's chiding was very satisfying to watch. Now that mainstream press is no longer on his side, he will find his remaining days in office increasingly difficult - unless he hands out more money to the media.
Well his parents are Sta-a-a-ahnford Laws. And his little chickadoodke girlfriend's, I mean CEO of the illegally floated Alameda Research, are St-a-a-a-ahnford economists.
> "We should all fear the day when a vast majority of Americans cannot agree on who the rightful commander in chief is. All international what ifs pale in comparison to this domestic what if, and if we’re not careful, we could become our own worst-case scenario."
We're living in that very day right now, right? Many in these comments still believe the Big Lie: That the election was stolen from Trump. They believe this, mainly, because Trump told them so repeatedly. That's the very method to use propaganda for nefarious purposes.
And, yeah. This is a worst-case scenario we're dealing with. And, yeah, it could *always* get worse. Recent elections bring some relief, as was written in article. Still...
The only way to satisfy the public that the elections are fair and honest is to ensure that every vote is auditable and traceable. Without that one cannot say for certain who won any election, including 2000 and 2020. The dodgy election mechanisms in numerous states can readily be fixed, but both parties need to agree on them. Mail-in voting and vote harvesting are ripe for mischief, and the voting roles should be updated annually. The Donkeys are more at fault for continuing the current problems.
We've been having elections for 250 years. Alluva sudden, with Trump's Big Lie, nothing less than every vote being auditable and traceable is good enough?
No! I'm not against the idea. Where I live, OH, You vote, the vote is printed for You to check. Being a programmer, I know even that's not foolproof audit. Pity the fool.
I'm not aware of what the two parties have done, so You could be right. But knowing Your bias, it's just as likely that the Donkeys have done as much as the Elephants.
Realistically voting has changed drastically and a lot of that was done under cover of the pandemic. Used to be you voted on Election Day, absentees only for those unable to be in town. Now it’s mail a Ballot to anyone on an unpurged voter roll and wait weeks for the ballots to roll in and not through the US mail but in trunks and pickups.
I have voted in OH for almost 50 years. We have a highly auditable system. Not perfect, but among the best. Many other states have much looser requirements for establishing one's residency and legitimacy of a ballot. It is inarguable that the Covid modifications in PA and other states were pushed by Donkeys and that they favor poor tracking of votes.
The problem with those requirements is we also need them to be anonymous - a conflicting set of requirements. The only solution I see is a transparent _process_ sufficient to convince the losers that they lost. Electronic counting systems are by definition nontransparent. Tree- structured monitored hand counting at the precinct level works elsewhere and used to work here. Anything else leads to Stalin's quip.
Hand-counting used to be the way it was ALWAYS done. And the results were still available by morning. My mom, as a poll worker, was always in the counting room. They counted ballots as they came in throughout the day, and then recounted them after the polls closed (at which point the results were phoned in, with people from both parties listening). She was almost always done by 11pm.
Some argue that our population is larger, but that also means there are more people who could be poll workers. If states are not creating more precincts to handle the increase in population, that is on the decision-makers in those states. In other words, there is NO EXCUSE for not conducting elections in the same way they have been conducted in the past THAT WORKED.
It seems evident that the breakdown in our election system is INTENTIONAL, since it could have been so easily avoided.
I don't know that I'd go so far as intentional, but certainly foolish, exploitable and counter-productive. And getting to the point where neither side is willing to concede their losses.
Introducing electronics into the process was the first step in making elections less secure. The results a machine spits out are entirely dependent on the people who constructed and/or programmed the machine.
The most secure part of paper ballots is the fact that they have to be counted by people who can be watched. I don't know if it's still true, but when my mom counted ballots there had to be an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in the room at all times.
My dad worked out front distributing ballots, and the same was true for those poll workers--equal numbers at all times. It encouraged everyone to remain ethical in their behavior.
Another aspect of paper ballots is that if any questions arise, the ballots remain in secure storage for a period of time so they can be inspected and, if necessary, recounted.
This system gives people a lot more confidence in the results of an election. Changing it to a LESS secure system suggests a desire to exploit the weaknesses of that less secure system. Those who promote less secure systems are either hopelessly naive or intend to cheat. And I do not believe that those who have the power make these choices are naive.
They believe it because it was demonstrably not a free and fair election even if votes were not miscounted or manipulated. Because -
The number of people not presenting IDs and voting in person was unprecedented;
The cash from people such as Zuckerberg, Soros and Bankman Fried going to Dems was staggering;
The unregulated in-kind contributions from media, 95% of whom are Dems was worse than ever;
The lies and drumbeat of actual misinformation from that media was truly insane - the 51 former intel liars, the suppression of the Hunter laptop, the ongoing Russian collusion lies; and
The actual and demonstrable weirdness of the election, itself, sapped confidence in its fairness.
Don't tell people that election was the freest and fairest when it demonstrably was not. Because people tend not to like being lied to.
You defeat Your own argument. I never "said" it was the freest and fairest. In fact, if You recall, I've written a number of times that it wasn't fair. Freest? What does that even *mean*? Everybody was free to vote. What else do You want.
If You didn't like being lied to, You never should-a listened to Trump.
I thought I "liked" this post before. Evidently not.
And I made common mistake of looking for something to disagree with, rather than trumpeting the parts we agree on. I'd slap Your back if You were here, because You're the first person I've ever seen from Your side-a the aisle to say that. Since his earliest NYC developer days even. I heard that, but didn't know enough about it to say it.
And I've already conceded that I'd prefer he not run (although that train's left the station) and that I believe DeSantis and others are better candidates. In his defense, Trump was assailed unfairly as President and probably unlawfully, too. But his personality didn't help him either, and the whole process was just too exhausting for the good of the country. That said, I expect the left will be just as vicious toward DeSantis if his momentum were to gain steam.
Yeah, he was definitely assailed. I'd like to see the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" thing investigated. But too bad he had such a thin skin, as You've "said" before.
If the Left goes after DeSantis? They may try. But he just won't give them the material Trump did. Did You see Trump's comment about Glen Younkin?
"Young Kin. Sounds kind-a Chinese, doesn't it." And people say Trump's smart. This is an R he's talking about. Because Younkin didn't bend the knee.
Anyhoo, I'd like to see the Left go after DeSantis. Would just make them look *more* ridiculous than they do now, to people in the Center, right?
I hear Ya, but journalism started down the long, slippery slope back when Dubya was running, right? At least that far back, mebbe earlier. At least there's Fox.
Social media? They're an arm of the D party AFAIK.
And I agree the FBI and the laptop should be looked into.
There were enough irregularities about the 2020 election that people suspected malfeasance, without Trump voicing it. I don't know for a fact it was enough to make the difference, but the behavior of those who seem to want to suppress any questions seems like guilty behavior, to me. Add in the perpetual renewal of the "pandemic emergency" (recently renewed yet again), the full court press against any measures to increase confidence in elections, and the push for mass ballot mailing with little or no control measures and that "big lie" starts to seem like a big question mark. Add in the death of actual journalism in favor of propaganda and support of censoring any story that might embarrass one party and the confidence we SHOULD have is undermined. Suppressing information that affects an election is just as harmful as stealing votes, IMO.
You can believe whatever You want. Some-a what You "say" about the election process is valid. If You wanna decide the election was stolen, that's on You. Like You said Yourself, You don't know. Except what Trump told You.
And the only problem with Your views is that Trump lost. And he lied.
Also, please note that almost the first thing Pelosi did after the2020 election was to try to take over the mechanics of elections in all 50 states. It failed, but the intent was clear.
My observation is that the Democrat Party strategy seems to center around two things: demagoguery of their opponents, often with very misleading accusations, and controlling the voting mechanics. All this rather than offering policies that draw in voter support—a broad base of voter support. Do people really want open borders, confused kids (a common state) targeted for sex change, ever more spending on social programs and paying people to not work, war, vaccine and mask mandates, abdicating US self determination to international bodies ... ?
I doubt it. I think most people are somewhere in the center, but are much more rational than the hard left. When they begin behaving like an American party, focused on American interests then they will earn more votes the honest way—through honest transparency and policy. The last Democrat I would have considered voting for was Paul Tsongas, who despite being a staunch liberal, understood that America's welfare depended on a strong private sector, to pay for the social programs. He was honest, even if I didn't necessarily agree with him on many issues. Honesty and openness go a long way with voters.
Weeeel, somehow we ranged from talking about voting to a general discussion of politics. All that may be true, but I just skimmed it because that's not at issue here.
Like You said, the Fed can't do a thing about how the states hold their elections, Pelosi or not.
If You're gonna talk about demagoguery, then look no farther that Trump and the MAGA supporters.
jt, I don't understand why you are interpreting questions about very recent changes to electoral (and journalistic) processes as statements that the election was stolen and Trump won. Not one commenter has said that, but you have attributed that idea to all of them.
Mebbe I have never said anything about it one way or the other. I just don't believe raising questions should be answered by assuming "you are one-a them".
We *always* try to determine where a speaker is coming from. What's the bias, because *EVERYBODY* has them. And, in case You haven't noticed, these comments are a *very* us-and-them environment. Especially when it's almost entirely made up of "us" and I'm one-a the very few "thems."
So just going by the *odds,* I'd guess You voted for Trump and I'm nearly certain M. Selden did. I take that into account. Like You don't?
Many people believe that Trump was not the President because he was installed by Putin…there’s that too. And that Bush was not the valid President in 2000. So please be sure to provide the all important “context” for your contentions…
jt in case you missed it, I have been punctilious about never stating that the election was stolen or that the votes counted didn't make Biden the winner. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the appalling unfairness of the 2020 election.
Bruce, this is a really good distinction that is lost on lots of people. The 2020 election outcome likely was a real reflection of the popular will, but the process was appalling.
1800 was a mess. 1876 was too. 1960 was questionable.
The important thing is to make sure we fix the problems, something the Democrats seem completely uninterested in. A democracy can survive a questionable election, but not 2 or 3 or 4 questionable elections in a row -- especially if the same party wins each time, so the same people consistently believe they lost unfairly.
Especially when things turn as bad as they have in the US since 1/20/2021: the economy, fuel prices, border mess, Afghanistan debacle, crime, etc…. I used to believe this much destruction in such a short time was impossible. This can only be a deliberate imposition to remake America.
Canceling oil and gas exploration on most of U.S. territory was totally deliberate, and resulted in disastrous economic consequences at home and around the world.
He literally shut down oil and gas on federal lands, one of his first EO's in the first week. Goal was to "transition" the country to green energy. What a disaster.
Weeeel, I dunno enough about history, but I sort-a doubt it. My recollection is the election of 1876 the guy with the *least* electoral votes ended up the president by backroom deal-making.
I misread what You "said," then. Because it sure sounded like, not only was the election unfair (which I've said from the beginning), but also that Biden was illegitimate. You didn't say that?
I believe Biden is illegitimate because he is senile and corrupt. Not because he didn't get the votes. So let's agree that his election was legitimate even as he is not a fit candidate for the office.
The thing about Biden is, even putting aside those issues, he's always been just a very ordinary career politician. He's never been a leader and has never done anything remarkable. Trump was remarkable. Obama was remarkable. Biden is just someone who has lived his life at the public trough. It's pretty clear that he was nominated to be a stealth candidate, in the standard Democratic "run to the center, govern to the left" mold, and that's exactly what he has done. But it left him owing favors to so many different party factions. That's why his staff keeps having to walk back everything he says.
That's easy to agree to. I'd also like to agree that Trump showed, in hindsight if not ahead-a time, that he wasn't a fit candidate either. That may be too far for You to go.
But that's why I've said over the past year (year-and-a-half now?), if it's Biden/Trump, I won't vote for either. Heaven help us if it is.
Sorry for not getting back to this earlier... The circumstances of Trump's winning were obviously very unusual. I think Trump was a necessary shock to the system at the time. But that time has passed now, and I really wish Trump would not run again. I'm curious to see what is going to happen to Trumpism. It seems to me that it's two factions. One faction is pretty much a personality cult centered around Trump. The other faction is a populist faction that is not necessarily bound to Trump, and might be already swinging its support to DeSantis. This latter faction is a group that sees populism as a counter to the elitism that has infested our government (in both parties).
It's funny... twenty years ago, I would have told you that I would never want anything to do with a populist movement. But now, it looks like it's our best chance.
Problem is that the most likely scenario is the same as what happened in '16. Trump will run against 6, 8 or 10 wannabees. He'll get out to an early lead. Question is if it'll be too far ahead and too late for anyone to catch up to him, right?
JFK warned during the Cuban Missile Crisis how hubris and a series of mistakes and miscalculations by global nations led to World War I and 13 million deaths. Now, six decades later, we are making many of the same mistakes. Though the Cold War ended 30+ years ago, shades of its ethos have returned ... and we find ourselves playing a similar game of nuclear chicken. See below...
Have a quick read, Bruce. I also address how two Cold War films -- "Dr. Strangelove" and "Fail Safe" still have relevance today. I invite your comments, positive or negative. Thanks.
Interesting. I remember those movies when they first came out. Hollywood hyperventilating even them. I also remember Eisenhower being mocked - even as he is now regarded as one of our great presidents by more reflective and sober minds. As is Reagan.
Interestingly, American Conservative has an article today that dovetails well with this: How to Avoid Nuclear War (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/how-to-avoid-nuclear-war/) I'm surprised Kashmir isn't on this list, although maybe they're talking about a US nuclear exchange.
I loved 2034. I thought the first half was mostly realistic and the second half not (annihilating the world is a real book sales killer though, so they needed a solution.)
Taiwan is America's Suez Canal. We will insist we will defend it right up until the moment it becomes clear we can't; then we'll hide behind strategic ambiguity. Taking Taiwan certainly won't put China back on top as the Middle Kingdom again, but it will signal the end of the American empire that was hatched in the aftermath of WWII. And to be honest, considering the kind of lunacy America is exporting today, I'm not sure that will be a bad thing.
It’s hard to be isolationist when your government is hell bent on waging war across the entire globe either directly or through proxies.
Make no mistake, this war is just as much Biden’s as it is Putin’s, maybe even more so.
I’m not isolationist. I’m anti-warmonger. I have been saying from the beginning that this conflict could go nuclear and therefore our government has a responsibility to negotiate and de-escalate. Instead DC has responded with tens of billions in weapons and bloodthirsty propaganda.
Please. You're no anti-warmonger. You're a Putin propagandist. Sure the Biden administration could've been clearer with its signals before Putin invaded, but there's no way in hell that this is as much Biden's war as it is Putin's. And possibly more so? Lol.
Did Biden force Puti-put to target and destroy hospitals and other civilian targets? Did Biden force the Russian army to commit war crimes? No, there is only one person responsible for this war. And that is your apparent evil buddy, Putin.
Actually one could argue that you are the Putin propagandist. Immediately dismissing another point of view is done to shut off debate. Who wants to shut off debate? Commies.
And if you look at Biden’s language, he gave a green light to Putin through his minor incursion talk. I’ll save you having to use the Google. “And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do,"
The other point of view is that somehow, despite V. Putin’s aggression, America is warmongering. Why should such an absurd argument not be dismissed?
Because it totally ignores the fact that early on Zelensky signaled readiness to go to the table for peace talks and NATO allies, led by the U.S., shut him down and steered him back to the fight, promising our taxpayer money and weapons.
Also, it ignores the fact that the Bidens were in Ukraine during the Obama years doing enough shady dealing that Biden used his VP influence to shut down a Ukrainian investigation (remember Burisima?) by threatening to withhold US aid money (you’ve seen the video clip of Joe boasting about this to Dem donors, no?).
There are solid reasons to see this as Biden’s war, not just Putin’s, and to be skeptical of efforts to paint current US policy as heroic. More like CYA.
Really? Can you provide more details in support of these extraordinary claims?
They aren't extraordinary, they're actually pretty well-known, ordinary arguments. So...C+ for effort. 😉
Fwiw, I'm un-woke in PA, so we likely agree on at least as much as we disagree on. I suspect I'll "like" your comments on a different topic, probably already have. 😏
Are you that clueless? Really?
Putin is not just invading Ukraine, he is rattling the saber in the Baltic states, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the small Baltic countries, like Estonia and its neighbors. They are scared to death that his armies will roll into their countries. Putin has already said he will take Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. and he is flying jets over Swedish air space.
If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, where is he stopped? In 1938, the allies caved to Hitler with "Peace in our time" and all it did was embolden him. The same will happen with Putin if we cave now. Too bad we have the ever senile Joe in charge. Knowing a senile idiot is in charge sure lets me well sleep at night. Thank God for the Democrats/Communists.
I generally agree with your positions but not this time. I think we can take it for granted that Putin does not have the wherewithal to advance into Europe. Unless of course this Ukraine debacle is the real Russian disinformation campaign.
Lynne, I'm just telling you what I have read that Putin threatened the small Baltic states with invasion and has been harassing Sweden and Finland. I take him at his word. I think he is a psychopathic nut case as was Hitler.
We can take if for granted that NOW Putin doesn't have the wherewithal.
If he'd swept through Ukraine like he planned? I suppose Your guess is as good as anybody's. But I think Sweden and Finland voted on Putin not stopping at Ukraine by joining NATO, right?
Putin can’t conquer the Donbas but he’s going to conquer NATO countries?
I'm just telling what I have read. No, he can't conquer NATO countries but that sure as Hell doesn't stop him from being dangerous.
The comparison of Putin to Hitler is not valid, he does not have the industrial base. He also does not have the support at home.
That is beside the point. He is as nutty as Hitler and as evil.
I hear this argument a lot. "If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, he'll keep expanding!"
Maybe... but I doubt it. If there's anything that can be gathered from this war, it's that the Russian military is a paper tiger.
Not only did Biden tacitly approve a "minor" incursion into Ukraine, he helpfully shut down most domestic oil and gas exploration, making the U.S. and Europe more dependent on the Russians and other foreign producers. What perfect timing.
I agree with you that the Biden Administration sent signals, e.g. with the Afghanistan debacle, that encouraged V. Putin to think that he could get away with an attack on Ukraine. What no one reckoned on was the poor performance of the Russian armed forces, which proved far less formidable that most people imagined. Once this became clear and after some dithering, the Biden Administration got onto the right track. To quit now would be to give Putin an unearned victory. As long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight, we should support them.
Well, it's unclear to me that we should prolong this thing. An estimated 100K people on both sides have been killed or injured. How many more deaths is it worth? Would you send your own sons to fight the Russians? Would you go yourself?
My view is, the Russian invasion was unfortunate, illegal, and wrong, but we can't be the world's policeman.
We've already sent Ukraine $50B and now Biden's trying to get another $50B. That would make this the most aid to any country in any war ever (in one year). Are they worth it?
Ari Hoffman made a great point on Grace Curley's show yesterday. Ukraine was, and probably still is, a very corrupt country. We don't know what's been done with all that money. Shouldn't we at least find out, before we send them even more of our hard-earned cash?
Also worth thinking about: the Ukrainians were ready to negotiate a truce in April, probably cede some territory, but the Biden Administration basically told them to keep on fighting. Biden, for reasons known only to his inner circle, or maybe to the defense corporations that stand to make huge profits, has prolonged this thing unnecessarily.
The Russians can probably keep this up for many months to come, even years. Ukraine will just become a wasteland eventually, if their infrastructure keeps getting bombed. Tens of thousands more will die. Billions in "aid" will be wasted.
Furthermore, although Russia's been exposed as having a weak and inadequate ground force, they still have strong technical capabilities in the area of cyber warfare, and it's highly likely they will be seeking revenge for the many deaths the U.S. has caused with its high tech weaponry and satellite imagery.
The U.S. is in a proxy war with Russia, for reasons that are unclear. Did we really need to go to war at this time? Is corrupt, kleptocratic Ukraine really the hill we must die on, to preserve so-called liberty and democracy?
I mean, maybe it is, but I wish there were more discussion and debate, rather than this reflexive "if you're not with us, you're against us" kind of jingoistic talk. Online, the liberals of all people have latched onto Ukraine as a cause célèbre, with their little Ukrainian flag emojis and putting down anyone who questions it as a "Putin puppet". What stupidity. Not a one of these people would ever display an American flag, I notice.
More to the point, if Russia is pushed into a corner, it is possible they will finally deploy nuclear weapons and that would be a horrible thing for the entire world.
Very well put.
Hear, hear!
Debate is essential. When it is not possible, suppression is supreme and violence follows.
Actually, Unwoke, and this is not a rebuke, but your use of the word 'commies' stirs up memories for me. Sounds like Goldwater and Nixon all over again..
Cool.
Good point
During Trump's presidency, the US armed forces were engaged in various combat operations around the world. And more generally, Trump was a lousy president. After squeaking past Hillary the Horrible in 2016, he proceeded to blow the 2018 midterms, his own 2020 reelection, the Georgia Senate runoff elections and now the 2022 midterms. That was the GOP's reward for allowing itself to be transformed into a grotesque cult of personality centering on Trump.
Trump gave the U.S. military in Syria the latitude to fully engage ISIS rather than the dicking around that the Pentagon career generals were engaged in up to that point. The commanders in the field then quickly routed ISIS within a couple of weeks and effectively ended their occupation of that region. Trump then withdrew most of those troops.
I would call that finishing a war, not just "being engaged" which purpose was apparently to simply keep the defense spending spigots running.
Saying he was a lousy president is nothing but a blanket condemnation with almost no factual basis. Trump was quite good, surprisingly effective considering the Democrats worked night and day to undermine him with false accusations, impeachments, media lies, whatever they could do. They are traitors to their country, liars and scum who should be themselves impeached and prosecuted for what they have done... not just to Trump but to the United States. They worked to weaken the United States just to take out one man.
And by the way, he started no new wars. He even resisted calls to hit Iran after they hit a U.S. base in Iraq. He asked, how many casualties might it cause, and the estimate was several hundred. He then stated it wasn't worth the loss of life, even Iranian life.
How??? How can you call a man like that incompetent? Obama, Bush, Bush Sr., and Biden all have blood on their hands. Trump actually took a fresh look, bucked the military-industrial complex, and tried to end these conflicts.
Wake up.
I have read this three times over, it’s brilliant thank you Terry!
In support of my charge that Trump was a lousy president, I provided the fact of four electoral debacles. There is also the fact that on January 6, 2021, he was derelict in his duty as commander-in-chief. He sat around in the White House watching TV, doing nothing, while the US Capitol was being sacked by his MAGA goons. That was the climax of his truly heinous post-election behavior.
I don't say that Trump did nothing good. I am saying that when one balances the books, the bad greatly outweighs the good. He's a bad, bad man whose political career has thankfully come to an ignominious end.
You talk about his "lousy presidency" and then name 3 instances from elections? Typical.
I disagree on all points, however, I thank you for your service to our country
M. Gregg *told* You the facts. You being in the cult doesn't change the FACTS.
The sign of the loser in an argument is name calling. Here we go with the weak “Putin apologist” label.
From one Mike to another. You got that 100% correct brother regarding name calling and demonization when you cannot rebut an argument
I think the simple rebutal would be that Putin is an individual with free will, autonomy and agency.
Correct. Ad Hominem is no substitute for an argument
I agree with your statement but I can't find any name calling in the posts above. I skimmed over them so I might have missed them.
PS if name calling is taken away, comprof wouldn't be able to post here. Ad Hominem are his main talking points. It certainly isn't logic or facts.
lol... Yeah, but he gets in a good point every now-and-then. Especially lately.
Really? I missed it.
That is his sole argument "You voted for Trump". Well, he voted for a corrupt, lying senile, idiot.
Calling someone a “Putin Propagandist” is name calling just bc you have a different opinion! Agree to disagree should be enough, but sadly the last part of today’s article is obviously displayed in the comment section here. Be CIVIL, please!
Neither could I so was confused. I scrolled back but found nothing
Skinny, calling some a “Putin Propagandist” or a “MAGA Trump cult member” etc.) is offensive. I get that one may take issue with an opinion that differs from their own, but attacking a person, rather than their view isn’t necessary. Just be civil & agree to disagree.
Agree!
There is no question this is a war of choice and Biden’s puppet masters intentionally walked past every opportunity to deescalate this conflict and took every opportunity to escalate it. There is also little doubt in my mind, the US destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline just like Biden promised they would do. The goal, of course, is to future enrage the bear and push for WW III.
Which political party would benefit more from a sudden, large scale war?
I wonder...
Both. Both are beholden to the MIC. That is why the uniparty label sticks.
Given the WSJ are running articles which postulate the US should reconsider the idea of a nuclear war being unwinable….
I think the nutcases are running the show.
Nonsense. War of choice or surrender. Were you born yesterday?
Nope. 56 years ago? Are you a 2 year old child?
Biden is not making most decisions and when he does it is scary.
That we can agree on!
I don't know if it's Biden's war but it more an American/NATO war than people realize. We pushed Russia too hard, expanding NATO even to the point of discussing admitting Ukraine. How would we have felt back in the 70s and 80s if the USSR had proposed adding Mexico to the old Eastern Bloc? It wouldn't have gone down well with us, and NATO expanding to the Russian borders hasn't gone down well with them.
Well, the Biden Administration signed an agreement in November 2021 with Ukraine allowing it to apply for membership in NATO. That continued 30 years of NATO expansion and attempted expansion, up to the borders of Russian, something George Kennan expressly warned against and Barack Obama opposed. Three months later, Russia invaded Ukraine. You may not see a connection, but many others do.
“Putin propagandist” is your opinion from reading just one comment?? Shame on you for immediately attempting to shutdown a conversation by name calling! It’s okay to have a different opinion, but to resort to responding to ideas you disagree with by making it about the person and not their opinion simply makes you look bad. Common Sense provides a place (unlike other social media platforms) where civil people can come together WITHOUT displaying bad manners! Otherwise, if one isn’t capable of doing so then Twitter is the place for them.
Despite what the media would have you believe, a lot of strategic thinkers cautioned that war was likely if the West continued down the path it’d been following since the fall of the Soviet Union, and they argue that the U.S. could have, and should have, prevented the breakout of war by offering to retract support for Ukraine to one day join NATO. For even the briefest review of history reveals it was evident Russia was willing to go to war over Ukraine’s NATO status, which it perceived as an existential national security threat. Putin himself cited this factor as fundamental to his rationale for invading Ukraine.
It was crystal clear that Putin was serious about an invasion, to the point where U.S. intelligence agencies were practically giving play-by-play updates to a disbelieving Zelenskyy, and yet the U.S. still didn’t table the NATO status question. Because of our obstinacy and reckless flirtation in dangling this carrot to Ukraine, we crossed a red line for Russia without even committing to Ukraine’s defense. The promise of future NATO membership comes with no security guarantees.
https://euphoricrecall.substack.com/p/the-russia-ukraine-war-was-not-inevitable
Yes...it's all Biden's fault. He's respinsible for all of it. Putin is not an individual with any personal autonomy or agency.
Did I do that, right?
Seriously, though - you're not going to make much headway explaining basic reality on this MAGA board.
I rarely respond to you but I am going to violate my standards this time. It is actually the fault of the misguided souls who ushered Biden into office. And the notion you have a grip on "reality" is laughable. Virtual reality maybe. Real world reality? No.
There's plenty of blame to go around. But put it all on Biden. No.
Real world reality is a tricky thing.
Biden is not in control...his lackey, delusional DC leftists are. I always find it laughable that you continue to bring up MAGA and Trump. With all of the idiocy going on since the democrats have taken control of the government (both domestic and foreign policy), all you can do blather about is Trump. Nice thought process comprof.
Did Iraq force us to target their hospitals? Your view is simplistic and nuanceless. It takes two to tango.
Totally agree it takes two to tango. And weren’t those hospitals being used by Iraqi military to shield their troops and operations...? Not sure the narrative is simplistic on either side.
I see what you are trying to say, but its not similar really. It would be more correct to compare the UN giving the green light for Bush's invasion of Iraq and then saying its the UN's fault that Bush decided to invade Iraq. Interesting...so technically by the same logic it is not Bush's fault he attacked Iraq. Its mostly Europe's fault. Hahaha.
However, it is correct to say the EU bears a great deal of responsibility for joining us. Itwas not a NATO issue. They should have stood up to us.
So partially correct. But not mostly correct. I do think our policy on Putin's invasion was titally inept. I cannot know why we had such poor diplomacy on Putin when this was gearing up. Or why EU ever let Putin control their energy supply (cheap or no).
Seems to me that either our leaders are not very bright or they wanted this to happen. Take your own pick. The leaders were warned by many experts on Putin that this could happen. But they didn't really try to prevent this - that is a fact. They listened to a smaller number of experts who said Putin would never ever be so dumb (dumb like a fox). Those same people think he shouldnt be deterred now.
The West can provide Ukraine with Mutually Assured Destruction . But we seem unwilling to say it outright and unified. Putin is far more likely to try if he isnt sure we will absolutely nuke him if he dares.
We should point our nukes at all of his likely hidey holes and show him pics. Sit him down with every Western leader and show the slides.
The end. But it shouldnt have come to this. Yes, its Putins fault for wanting this. But he gave us months to talk him out of it. We barely tried. Maybe for cheap gas and diesel or maybe for more nefarious reasons. I am not psychic. But here we are.
I support the Republican Party but Lee is either a Russian propagandist or a Republican propagandist.
Or just someone with a different opinion than yours.
Blame NATO. They expanded closer and closer to Russias border for no rhyme or reason. We used Ukraine as a vassal against Russia. It was left wingers pushing their anti-Russia nonsense for years. Zelensky is an oligarch sociopath who is trying to get the US into this war. This war could have been prevented but we goaded Russia over and over. Get some critical thinking skills.
So....Ukraine joining NATO was expansion for no rhyme or reason?
Hasn't the traditional U.S./GOP policy (Reagan, Bush Sr., etc.) been "anti-Russian?"
Anti-Soviet or anti-communist.
You get many things very wrong.
Not getting anything wrong. Russia is still a Communist state/nation. Unless you believe Putin is winning 96-98% percent of the vote legitimately.
Answer the questions:
1. Ukraine joining NATO was expansion for no rhyme or reason?
2. Hasn't the traditional U.S./GOP policy (Reagan, Bush Sr., etc.) been "anti-Russian?"
I never said Putin wasn’t an autocratic leader but he isn’t a communist. You need to learn the difference and that is the answer to #2. Anti-Russia is not the same as anti-communist. Communists are preoccupied with equity and will kill 100’s of millions to achieve it.
#1: on the last day of January, 1990 there were agreements made with Gorby on the Eastward expansion of NATO. When Biden said he was open to Ukraine joining NATO Putin started massing troops on the Russia/Ukraine border.
The funny thing is: the Politifact “fact checkers” (aka: PC makers) are working triple time “debunking” all the stories about this from 2010-2019.
This is Biden’s war of choice and the 100’s of thousands of deaths are a stain on him and everyone that finds this war “virtuous”.
Bahahaha. "Otherness" at its finest.
Another leftist who speaks "bumper-sticker." You need a serious dose of Stephen Cohen.
Speaking bumper sticker.
That’s rich. Love it and will use it in the future.
We had a chance to give Putin some breathing room. All Biden had to say was: "There is no plan to include Ukraine in NATO and we see no reason to have them join." Such a non-committal would have let Putin claim we backed down and save face. Instead he said he favored regime change.
When dealing with megalomaniacs one needs to feed their egos and prepare for the worst. Talk softly and carry a big stick. Trump did this with Kim and it worked well.
Please explain why V. Putin should be allowed to dictate US foreign policy. Actually what you’re suggesting is that the US and NATO should have allowed themselves to be blackmailed by an aggressor who openly declared his intentions.
Putin did not, and should not, dictate US foreign policy. Biden screwed it up on his own, as he has everything else he touched. But your comment illustrates to me a, maybe the, problem with modern day political decision-making identify an ogre and do the opposite, whether to do so is rational or not, or good policy or not.
I'm sorry. But Your hatred of Biden leaves Putin outta the equation. I'm not seeing that. Putin crossed the border and attempted a takeover. That's reality.
Another reality is no one wins if we blow the whole planet up.
Yeah, I see that side of things. But I go by the odds, and that somebody with a cool head will figure out it's not a good idea to blow the planet up.
You're just assuming the world will be blown up. That's not a reality. It's a possibility.
One might think that would be the central, highest, most urgent reality.... Sigh.
Because like it or not, we don’t run the world.
We survived the Cold War because the realists understood that simple fact. Why do we get to dictate what Russia must tolerate? We cannot, and compromise is part and parcel of diplomacy, something that the US abandoned in favor of a unipolar approach that the rest of the world is tired of.
Sorry, Big T, I don't agree. You're assuming Vladimir is a man of his word. If Biden in January/February of this year had said exactly what you propose, I can easily see Putin interpreting that as a NATO (read American) willingness to give Russia relative carte blanche vis a vis Ukraine, with no continued commitment to fund Ukraine's defence.
I think Putin would have still gone in, because he wanted (needed) Zelenskyy out. In other words, possible NATO membership for Ukraine was not the reason why Putin made his, as it turned out, mistake. He considered Ukraine part of Mother Russia, and that was that. He might think differently now..
As for your analogy re North Korea - Kim started firing his play missiles again while Trump was still in office. The 'love affair' was very clearly over..
This current situation reminds me of the escalation up to the Iraq war. I remember one young woman stood up on the Oprah show to express some reservations. Oprah shut her down. I have nothing against Oprah but it seemed like no one was allowed to express any doubt. When thousands—including a friend of mine—gathered in Times Square to protest the Iraq invasion, I remember the Times buried the story on the back pages, zero attention to thousands of citizens taking to the streets, while the first pages were filled with pontifications from supposedly knowledgeable pols and military. We know how that turned out.
I personally was okay with both Iraq and Afghanistan but wanted them wrapped up in six months. I wanted it as a “teaching moment” for any regime funding or giving sanctuary to terrorists. I am against “exporting” democracy.
It’s fools like these who’ll lead us into war.
This is positively Orwellian. V. Putin invades Ukraine, his armed forces committing countless war crimes in the process, and America is warmongering? Thank you for this excellent demonstration of doublethink.
The eastward encouragement of NATO is seen as an existential threat to Russia, and has informed their actions over the last decade. It's not specifically Bidens fault anymore than it was Obama's (who did not respond materially to the Georgian annexation). But pointing this out doesn't make anyone an apologist, acknowledging geopolitical reality helps us understand what's happening much more than RUSSIAN MAN CRAZY does
True.
Regardless of the merits of NATO expansion, the truth doesn't matter in international politics. If the Russians see NATO expansion as an existential threat, then they will act accordingly (which they did). Is Putin justified in his war? No. Should we have done some better long-term decision making when it came to expanding NATO? Probably.
Well put. Well except for the not specifically Biden's or Obama's fault part. What I don't get is why they took the actions they did. Can it really just about the money?
I think it goes back farther than that.
The conditions for the current Ukrainian war have been brewing since the fall of the Soviet Union, but there’s people who are smarter than me who have laid those things out.
As to whether it’s all about money; I don’t think so. There’s probably a large dose of plain old stupidity involved.
Yeah.
At that at end: Hanlon's Razor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
Ah yes, Hanlon's Razor.
That and Murphy's Law explains a lot about politics.
I have read some of it. But I still don't understand the strategy. What was gained? By whom?
It's a truism one should follow the money. But, no. That's not the sole (and mebbe not even the main) explanation in a situation as complicated as geopolitics.
That's not what doublethink is, and there's loads of rational evidence that the US federal government wanted the war and helped it happen.
Yes, that's what doublethink is. Mr. Orwell explains:
"DOUBLETHINK means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's
mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual
knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows
that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of DOUBLETHINK
he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to
be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision,
but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of
falsity and hence of guilt. DOUBLETHINK lies at the very heart of Ingsoc,
since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell
deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that
has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to
draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the
existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the
reality which one denies--all this is indispensably necessary."
As for that "rational evidence"—what is it?
There is no double think needed to believe:
“War sucks and Purim’s invasion of Ukrainian lands was morally wrong”
AND
“The US and NATO (aka: Biden) broke their agreements with Russia on Eastward NATO expansion and bears significant blame for Purim’s actions”
That word doublespeak. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
With all due respect, I don’t think anyone appreciates getting long quoted, regardless of the merits of your argument.
History did not begin in February of 2022.
The conditions for this tragedy have been percolating for well over two decades and at each step DC chose not to take the path that would lead us away from this conflict. This war was predicted by the man who built NATO to offset the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. He advised against the expansion of NATO to the East as it would unnecessarily turn Russia into an enemy. Or perhaps you think that Russia invested billions in gas pipelines to Western Europe only to sacrifice them as part of their master plan to rebuild the Soviet Union by reconquering Eastern Europe militarily? The cognitive dissonance that requires is pretty astounding.
Putin bears responsibility for invading, yes, But the willful ignorance about the conditions that led to this conflict and our part in it demonstrates to me that the ever pervasive Western propaganda works exceedingly well.
Yes, I'm familiar with this line of argument, which is that V. Putin has the standing to dictate to other countries what their foreign policy should be. Let's think a bit. Why should NATO expansion turn Russia into an enemy? Russia has nothing to fear from NATO—or wouldn't if it behaved like peaceable good neighbor. But with V. Putin's advent, Russian foreign policy has been focused on the recreation in one form or another of the Russian imperium that ended with the demise of the USSR. That's the reason for Putin's war on Ukraine and as a matter of fact he's made no bones about it, reviling Ukraine as a fake country with no right to exist. I take him at his word.
Lee
Biden is cognitively impaired but based on your comment so are you, or you are a partisan liar. This is Putin’s war. Russia invaded Ukraine. The invasion is completely unjustified.
The only way to end this war and all future wars is for the aggressor to be defeated. You are in fact a war monger who is using this war to wage war on the other party.
Not exactly, Terrence. Old Vicki Nuland was lurking about as usual, stirring things up. The truth is that Biden's administration of dunces was stirring up NATO membership for Ukraine while at the same time slow walking defensive arms to them. Not a strategy calculated for success, especially knowing Putin's paranoia about NATO on his borders. Not to exculpate Putin or his brutal and inhumane tactics that continue to this day. But we had a hand in this.
We also had a hand in Ukraine disarming it’s nukes in the 1990s, which would be deterrence enough if Russia thought about invading today.
So yeah we had a hand in this.
Not to disregard the US intervention in 2014 leading to regime change in the Ukraine. (Nuland had her hand in that as well)
Oh yes. We stirred that pot, then quit and watched it boil over.
Totally agree, thx.!
Lee, stop with the derogatory name calling please! Disagreement is okay, but the need to make those you disagree with somehow “a war monger, lying, a Putin propagandist, etc.” takes away your creditability to debate. Be CIVIL, please!
I haven’t exactly seen posters of Russian soldiers dripping with blood from their mouths. If anything I think there is an attempt to try to show ordinary Russians struggling to cope, from new draftees to families back home, despite the fact that they have allowed themselves to become essentially a nation of slaves.
What’s interesting this time is that the people who are more “pro-war” are on the left and those more “anti-war” are on the right, in contrast to Iraq/Afghanistan.
What changed? Just the party of the President who is leading the charge?
What changed? The left still believes Putin is the reason Trump won and TDS gets fully deployed to PDS.
Because the media won’t admit to lying to the American public for 5 years (because then they would have to question the Democrats act of sedition), we find us in another proxy war.
/s Good news is we have “military advisors” on the ground now./s
HAHAHA! PDS!
Agreed the Muller probe and Steele Dossier and whatever else I haven’t paid attention to is still alive in leftmimaginatios.
But Putin was a dictator long before Trump began running for office. He was murdering Russian citizens to create a pretext to invade Chechnya right after being elected president (the first time!).
He has eliminated all political opposition and independent media, and propped up various sponsors of terrorism (Syria, Iran). And we still allowed Russia to be the direct arbiter to the Iranians of the latest stalled Iran nuclear deal.
It was the left in the form of Hillary and Obama who had their famous “reset” with Putin, and the right went apeshit.
But yes, we must see everything through the lens of Trump and the left’s hatred of him and therefore can’t spot a first class dictator and mass murderer when he invades a few countries
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/complications-of-the-ukraine-war/
Thank you for your service. I bought into that action post 9/11 but I now understand the sacrifices, both foreign and domestic, were far too costly. I am heartbroken for the way we left Afghanistan though.
I think as to the populace it is because it is coming from.the other side this time. But I think the heart of it is that both parties are different sides of the same coin. That actually works so long as the coin is the good of the nation. But that is, I believe off the rails at this time and it is about the good if each party, or more accurately the hogs at each party's trough. But we have the tools to fix it - the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Do we have the will? It will mean draining that swamp. And not just the Democrat side.
It’s rarely the parents of active duty personnel who are invested in the Ukraine war.
It’s usually those who’ve never met a serviceman.
Sorry, zelensky’s hubris isn’t worth my boys’ lives.
Well, yes. And no one’s sons are fighting for Zelensky… so I don’t get the point.
Uh, yeah they are. And more than the 82nd to which the feds must admit.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-military-forces-fully-prepared-to-cross-into-ukraine/ar-AA13gQi6
So I gather you also would like to see NATO dismantled. Putin agrees with you.
More lies and disinformation from the pro war crowd.
Damn, right. These same morons calling for us to get involved in Ukraine are the same people who were calling Iraq lost in 2006 and Afghanistan the “good war” from 2008-2012.
It’s a strange world we live in where the academia are more gung-ho than the veterans.
Then again... maybe it isn’t that strange.
You don’t see the academics in A school, do you?
That’s a fair point but I don’t accept it fully. What would happen if in Afghanistan there had actually been an organized army to fight the Taliban, and the US gave them arms and money rather than deploy soldiers?
The situations (currently) aren’t the same.
It’s very possible a lot of the policy is designed with China in mind. And the US gains something by seeing the Russian military screw itself over, and gain intelligence on 21st century warfare, without losing soldiers.
The point about expressing dissent and the NYT circa 2003 is important, yet analytically the policy is simply not the same as our Middle East wars.
There was a case to be made based upon the events of 9/11. There is no equivalent for this situation.
If we’re going to pour blood and treasure every time one country invades another we’ll have to build a lot of bases in Africa.
Yes but did you see Putin’s Facebook memes about Hillary?
So Lee (how about that, we share names..), do I assume from your comment that if we had honoured our 'responsibility to negotiate' prior to or during the initial stages of this conflict, wily old Putin would have gone away back to his lair, satisfied? As we would be, apparently staving off a possible gateway to WWIII? Sounds pseudo Chamberlain, circa 1938, to me.
That would have left Russia's military relatively intact (in tatters, now) and perhaps lining up facing the anxiety ridden Baltic States, with Putin quite rightly feeling that NATO nor the West generally doesn't have the stomach to confront him. And of course China, eyeing Taiwan, would have learned the same lesson.
Confront Putin we must, if we are to stop him.
Stop him from what? Practically begging the West to not expand NATO into Ukraine? Pleading for the West to enforce the Minsk agreements and averting ethnic genocide in the Donetsk region?
You draw parallels to 1938, but you demonstrate that you have no knowledge of the actual current situation or the steps that Moscow and DC were taking prior to this escalation.
I don’t believe I’ll change your mind on this, but I would encourage you to broaden your sources a bit. Listen to John Mearsheimer, read Michael Brenner, experts on Russian policy that go back decades. The corporate media is worse than worthless in times of war.
I like both you guys (Lee’s) you both have really good points. We going to have to watch Russia and China it’s not going to be an easy task.
Your points are valid ones, Lee. I remember Kennan's warning twenty or so years ago on the provocation of eastward NATO expansion. I also remember Russia's willingness at one time to join that very organization (an opportunity missed, in my view..). But the hard fact remains that Ukraine was not a NATO partner at the time of the invasion. Nor was there a hard promise to accept an invitation to join. Nor was it a part of the EU. Was Ukraine Western aligned, yes. Was it on a Western trajectory? Yes. And was that acceptable to Putin? No.
Putin considers Ukraine part of Mother Russia, and to me that undergirds his invasion. NATO is merely a sidebar.
The alignment of a neighboring sovereign nation should not be a justification for an attack. The very nature of Ukraine's savage defence of itself proves they are very serious in not wanting to be a part of Russia.
The irony that perhaps you as well can appreciate is that if NATO was indeed a part of Putin's worry, because of his invasion he now has two more NATO nations on his Northwestern flank, as in Finland and Sweden.
If he had not crossed the border into Ukraine they would not have joined.
Poor Putin, he has to beg the vile, aggressive NATO not to expand. Americans fresh from the great success of Afghanistan, Germans who can’t provide their soldiers even with thermal underwear, mighty Baltics, bloodthirsty Swedish and Finns, they all threaten little Mother Russia.
Yes, keep reading Mearsheimer, who after 2014 (the annexation of Crimea and occupation of part of the Donbas) stated that Putin will never go beyond that and he is absolutely not intent to recreate the Russian empire. After Putin started the war in 2022 and explained to everybody that Ukraine does not exist, that it’s part of the “Руский Мир” (the Russian “Lebensraum”), your Mearsheimer still published the same garbage about this being all about NATO (see The Economist). These are your “experts”.
Oh, so you’re an anti-warmonger ? So you must be totally upset with Putin, who single-handedly started this crazy war?
No, you’re just an absurd person who blames the victim and your own government for trying to help. Your bizzaro world is a perfect fit for Russian propaganda, where black turns into white and vice-versa.
Thank you for demonstrating that you zero knowledge of the geopolitical background to this war and have sucked up the propaganda like a dutiful useful idiot.
Don’t worry about Putin using nuclear weapons, it’s so much easier and cheaper for him to train an army of little blind propagandists like you. You’re a bit confused about who controls the propaganda behind “useful idiots”, in Soviet times as well as today - pick up a history book, maybe it will help.
Excellent post Lee!
Absolutely!! We should seek peaceful relations with all countries.
"But countless Americans are now inclined to view the president, no matter who he or she is, as illegitimate—simply because that president hails from the opposing party."
Good grief - and we allowed such fools to lead our brave fighting men? Sorry but the current occupant of the Oval Office is viewed as illegitimate because he was installed in a flawed election, in which damaging information about him was suppressed by our so-called "free press" which is simply an adjunct of the DNC. Moreover, the senile imbecile who was installed - and who now shambles aimlessly across the world's stage sowing chaos and mayhem - is credibly corrupt. His own son's (not the one who "died in Iraq) laptop computer contains evidence that our current president took laundered cash from the very malign actors that these kooky cassandras claim are not our worst enemies. And finally, they ignore the fact that our current president is the very source of the demonization of half of our nation as fascists and white supremacists. And has elevated generals and admirals who have presided over the purging of our most effective fighting forces. Rather than playing to this destructive narrative, how about seeing that our military is led by people who are invested in its one, existential task, keeping America safe and killing its enemies efficiently?
Not impressed.
It's a flawed election that the winning side insists was the "most secure" election in American history. That lie exceeds any of the lies told by Trump.
> "Sorry but the current occupant of the Oval Office is viewed as illegitimate because he was installed in a flawed election, in which damaging information about him was suppressed by our so-called "free press" which is simply an adjunct of the DNC."
The election wasn't flawed, Sir Bruce. The media? Yeah.
But the main thing is that Biden's not from the Rs. Could-a been anybody and You'd feel the same right? That Trump should be president?
No, jt, the "main thing" is that Biden is a senile imbecile who is corrupt and has no business being president.
Also jt please stop repeating the canard, that "the election wasn't flawed." It might not have been stolen as has been alleged but it certainly was flawed. For many reasons I have shown and repeated elsewhere. Not only the media, but a Niagara of unregulated cash, FBI involvement and suppression of information on a massive scale by media and big tech.
No. None-a that makes Trump the winner.
He lost the election. He lied about it. And You're believe his lies. I've said plenty of times the election wasn't fair, and even that a little fraud was detected, right?
Trump lost. That's the point. You can pretend otherwise all You want. Trump did.
I’m fairness jt Bruce’s point is valid. It is completely possible that Biden won AND the process was flawed. The concern here is in the credibility of the outcome
You make my point. The process was flawed, but it didn't effect the outcome. Like I've "said" all along. Biden won. Trump lost. Trump lied. How many people will agree with that, of the people in these comments?
“ The process was flawed, but it didn't effect the outcome.”
So stipulated. However you appear to be seriously underestimating the instability that will be caused by repeated flawed elections.
Lack of public confidence in election integrity is significantly more dangerous than electing bad candidates. I know you know this jt.
Bankman-Fried, the second largest donor to the Democratic party this election cycle (only behind Soros)?
Why would that matter, that some crypto guy was running a scam and funneling donations to only one party?
I’ve been watching elections for three decades. Only the last two have had these issues. It takes a WEEK to count ballots? Seriously?
So yeah, something is going on notwithstanding the specific candidates.
Could be. But the Rs conceded without complaints in *most*-a the elections, right?
Yes. What’s that have to do with it?
2020 demonstrated that the courts will not get involved so what’s the point?
Someone sent in a mail ballot under my name in 2020. I *never* use mail in. I *always* go in person.
They told me there was nothing I could do about the fraudulent ballot cast under my name. I wasn’t allowed to vote during 2020.
No it wasn’t a “mistake.” I’ve lived and voted in the same place for 30 years.
Yet I have no recourse.
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure that happened elsewhere.
Never said there wasn't *any* fraud. Just not enough to make a difference.
What it has to do with it is that basically the same election procedures were run in both elections. Only Trump came out with the Big Lie that it was stolen. Rather, Trump and mebbe Kari Lake. The rest of this years Rs manned up.
If one actually bothers to listen to Putin’s speeches, the official Russian nuclear doctrine hasn’t changed. It’s only retaliatory, not first strike. Whether that’s actually true or not is another issue, but this incessant misrepresentation of his actual statements is a perfect example of our propaganda. We have no such policy. We reserve the ability to use a first strike. We’re also the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons. There are no “good guys” and “bad guys”, just self interested nations executing foreign policy objectives from bad to worse. This isn’t some epic Manichaean battle between good and evil. This article is rife with war propaganda. More $$$$$ for the MIC. And no, I am not “pro” Russian. I am anti-war. This all could have been avoided if we acted like adults and strived for diplomacy, detente, and had worked to have the Minsk 1 and 2 agreements honored. Of course that’s apparently not in our “national interest”. Sigh.
The problem is that Russia - and Putin in particular - is very good at fabricating conditions to make a “responsive” strike.
Bush and Condi strived for diplomacy under Putin’s two lawful terms as President. At the time he was operating against Chechen terrorists and exploited that as common ground with Bush’s doctrine. And at the end of Bush’s term he had his puppet president invade Georgia for him.
The fact that Russians are “humiliated” when ex soviet states pick a new boyfriend is bullshit. They have nothing left but to apply force and invade.
You can be anti war all you want but don’t ever take Putin at his word.
I agree to an extent. I just think it is disingenuous to not recognize that Putin's interests and US interests are not aligned and clutch our pearls when he acts out.
Did you read what I wrote?
Specifically:
“Whether that’s actually true or not is another issue”
And how does open boarders affect Zelensky? I'm not seeing it.
I believe her point is we need to get our own house in order here in the USA.
Well, I congratulate You.
But it's pretty funny wording to make that point.
Problem with that is that where in a situation now where rapid cut-off of Ukraine doesn't end well. And the bigger problem is that, while we can't be the world's policeman, there are things where if we let things just play out however they want, we're gonna end up an island of democracy in this world eventually, right?
Do we have problems? Uncountable. Can't argue against that.
Cutting the budget for policing activities within CBP while sending billions of dollars to the Ukraine?
This is what I'm talking about Lynn. You're entire post is about the borders.
TheynYou throw this in about Zelensky from clear out of left field. What is the point of that paragraph?
I think it’s the notion that the inviolability of national borders counts for Ukraine but not the US.
It makes no sense.
If you are anti-war, you should be anti-Putin. This is his war, he started it, only he could have prevented it and he can end it any time he wants to.
I’m not pro-Putin. I’m also not pro-USA imperialism. They’re not mutually exclusive.
With these morons we have in charge now, it’s not a question of if they’ll mishandle an international crisis, it’s how bad they’ll screw it up.
Cui bono? What does the US get from sending billions to Ukraine? Do Biden et al think this will destroy Russia once and for all? How did that work out for Germany after WW I? Telling Americans we must send hundreds of billions of our printed money to help the poor suffering Ukrainians---just look at the photos---doesn’t cut it for me.
I always wonder HOW "the big guy" personally benefits from the massive influx of slush fund money. Not if. Yes, there are rationalizations to make, but in general I don't see the US commitment to Ukraine as being in US interests, certainly it's not worth a big war.
Not only the "big guy" but the entire Democratic Party. Close to $40,000,000 in political donations.
Ukraine is amazingly corrupt. How much of that military aid is going to get pilfered?
Thanks! That was an important fact I forgot to mention in my post.
Well if Congressmen Comer of the House Oversight Committee and Jordan of the Judiciary Committe presser rang true it has begun.
Over $90 billion to defend Ukraine. Europe should be paying for more of the cost of defending Ukraine.
His Highness is seeking another $35 billion as I write this.
Yeah, I'm sure Zelensky had nothing to do with it.
Money went to Ukraine. Money in Ukraine went to FTX. Money in FTX went to Democrats. Does this clarify
Biden bono.
War is BIG business & actually war pays off. Look at ALL the politicians / people who benefit from building up and supporting the military contracts (stockpiles).
I support the military 100%, as I am from several generations of military men, so please do NOT misinterpret the point I am making.
The U.S gets an end to Russian imperialism without having to put one boot on the ground. This is the best deal since the purchase of Alaska.
Dude, ease up. Consider the possibility of alternatives. Charlie Wilson had the same POV and the result was the unleashing of radical Islam. That we suffer the consequences of to this day. Lots and lots of blood. Lots of treasure. It was not worth it.
I'd like to hear more about Charlie Wilson.
But as far as these things go. I'm not gonna go into the long history of the area, and how we pushed Ukraine to go into NATO or any-a that. It's easy to say it's all our fault.
Too simplistic.
But that avoids the point. The point is the situation as it is NOW. If You think the withdrawal from Afghanistan was bad, and it wouldn't surprise me that figured into Putin's attack... Well, consider what letting Putin have Ukraine would do. Or even a big chunk of it. Rewarding the aggressor is the least of it.
We're in a bad situation right now. Because we hafta let Putin win *something,* or he'll never quit the war. Or, rather, I don't see how he could. His very survival may depend on it.
At the same time, if we *cave?* I don't think it's a good idea to announce we're approaching third-world status until it's a foregone conclusion. Does anybody see this? I'm guess not.
And equipment.
I’m not sure why we should give any credibility to the words or ‘insights’ from a man who oversaw, as NATO Commander, the disaster in Afghanistan for many years.
Damn right. Not a single one of the generals or admirals have been held responsible for the disaster in Afghanistan. I guess they were too busy giving each other medals.
Thank you for your service. You are the really big man. Many of us know that.
Nobody considers Alleged President Asterisk illegitimate because he's from the wrong party. They consider him illegitimate because he was swept into office by a combination of fraud, a gutless opposition party, and a whimpering, fearful judiciary that wouldn't allow a single shred of evidence to even be heard, citing "standing" and other irrelevancies, lest it become immortalized in the public record.
A few months ago, we learned with the overturn of Roe vs. Wade that massive errors do not go away by the simple passage of time; they just fester like abscesses until they are lanced. Thus it will be with the Titular President's "election."
People don’t forget and yes, issues fester.
He's illegitimate mainly because he's mentally incompetent. Congress hasn't invoked the replacement amendment because of who the replacement would be. I'm not surprised at that. KH would become president and would get to name her successor, subject to approval. of the Senate. But the Senate is divided 50/50 and KH would no longer be able to break the tie--she'd then be president, not VP any longer.
Best case scenario would be for KH to be impeached in January. Joe is declared "unable." Next in line is Speaker of the House, who would ~no longer be~ Nancy.
Nice. Play chess much?
It seems more than possible that Ukraine deliberately fired the missiles into Poland in order to bring NATO troops into the war or at the very least push for mo money mo money mo money. Because isn’t it fishy that firing missiles to the west against Russians somehow ended up go8ng east into Poland?
As admiral Painter said in The Hunt For Red October (in which literally everything can be explained) “This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
100% spot on. Note that DC is planning another $38 bl. In lame duck Ukraine funding…false flag conveniently raised to grease the PR skids?
I just think we need accountability. There doesn’t seem to be any and if you ask for it, you’re called a Putin lover.
Imagine what we could have done with that 100+ billion if we spent it here on our out of date electrical grid.
No doubt the US destroyed the pipeline. Funny how Trump was vilified for asking Germany not to depend upon Russia for energy. But when Biden crew literally blow up the pipeline…crickets.
"the Russian military, according to its doctrine, would employ a strategy of escalate to de-escalate. The idea is straightforward: dramatically escalate from conventional to nuclear weapons with the goal of shocking one’s enemy into quickly suing for peace. It is a philosophy of warfare that differs fundamentally from our own, and that’s designed for a nation, like Russia, with a nuclear capability that far exceeds that of its conventional forces. "
Have these guys forgotten "shock and awe" which was precisely this strategy designed to cause the Iraqi military to give up. Obvious errors like this seriously degrade the credibility of these authors.
"North Korea, which is also predictable in its unpredictability, has conducted six consecutive nuclear tests this year. One of those tests sent a ballistic missile sailing over Japan."
They are asserting that the missiles were nuclear. No where else have I seen this mentioned. Perhaps they are trying to say that any missile is potentially nuclear. Very sloppily written.
And this:
"Putin made unfounded claims that Ukraine was preparing to use a “dirty bomb”.... Those comments were part of a disinformation campaign conducted by Russia, which has itself used such weapons."
Sloppy writing? This borders on defamation. Next they'll be telling us it was the Russians who blew up the USS Maine.
Wait, it wasn't? Are you sure?
I noticed that also. They are still testing their payload delivery systems; very unlikely they'd waste an unused nuclear payload in a test - or even in a provocative demonstration.
"If the war in Ukraine goes nuclear, there’s a good chance a dirty bomb will be the first rung on this ladder of escalation. "
A dirty bomb doesn't kill quickly or destroy much infrastructure. Why would this be a first choice? It doesn't advance short term military goals. I would expect a better rationale from these military experts.
Cause like the word “Russia” we are supposed to throw out all reason based on the word “Nuclear”.
That statement is when I knew this was deep doo-doo.
By the way, I would like all those here supporting the rush to war — for as long as it takes!—to be sure to enroll in the military or pull their kids out of those Ivy League colleges and get them enlisted. The Iraq war had too many working class kids. It’s equity! Get your a— in the military! Let’s tell Putin who is boss. Why talk about negotiations!
IKR? I can't stand a chickenhawk.
When you mentioned Chinese sleeper cells activating I was unable to concentrate on the bulk of the article.
Here in Canada we have become aware of Chinese "police" that have set up camp in most of our major cities. With the permission of our government we can only assume, because they show no signs of leaving. The people who have escaped China are being chased inside the country where they sought refuge, and from what we can see no one cares. My concern is that these "police" may indeed be sleeper cells and they are here to take us by surprise from within when this World War begins. This won't be a World War, it will be a war against the working class.
In 2019 and 2020 we discovered the Canadian gov't under Trudeaus blessing had been training Chinese military on our bases and showing them... what exactly? They were officers. Why would we have them here for excersizes of any kind? Why did the US stand by and watch that happening?
I believe we need to be fixing the issues on our own shores of North America before we go looking for trouble anywhere else. Canadians are our neighbors and yet we've watched them be beaten, tear gassed and have horses ridden over them during a legal peaceful protest... we watched and did nothing. We have foxes in the henhouse but everyone is looking at countries overseas which have been at war with one another since the beginning of time.
The US dropped atomic bombs on Japan knowing full well what those bombs would do. Russia is not about to that to a country that is at least 1/2 Russian. If the US would simply back off and let the dust settle we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
The military does what it's told to do by those who are supposed to be at the helm. Think about that and then look at our situation here in North America.
Did you notice your callow PM getting a tongue lashing from Xi? Btw you're not alone - there's a Chinese police office in New York City,, as well.
But what can one expect when the US president took ChiCom cash, laundered through his son. Who else would "the Big Guy" be?????
Our prime minister's chiding was very satisfying to watch. Now that mainstream press is no longer on his side, he will find his remaining days in office increasingly difficult - unless he hands out more money to the media.
Well his parents are Sta-a-a-ahnford Laws. And his little chickadoodke girlfriend's, I mean CEO of the illegally floated Alameda Research, are St-a-a-a-ahnford economists.
I did read it yesterday. But you are right it was not in the WaPo.
I disagree that Russia won't nuke Ukraine just because there are Russians there. It didn't stop Stalin from starving them to death.
A different time period and a different situation entirely. The US tried to irradicate its native population in the 1800s, but wouldn't do that now.
I wonder about the last paragraph:
> "We should all fear the day when a vast majority of Americans cannot agree on who the rightful commander in chief is. All international what ifs pale in comparison to this domestic what if, and if we’re not careful, we could become our own worst-case scenario."
We're living in that very day right now, right? Many in these comments still believe the Big Lie: That the election was stolen from Trump. They believe this, mainly, because Trump told them so repeatedly. That's the very method to use propaganda for nefarious purposes.
And, yeah. This is a worst-case scenario we're dealing with. And, yeah, it could *always* get worse. Recent elections bring some relief, as was written in article. Still...
The only way to satisfy the public that the elections are fair and honest is to ensure that every vote is auditable and traceable. Without that one cannot say for certain who won any election, including 2000 and 2020. The dodgy election mechanisms in numerous states can readily be fixed, but both parties need to agree on them. Mail-in voting and vote harvesting are ripe for mischief, and the voting roles should be updated annually. The Donkeys are more at fault for continuing the current problems.
We've been having elections for 250 years. Alluva sudden, with Trump's Big Lie, nothing less than every vote being auditable and traceable is good enough?
No! I'm not against the idea. Where I live, OH, You vote, the vote is printed for You to check. Being a programmer, I know even that's not foolproof audit. Pity the fool.
I'm not aware of what the two parties have done, so You could be right. But knowing Your bias, it's just as likely that the Donkeys have done as much as the Elephants.
Realistically voting has changed drastically and a lot of that was done under cover of the pandemic. Used to be you voted on Election Day, absentees only for those unable to be in town. Now it’s mail a Ballot to anyone on an unpurged voter roll and wait weeks for the ballots to roll in and not through the US mail but in trunks and pickups.
Yeah, things changed during the pandemic, and some didn't change back. But do I believe ballots are coming in trunks and pickups?
Well you should because even the dnc media reports that.
Got a link?
I have voted in OH for almost 50 years. We have a highly auditable system. Not perfect, but among the best. Many other states have much looser requirements for establishing one's residency and legitimacy of a ballot. It is inarguable that the Covid modifications in PA and other states were pushed by Donkeys and that they favor poor tracking of votes.
I'm not in favor of all the mail-in ballots. Each state will decide, and I'm satisfied with what we got in OH. For the last 50 years.
Trumps big lie? How about Gore in 2000? Or H. Clinton in 2016? Or Stacey Abrams' stolen election lies? It's not just Trump.
True. I never said it was *just* Trump. Just that his was the BIGGEST Big Lie.
What do you think of the current vote counting process in Arizona?
The problem with those requirements is we also need them to be anonymous - a conflicting set of requirements. The only solution I see is a transparent _process_ sufficient to convince the losers that they lost. Electronic counting systems are by definition nontransparent. Tree- structured monitored hand counting at the precinct level works elsewhere and used to work here. Anything else leads to Stalin's quip.
I'd be amazed if hand-counting would produce results that are fast enough to satisfy. ICBW, but I'd be very amazed.
Hand-counting used to be the way it was ALWAYS done. And the results were still available by morning. My mom, as a poll worker, was always in the counting room. They counted ballots as they came in throughout the day, and then recounted them after the polls closed (at which point the results were phoned in, with people from both parties listening). She was almost always done by 11pm.
Some argue that our population is larger, but that also means there are more people who could be poll workers. If states are not creating more precincts to handle the increase in population, that is on the decision-makers in those states. In other words, there is NO EXCUSE for not conducting elections in the same way they have been conducted in the past THAT WORKED.
It seems evident that the breakdown in our election system is INTENTIONAL, since it could have been so easily avoided.
I don't know that I'd go so far as intentional, but certainly foolish, exploitable and counter-productive. And getting to the point where neither side is willing to concede their losses.
Introducing electronics into the process was the first step in making elections less secure. The results a machine spits out are entirely dependent on the people who constructed and/or programmed the machine.
The most secure part of paper ballots is the fact that they have to be counted by people who can be watched. I don't know if it's still true, but when my mom counted ballots there had to be an equal number of Democrats and Republicans in the room at all times.
My dad worked out front distributing ballots, and the same was true for those poll workers--equal numbers at all times. It encouraged everyone to remain ethical in their behavior.
Another aspect of paper ballots is that if any questions arise, the ballots remain in secure storage for a period of time so they can be inspected and, if necessary, recounted.
This system gives people a lot more confidence in the results of an election. Changing it to a LESS secure system suggests a desire to exploit the weaknesses of that less secure system. Those who promote less secure systems are either hopelessly naive or intend to cheat. And I do not believe that those who have the power make these choices are naive.
Should-a written the I *suspect* Your bias, because I can't recall all the posts You've written. Vague memories.
They believe it because it was demonstrably not a free and fair election even if votes were not miscounted or manipulated. Because -
The number of people not presenting IDs and voting in person was unprecedented;
The cash from people such as Zuckerberg, Soros and Bankman Fried going to Dems was staggering;
The unregulated in-kind contributions from media, 95% of whom are Dems was worse than ever;
The lies and drumbeat of actual misinformation from that media was truly insane - the 51 former intel liars, the suppression of the Hunter laptop, the ongoing Russian collusion lies; and
The actual and demonstrable weirdness of the election, itself, sapped confidence in its fairness.
Don't tell people that election was the freest and fairest when it demonstrably was not. Because people tend not to like being lied to.
You defeat Your own argument. I never "said" it was the freest and fairest. In fact, if You recall, I've written a number of times that it wasn't fair. Freest? What does that even *mean*? Everybody was free to vote. What else do You want.
If You didn't like being lied to, You never should-a listened to Trump.
The "freest and fairest" was DNC cant. Never attributed it to you, jt.
Trump is an inveterate bs artist. Has been that way since his earliest NYC developer days.
I expect it from him. NOT from our media and certainly NOT from our FBI.
I thought I "liked" this post before. Evidently not.
And I made common mistake of looking for something to disagree with, rather than trumpeting the parts we agree on. I'd slap Your back if You were here, because You're the first person I've ever seen from Your side-a the aisle to say that. Since his earliest NYC developer days even. I heard that, but didn't know enough about it to say it.
Glad You did, is short way of saying it.
And I've already conceded that I'd prefer he not run (although that train's left the station) and that I believe DeSantis and others are better candidates. In his defense, Trump was assailed unfairly as President and probably unlawfully, too. But his personality didn't help him either, and the whole process was just too exhausting for the good of the country. That said, I expect the left will be just as vicious toward DeSantis if his momentum were to gain steam.
Yeah, he was definitely assailed. I'd like to see the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" thing investigated. But too bad he had such a thin skin, as You've "said" before.
If the Left goes after DeSantis? They may try. But he just won't give them the material Trump did. Did You see Trump's comment about Glen Younkin?
"Young Kin. Sounds kind-a Chinese, doesn't it." And people say Trump's smart. This is an R he's talking about. Because Younkin didn't bend the knee.
Anyhoo, I'd like to see the Left go after DeSantis. Would just make them look *more* ridiculous than they do now, to people in the Center, right?
Oh. I thought You meant I'd said it.
I hear Ya, but journalism started down the long, slippery slope back when Dubya was running, right? At least that far back, mebbe earlier. At least there's Fox.
Social media? They're an arm of the D party AFAIK.
And I agree the FBI and the laptop should be looked into.
Speaking of which, saw a headline House Rs are gonna investigate Hunter. WSS (We Shall See).
There were enough irregularities about the 2020 election that people suspected malfeasance, without Trump voicing it. I don't know for a fact it was enough to make the difference, but the behavior of those who seem to want to suppress any questions seems like guilty behavior, to me. Add in the perpetual renewal of the "pandemic emergency" (recently renewed yet again), the full court press against any measures to increase confidence in elections, and the push for mass ballot mailing with little or no control measures and that "big lie" starts to seem like a big question mark. Add in the death of actual journalism in favor of propaganda and support of censoring any story that might embarrass one party and the confidence we SHOULD have is undermined. Suppressing information that affects an election is just as harmful as stealing votes, IMO.
You can believe whatever You want. Some-a what You "say" about the election process is valid. If You wanna decide the election was stolen, that's on You. Like You said Yourself, You don't know. Except what Trump told You.
And the only problem with Your views is that Trump lost. And he lied.
Also, please note that almost the first thing Pelosi did after the2020 election was to try to take over the mechanics of elections in all 50 states. It failed, but the intent was clear.
My observation is that the Democrat Party strategy seems to center around two things: demagoguery of their opponents, often with very misleading accusations, and controlling the voting mechanics. All this rather than offering policies that draw in voter support—a broad base of voter support. Do people really want open borders, confused kids (a common state) targeted for sex change, ever more spending on social programs and paying people to not work, war, vaccine and mask mandates, abdicating US self determination to international bodies ... ?
I doubt it. I think most people are somewhere in the center, but are much more rational than the hard left. When they begin behaving like an American party, focused on American interests then they will earn more votes the honest way—through honest transparency and policy. The last Democrat I would have considered voting for was Paul Tsongas, who despite being a staunch liberal, understood that America's welfare depended on a strong private sector, to pay for the social programs. He was honest, even if I didn't necessarily agree with him on many issues. Honesty and openness go a long way with voters.
Weeeel, somehow we ranged from talking about voting to a general discussion of politics. All that may be true, but I just skimmed it because that's not at issue here.
Like You said, the Fed can't do a thing about how the states hold their elections, Pelosi or not.
If You're gonna talk about demagoguery, then look no farther that Trump and the MAGA supporters.
jt, I don't understand why you are interpreting questions about very recent changes to electoral (and journalistic) processes as statements that the election was stolen and Trump won. Not one commenter has said that, but you have attributed that idea to all of them.
And You're gonna try to claim I'm wrong?
Gimme a break. Mebbe in one or two cases the posters here haven't said, multiple times in the past, that the election was stolen.
Mebbe You're not one-a them. Then again, mebbe You did.
Mebbe I have never said anything about it one way or the other. I just don't believe raising questions should be answered by assuming "you are one-a them".
Gimme another break.
We *always* try to determine where a speaker is coming from. What's the bias, because *EVERYBODY* has them. And, in case You haven't noticed, these comments are a *very* us-and-them environment. Especially when it's almost entirely made up of "us" and I'm one-a the very few "thems."
So just going by the *odds,* I'd guess You voted for Trump and I'm nearly certain M. Selden did. I take that into account. Like You don't?
Many people believe that Trump was not the President because he was installed by Putin…there’s that too. And that Bush was not the valid President in 2000. So please be sure to provide the all important “context” for your contentions…
Sorry, there's no comparison to what Trump did. Not in 150 years has this kind-a crap been tried.
Nice try tho.
jt in case you missed it, I have been punctilious about never stating that the election was stolen or that the votes counted didn't make Biden the winner. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the appalling unfairness of the 2020 election.
Bruce, this is a really good distinction that is lost on lots of people. The 2020 election outcome likely was a real reflection of the popular will, but the process was appalling.
Yes, spot on.
Probably the most unfair election in our history.
1800 was a mess. 1876 was too. 1960 was questionable.
The important thing is to make sure we fix the problems, something the Democrats seem completely uninterested in. A democracy can survive a questionable election, but not 2 or 3 or 4 questionable elections in a row -- especially if the same party wins each time, so the same people consistently believe they lost unfairly.
Especially when things turn as bad as they have in the US since 1/20/2021: the economy, fuel prices, border mess, Afghanistan debacle, crime, etc…. I used to believe this much destruction in such a short time was impossible. This can only be a deliberate imposition to remake America.
Canceling oil and gas exploration on most of U.S. territory was totally deliberate, and resulted in disastrous economic consequences at home and around the world.
I agree.
I said I wasn't gonna post anymore, because my day is done.
You seem to only look at things from one angle, Terry. "Deliberate?" You're implying it was done with malice.
It wasn't.
He literally shut down oil and gas on federal lands, one of his first EO's in the first week. Goal was to "transition" the country to green energy. What a disaster.
Yes it was deliberate, perhaps out of altruism and not malice. But none the less, it was deliberate.
Weeeel, I dunno enough about history, but I sort-a doubt it. My recollection is the election of 1876 the guy with the *least* electoral votes ended up the president by backroom deal-making.
I misread what You "said," then. Because it sure sounded like, not only was the election unfair (which I've said from the beginning), but also that Biden was illegitimate. You didn't say that?
I believe Biden is illegitimate because he is senile and corrupt. Not because he didn't get the votes. So let's agree that his election was legitimate even as he is not a fit candidate for the office.
The thing about Biden is, even putting aside those issues, he's always been just a very ordinary career politician. He's never been a leader and has never done anything remarkable. Trump was remarkable. Obama was remarkable. Biden is just someone who has lived his life at the public trough. It's pretty clear that he was nominated to be a stealth candidate, in the standard Democratic "run to the center, govern to the left" mold, and that's exactly what he has done. But it left him owing favors to so many different party factions. That's why his staff keeps having to walk back everything he says.
The “favors” aspect is a great insight. Well said.
And not even the tallest hog at the trough.
That's easy to agree to. I'd also like to agree that Trump showed, in hindsight if not ahead-a time, that he wasn't a fit candidate either. That may be too far for You to go.
But that's why I've said over the past year (year-and-a-half now?), if it's Biden/Trump, I won't vote for either. Heaven help us if it is.
Sorry for not getting back to this earlier... The circumstances of Trump's winning were obviously very unusual. I think Trump was a necessary shock to the system at the time. But that time has passed now, and I really wish Trump would not run again. I'm curious to see what is going to happen to Trumpism. It seems to me that it's two factions. One faction is pretty much a personality cult centered around Trump. The other faction is a populist faction that is not necessarily bound to Trump, and might be already swinging its support to DeSantis. This latter faction is a group that sees populism as a counter to the elitism that has infested our government (in both parties).
It's funny... twenty years ago, I would have told you that I would never want anything to do with a populist movement. But now, it looks like it's our best chance.
Same here. Completely.
Problem is that the most likely scenario is the same as what happened in '16. Trump will run against 6, 8 or 10 wannabees. He'll get out to an early lead. Question is if it'll be too far ahead and too late for anyone to catch up to him, right?
The issue is does DeSantis wish to pursue populist policies? If so, would the R establishment allow him to do so?
So Ron is a big question mark. Yes he has done good things on the culture issues, but he rules a red state. Whether he would pursue trade, illegal
Immigration and non war mongering policies remains to be seen.
True enough. He hasn't had a lot of exposure at the national level yet. A lot of things can change between now and 2024. We'll see.
I'm more concerned about what he'd do as "the Leader of the Free World."
Or are You guys isolationists?
JFK warned during the Cuban Missile Crisis how hubris and a series of mistakes and miscalculations by global nations led to World War I and 13 million deaths. Now, six decades later, we are making many of the same mistakes. Though the Cold War ended 30+ years ago, shades of its ethos have returned ... and we find ourselves playing a similar game of nuclear chicken. See below...
https://jimgeschke.substack.com/p/cold-war-ii
The crisis that Jack created?
Have a quick read, Bruce. I also address how two Cold War films -- "Dr. Strangelove" and "Fail Safe" still have relevance today. I invite your comments, positive or negative. Thanks.
Interesting. I remember those movies when they first came out. Hollywood hyperventilating even them. I also remember Eisenhower being mocked - even as he is now regarded as one of our great presidents by more reflective and sober minds. As is Reagan.
Thanks for your feedback, Bruce. I appreciate it.
Interestingly, American Conservative has an article today that dovetails well with this: How to Avoid Nuclear War (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/how-to-avoid-nuclear-war/) I'm surprised Kashmir isn't on this list, although maybe they're talking about a US nuclear exchange.
I loved 2034. I thought the first half was mostly realistic and the second half not (annihilating the world is a real book sales killer though, so they needed a solution.)
Taiwan is America's Suez Canal. We will insist we will defend it right up until the moment it becomes clear we can't; then we'll hide behind strategic ambiguity. Taking Taiwan certainly won't put China back on top as the Middle Kingdom again, but it will signal the end of the American empire that was hatched in the aftermath of WWII. And to be honest, considering the kind of lunacy America is exporting today, I'm not sure that will be a bad thing.
After the Afghanistan withdrawal I think any foreign entity is foolish to rely on America's support.