This is exactly how I remember it. America, the shining city on the hill, the land of promise and freedom. The land of dreams and aspirations, honor and generosity.
I've experienced these things here for 30 years. To see what is happening to the US is such a colossal disillusionment that it's hard to put into words. And Sharansky is right. The left paved the way with insane policies, gaslighting, cancel culture, etc. But the right...the right said. "Hold my beer"
As a canadian, I cringed when Zelensky openly campaigned on behalf of Biden, in a state Trump ended up winning.
I cringe when I see European leaders screaming about Vance and Musk making comments about European leaders, leaders who have made endless disparaging comments about Trump.
I cringe when our Prime Idiot Trudeau said the USA was misogynistic for not electing Harris when he was actively subverting Chrystia Freeland as he has done with a long line of women who dared to stand up for themselves.
I don’t know where Trump is headed with all of this, but I have little good to say about those opposing him.
Things are pretty fucked up, is he making it better or worse?
No way to say, everyone who states unequivocally either way at this point is just expressing their own bias, they don’t really know.
As a canadian, we have been governed by unserious children for a decade and they have only made adult-like sounds (and they are still only sounds) in the previous 2 months.
If Trump does nothing else, that is a massive accomplishment.
Has it ever occurred to you that Zelensky, in dealing with dozens of countries, simply wasn't tuned into the intricacies of America's battle states? I've lived here 30 years and the significance of it escaped me. The left played him but it's not Zelensky's fault
Negotiating a peaceful solution to the war will be long and arduous. Idk why Trump and Zelensky are having a public spat, and let's hope that's all it is, we need to put aside our differences to create a solution. It would help if it didn’t appear that Putin and Trump were teaming together against Zelensky, and it would be help if Zelensky didn't automatically assume that he was the odd man out.
Finally, the sensible right (The Reagan Republicans) is waking up and realizing that the far right is way more dangerous and destructive than the far left! Not because they are worse, but because they have way more power at this moment in our history.
The far left never had any real power. The center left controlled things. Thus, the worst the far left ever got was “cancel culture”, DEI and CRT.
The far right has now taken over the government and is imposing their views about government and culture on all of us without regard to what any of the rest of us think, and without regard to what the law and tradition have to say about it.
We Americans voted these fascists in because we were so fucking scared of DEI and CRT and gender queer people. We deserve this.
The worst the far left ever got was “cancel culture”, DEI and CRT? With that one sentence you demonstrate your far leftist POV. We Americans voted these fascists, with that one sentence you demonstrate your lack of historical understanding and perspective.
Mangled teens and burned down police precincts are no big deal once you see the true horror of career government bureaucrats being forced to show up for work or even being laid off!
Found this on the web. Applies to the current betrayal of friends and allies. Seems that history does repeat itself.
<Just after the Munich Agreement, in response to Chamberlain's assertion that the agreement had achieved “peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time”, Winston Churchill declared,
“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”
“And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”>
How is history repeating? Is Russia set to overrun Europe, exterminating all Jewish folks in the process? Would you say Joe Biden is our Winston Churchill?
While it stirs one's heart to learn that an American President gave hope to Soviet dissidents, it does not alter the fact that Reagan's words or deeds accomplished nothing toward turning Russia into a liberal democracy. It remains an ominously dangerous bastion of corrupt imperial ambition with a formidable nuclear arsenal. It is entirely possible that no amount of moral high ground, blood shed, or weapons expended will produce a free and functional Ukraine. Even if the war could be ended tomorrow with Ukraine's borders restored, it is not a stretch to imagine that Zelensky could be removed from office by an election or a coup, or worse. Five years later Ukraine could be ruled by its own Lukashenko who would turn it into another Belarus. Like the transition of the horrid and corrupt USSR into the horrid and corrupt Russia, the celebration of "democracy" could be short-lived.
If President Trump wants the Europeans to sleep well he must craft a true lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia. Is he up to the task? I hope so.
There is "peace through strength"
There is "peace with honour"
There is "peace for our time"
Will Trump be able to silence the guns that have destroyed the lives of millions of Russians and Ukrainians and assure Poland and the Baltics that they will not be simply locked until they are loaded by Russia for another try?
Will President Trump's efforts to stop the war between Russia and Ukraine enable Ukraine to sleep well? Do the people of Taiwan sleep well?
Do the people of Russia who live under Putin's boot sleep well?
The following is the wording of a printed statement that Neville Chamberlain waved as he stepped off the plane on 30 September, 1938 after the Munich Conference had ended the day before:
"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
Chamberlain read the above statement in front of 10 Downing St. and said:
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
There is a vast difference between Chamberlin's appeasement, occurring before any shots had been fired at or by Great Britain, and the war in Ukraine in which hundreds of thousands have already died with little evidence of imminent Ukrainian victory. In the early going it was reasonable to believe the Ukrainians could, with our help, repel the invasion. But, sanctions have not sufficiently crippled Putin; adding layer upon layer of advanced weapons systems have not turned the tide; the Ukrainian offensives into the Donbas and across the border into Russia stalled; Ukraine faces a recruiting crises; Ukraine's public infrastructure continues to be degraded; the Europeans continue to talk big and do little; Putin still does not face a meaningful opposition within Russia. In that context, negotiated peace that includes distasteful concessions may be disappointing but they are not the same as appeasement. As Ecclesiastes says "there is a time for war and a time for peace."
The state of peace in Europe should always be primarily the highest priority of Europeans. The U.S. should act in its own interests and not indemnify European countries to the extent that they do not take seriously nor commit to their own defense. It is up to them to present a credible deterrent. The "end game" options as far as Ukraine is concerned are to continue with more of the same war, which will ultimately result in its destruction; to convince NATO to escalate in dramatic fashion with the attendant risks; or to settle for a negotiated peace based upon the cards each side holds. The latter, by the reality on the ground, does not include Russian retreat from Donbas and Crimea. It is unrealistic to presume otherwise. The moral high ground cannot be imposed on a belligerent who holds the military high ground.
. . . If, in the immediate wake of the disastrous Afghanistan pull-out, playing footsies over NATO membership for Ukraine (which for Russia, was as much of a red line for them as the Soviets putting nukes 90 miles off of Florida) did not instigate the Russian invasion, then I don't know what did . . .
In case you're wondering, this is what started the war - biden dangling nato in front of zelensky and zelensky angling for it, both knowing that would cross a Russian red line and trigger an invasion. That is Putin's point and Trump's - that no former territory of Russia proper could be part of Nato or the E.U.
If you wanted to talk about "Russia proper" then the size of the country would barely extend beyond the 14-Century Principality of Muscovy. 95% of Russia's current territory is a conquered land. Also, NATO expansion as the root cause of the war is a straw man argument. Putin's invasion of Ukraine resulted in Finland becoming a part of NATO. This caused a drastic extension of the NATO-Russia contact line by some 800+ miles and brought the NATO-Russia boundary within ~70-mile range of St. Petersburg, Russia's second most important city. Yet, you don't hear almost anything emanating from Moscow in response to this development. And, oh BTW, Finland is also a former part of Russia (1809-1917).
Russia's borders included most of present day Ukraine (except Galicia) since the partition of Poland in the late 18th century (and "nyovorussia" (i.e., donbas, lushank and Crimea were conquered from the Ottoman well before that, and hadn't been under Ukrainian control since the middle ages)), which isn't to say that ukraine should still be part of Russia - they fought for and voted for their independence numerous times - but Putin made every clear any moves to add ukraine to nato and/or the E.U. would result in a Russian invasion. It's immaterial if the invasion triggered sweden/finnish NATO accession because Russia never cared about that - but we do know Russia cared about the east Slavic lands that had been part of Kievan rus, so it's hardly a strawman. Just because Putin's plan backfired and was not foolproof doesn't mean that his threats shouldn't have been taken seriously. When a dictator makes clear that if one does X, they will do Y (and backs that up with 100k troops on the border), we should take that seriously.
I don't need any history lessons. I know that stuff inside out, and then some. The fact that russia "cares" about the former lands of Kyievan Rus' bears no relation to the ongoing events. By this logic Mongolia has a right to care about the former lands of The Ulus of Jochi which included all of Muscovia. And what exactly does "caring" mean? We saw the practical manifestation of this care in places like Bucha, Borodyanka, Irpen', Izyum, Kupyansk, and Mariupol. BTW, I'm not sure how well you are plugged into the current situation in Ukraine, but current residents of the lands Putin "cares" about are the ones who hate russia most. Nowadays, the closer you get to the frontline the greater is hatred of Moscow. Why? Because residents of these territories feel betrayed: they indeed used to have sympathy for Russia, yet, they are the ones who got to experience all "pleasures" of the Russiky Mir. Also, I beg to differ that Russia never "cared" about Finland. Ever heard of the Winter War? The Russian invasion of Ukraine resurrected in Finns the memories of what had happened when russia attempted to "care" about them last time.
You can argue all you want but the facts on the ground remain the same: 1) Putin repeatedly warned nato accession discussions for ukraine would be a red line; 2) despite that, biden and zelensky continued to play footsies around that throughout 2021 after the Afghan withdrawal, knowing about Putin's redline; and 3) true to his word, Putin invaded after putting 100'k troops on the border for months. You can try to reason all you want with a rabid dog and dispute the many variations of the word "care," but if you have a stick at a rabid dog, all that is useless when they gnaw off your leg, and that's where we are today. Finland was decades ago and no one cares about that now and Russia never cared about Finland as much as it cared about nyovorussia, so you can continue debating these strawman, but unless you plan on raising, funding and equipping 1 million men to push Russian soldiers and their land mines back across the border, then you really have nothing to add. .
I understand perfectly what you are talking about...except that you are still failing to explain what gave putin a right to claim any red lines INSIDE a foreign sovereign state? (How would you react if India began drawing red lines inside Pakistan?) Also, the fact that you dismissing Finland's case shows that you accept at face value putin's NATO argument. If his fears of NATO expansion were genuine, he would have "blown head gasket" over Finland's accession to NATO because while prolonged discussions of NATO membership for Ukraine had been taking place since at least 2008 (actually earlier) with no visible result, Finland managed to slide into NATO at a neck-breaking speed. This provides a tangible factual evidence that for putin, it is not about NATO, but about preserving the ability to dismantle the Ukrainian statehood without suffering any major repercussions - he simply does not believe that Ukraine has a right to exist, plain and simple (I hope you can read the Russian government-controlled media in Russian language - there is a ton of evidence to that effect, and they are far more explicit with their domestic audience). Also you are completely wrong about Finland being decades ago and not being relevant - if it were the case, Finns would not have rushed to join NATO: decades may have passed but the heinous nature of the muscovite regime is still the same. To be completely objective though, I agree with you on one point: by pussyfooting around the issue of NATO membership without doing anything to implement it, Biden did place Ukraine in an untenable position. You either let them in as quickly as you let the Finns in, or you declare that the Ukrainian membership in NATO is not on the table. But that would undermine the standing NATO policy of open doors for democratic nations of Europe; in case of Ukraine, it would also look like a gigantic betrayal since this would consign Ukraine to living in the shadow of the muscovate satrapy and denying it a right to chart its own national course. (I'm not even mentioning that it was thanks to the US, Ukraine voluntarily gave up the world's third largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for a useless piece of toilet paper AKA the Budapest Memorandum.)
It doesn't matter who or what gave him the right. we're talking about realistic on the ground situations, not a court of law. If you want to sue him in icc and enforce the judgment be my guest, but in the real world, for better or worse, might makes right and there's nothing you can do about it unless you've got a million-man army armed to the teeth, or if you want to pay for that. You're looking for consistency in Putin's thinking and you won't find it except he seems to think Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are the tripartite successors to east-slavic Kieran rus and everyone else can go to hell, and refuse to take him seriously (like biden and zelensky did) and prepare to go to war. You make lovely beautiful arguments that would do wonderful in a gilded court of law - but that's not where we are.
This is the best-articulated case I have heard for Ukraine and Zelenski in quite some time but it still doesn't mean that America should shoulder more of the load than the EU. Like others here have stated I too hope Trumps rhetoric o the matter is just a negotiating tactic.
A great many admirers and tolerators of Trump are genuinely shocked by these statements. We can only hope this is a negotiating gambit, and that it succeeds. Otherwise, it is well nigh indefensible
Actually, a world where U.S. taxpayers send 200B in arms and support for a war the host country can't win is a pretty dangerous place, too.
How many dead, so far? For what?
"Reagan was our lifeline in the Soviet Union"
This is exactly how I remember it. America, the shining city on the hill, the land of promise and freedom. The land of dreams and aspirations, honor and generosity.
I've experienced these things here for 30 years. To see what is happening to the US is such a colossal disillusionment that it's hard to put into words. And Sharansky is right. The left paved the way with insane policies, gaslighting, cancel culture, etc. But the right...the right said. "Hold my beer"
I'm heartbroken.
What is happening to the U.S.? What do you mean?
Thank you for writing this without hysterics.
As a canadian, I cringed when Zelensky openly campaigned on behalf of Biden, in a state Trump ended up winning.
I cringe when I see European leaders screaming about Vance and Musk making comments about European leaders, leaders who have made endless disparaging comments about Trump.
I cringe when our Prime Idiot Trudeau said the USA was misogynistic for not electing Harris when he was actively subverting Chrystia Freeland as he has done with a long line of women who dared to stand up for themselves.
I don’t know where Trump is headed with all of this, but I have little good to say about those opposing him.
Things are pretty fucked up, is he making it better or worse?
No way to say, everyone who states unequivocally either way at this point is just expressing their own bias, they don’t really know.
As a canadian, we have been governed by unserious children for a decade and they have only made adult-like sounds (and they are still only sounds) in the previous 2 months.
If Trump does nothing else, that is a massive accomplishment.
Has it ever occurred to you that Zelensky, in dealing with dozens of countries, simply wasn't tuned into the intricacies of America's battle states? I've lived here 30 years and the significance of it escaped me. The left played him but it's not Zelensky's fault
If he doesn't understand politics in the U.S. he is not capable to lead any country on Earth.
Ah, good ole American chauvinism. Thanks, comrade
Negotiating a peaceful solution to the war will be long and arduous. Idk why Trump and Zelensky are having a public spat, and let's hope that's all it is, we need to put aside our differences to create a solution. It would help if it didn’t appear that Putin and Trump were teaming together against Zelensky, and it would be help if Zelensky didn't automatically assume that he was the odd man out.
Zelensky seems to read and believe the American legacy media. It has led to calamity.
Good article - though Reagan's opponents at the time did say he was only an actor....
Thank you, Free Press, for publishing this fine and moving article.
Finally, the sensible right (The Reagan Republicans) is waking up and realizing that the far right is way more dangerous and destructive than the far left! Not because they are worse, but because they have way more power at this moment in our history.
The far left never had any real power. The center left controlled things. Thus, the worst the far left ever got was “cancel culture”, DEI and CRT.
The far right has now taken over the government and is imposing their views about government and culture on all of us without regard to what any of the rest of us think, and without regard to what the law and tradition have to say about it.
We Americans voted these fascists in because we were so fucking scared of DEI and CRT and gender queer people. We deserve this.
The worst the far left ever got was “cancel culture”, DEI and CRT? With that one sentence you demonstrate your far leftist POV. We Americans voted these fascists, with that one sentence you demonstrate your lack of historical understanding and perspective.
Mangled teens and burned down police precincts are no big deal once you see the true horror of career government bureaucrats being forced to show up for work or even being laid off!
Found this on the web. Applies to the current betrayal of friends and allies. Seems that history does repeat itself.
<Just after the Munich Agreement, in response to Chamberlain's assertion that the agreement had achieved “peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time”, Winston Churchill declared,
“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”
“And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”>
How is history repeating? Is Russia set to overrun Europe, exterminating all Jewish folks in the process? Would you say Joe Biden is our Winston Churchill?
While it stirs one's heart to learn that an American President gave hope to Soviet dissidents, it does not alter the fact that Reagan's words or deeds accomplished nothing toward turning Russia into a liberal democracy. It remains an ominously dangerous bastion of corrupt imperial ambition with a formidable nuclear arsenal. It is entirely possible that no amount of moral high ground, blood shed, or weapons expended will produce a free and functional Ukraine. Even if the war could be ended tomorrow with Ukraine's borders restored, it is not a stretch to imagine that Zelensky could be removed from office by an election or a coup, or worse. Five years later Ukraine could be ruled by its own Lukashenko who would turn it into another Belarus. Like the transition of the horrid and corrupt USSR into the horrid and corrupt Russia, the celebration of "democracy" could be short-lived.
If President Trump wants the Europeans to sleep well he must craft a true lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia. Is he up to the task? I hope so.
There is "peace through strength"
There is "peace with honour"
There is "peace for our time"
Will Trump be able to silence the guns that have destroyed the lives of millions of Russians and Ukrainians and assure Poland and the Baltics that they will not be simply locked until they are loaded by Russia for another try?
Will President Trump's efforts to stop the war between Russia and Ukraine enable Ukraine to sleep well? Do the people of Taiwan sleep well?
Do the people of Russia who live under Putin's boot sleep well?
The following is the wording of a printed statement that Neville Chamberlain waved as he stepped off the plane on 30 September, 1938 after the Munich Conference had ended the day before:
"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
Chamberlain read the above statement in front of 10 Downing St. and said:
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
There is a vast difference between Chamberlin's appeasement, occurring before any shots had been fired at or by Great Britain, and the war in Ukraine in which hundreds of thousands have already died with little evidence of imminent Ukrainian victory. In the early going it was reasonable to believe the Ukrainians could, with our help, repel the invasion. But, sanctions have not sufficiently crippled Putin; adding layer upon layer of advanced weapons systems have not turned the tide; the Ukrainian offensives into the Donbas and across the border into Russia stalled; Ukraine faces a recruiting crises; Ukraine's public infrastructure continues to be degraded; the Europeans continue to talk big and do little; Putin still does not face a meaningful opposition within Russia. In that context, negotiated peace that includes distasteful concessions may be disappointing but they are not the same as appeasement. As Ecclesiastes says "there is a time for war and a time for peace."
So what is the end game? What is the state of peace in Europe when the guns fall silent?
The state of peace in Europe should always be primarily the highest priority of Europeans. The U.S. should act in its own interests and not indemnify European countries to the extent that they do not take seriously nor commit to their own defense. It is up to them to present a credible deterrent. The "end game" options as far as Ukraine is concerned are to continue with more of the same war, which will ultimately result in its destruction; to convince NATO to escalate in dramatic fashion with the attendant risks; or to settle for a negotiated peace based upon the cards each side holds. The latter, by the reality on the ground, does not include Russian retreat from Donbas and Crimea. It is unrealistic to presume otherwise. The moral high ground cannot be imposed on a belligerent who holds the military high ground.
Well said!
. . . If, in the immediate wake of the disastrous Afghanistan pull-out, playing footsies over NATO membership for Ukraine (which for Russia, was as much of a red line for them as the Soviets putting nukes 90 miles off of Florida) did not instigate the Russian invasion, then I don't know what did . . .
In case you're wondering, this is what started the war - biden dangling nato in front of zelensky and zelensky angling for it, both knowing that would cross a Russian red line and trigger an invasion. That is Putin's point and Trump's - that no former territory of Russia proper could be part of Nato or the E.U.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-zelenskyy-presses-biden-on-nato-membership/a-59056776
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-zelenskyy-presses-biden-on-nato-membership/a-59056776
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/
If you wanted to talk about "Russia proper" then the size of the country would barely extend beyond the 14-Century Principality of Muscovy. 95% of Russia's current territory is a conquered land. Also, NATO expansion as the root cause of the war is a straw man argument. Putin's invasion of Ukraine resulted in Finland becoming a part of NATO. This caused a drastic extension of the NATO-Russia contact line by some 800+ miles and brought the NATO-Russia boundary within ~70-mile range of St. Petersburg, Russia's second most important city. Yet, you don't hear almost anything emanating from Moscow in response to this development. And, oh BTW, Finland is also a former part of Russia (1809-1917).
Russia's borders included most of present day Ukraine (except Galicia) since the partition of Poland in the late 18th century (and "nyovorussia" (i.e., donbas, lushank and Crimea were conquered from the Ottoman well before that, and hadn't been under Ukrainian control since the middle ages)), which isn't to say that ukraine should still be part of Russia - they fought for and voted for their independence numerous times - but Putin made every clear any moves to add ukraine to nato and/or the E.U. would result in a Russian invasion. It's immaterial if the invasion triggered sweden/finnish NATO accession because Russia never cared about that - but we do know Russia cared about the east Slavic lands that had been part of Kievan rus, so it's hardly a strawman. Just because Putin's plan backfired and was not foolproof doesn't mean that his threats shouldn't have been taken seriously. When a dictator makes clear that if one does X, they will do Y (and backs that up with 100k troops on the border), we should take that seriously.
I don't need any history lessons. I know that stuff inside out, and then some. The fact that russia "cares" about the former lands of Kyievan Rus' bears no relation to the ongoing events. By this logic Mongolia has a right to care about the former lands of The Ulus of Jochi which included all of Muscovia. And what exactly does "caring" mean? We saw the practical manifestation of this care in places like Bucha, Borodyanka, Irpen', Izyum, Kupyansk, and Mariupol. BTW, I'm not sure how well you are plugged into the current situation in Ukraine, but current residents of the lands Putin "cares" about are the ones who hate russia most. Nowadays, the closer you get to the frontline the greater is hatred of Moscow. Why? Because residents of these territories feel betrayed: they indeed used to have sympathy for Russia, yet, they are the ones who got to experience all "pleasures" of the Russiky Mir. Also, I beg to differ that Russia never "cared" about Finland. Ever heard of the Winter War? The Russian invasion of Ukraine resurrected in Finns the memories of what had happened when russia attempted to "care" about them last time.
You can argue all you want but the facts on the ground remain the same: 1) Putin repeatedly warned nato accession discussions for ukraine would be a red line; 2) despite that, biden and zelensky continued to play footsies around that throughout 2021 after the Afghan withdrawal, knowing about Putin's redline; and 3) true to his word, Putin invaded after putting 100'k troops on the border for months. You can try to reason all you want with a rabid dog and dispute the many variations of the word "care," but if you have a stick at a rabid dog, all that is useless when they gnaw off your leg, and that's where we are today. Finland was decades ago and no one cares about that now and Russia never cared about Finland as much as it cared about nyovorussia, so you can continue debating these strawman, but unless you plan on raising, funding and equipping 1 million men to push Russian soldiers and their land mines back across the border, then you really have nothing to add. .
I understand perfectly what you are talking about...except that you are still failing to explain what gave putin a right to claim any red lines INSIDE a foreign sovereign state? (How would you react if India began drawing red lines inside Pakistan?) Also, the fact that you dismissing Finland's case shows that you accept at face value putin's NATO argument. If his fears of NATO expansion were genuine, he would have "blown head gasket" over Finland's accession to NATO because while prolonged discussions of NATO membership for Ukraine had been taking place since at least 2008 (actually earlier) with no visible result, Finland managed to slide into NATO at a neck-breaking speed. This provides a tangible factual evidence that for putin, it is not about NATO, but about preserving the ability to dismantle the Ukrainian statehood without suffering any major repercussions - he simply does not believe that Ukraine has a right to exist, plain and simple (I hope you can read the Russian government-controlled media in Russian language - there is a ton of evidence to that effect, and they are far more explicit with their domestic audience). Also you are completely wrong about Finland being decades ago and not being relevant - if it were the case, Finns would not have rushed to join NATO: decades may have passed but the heinous nature of the muscovite regime is still the same. To be completely objective though, I agree with you on one point: by pussyfooting around the issue of NATO membership without doing anything to implement it, Biden did place Ukraine in an untenable position. You either let them in as quickly as you let the Finns in, or you declare that the Ukrainian membership in NATO is not on the table. But that would undermine the standing NATO policy of open doors for democratic nations of Europe; in case of Ukraine, it would also look like a gigantic betrayal since this would consign Ukraine to living in the shadow of the muscovate satrapy and denying it a right to chart its own national course. (I'm not even mentioning that it was thanks to the US, Ukraine voluntarily gave up the world's third largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for a useless piece of toilet paper AKA the Budapest Memorandum.)
It doesn't matter who or what gave him the right. we're talking about realistic on the ground situations, not a court of law. If you want to sue him in icc and enforce the judgment be my guest, but in the real world, for better or worse, might makes right and there's nothing you can do about it unless you've got a million-man army armed to the teeth, or if you want to pay for that. You're looking for consistency in Putin's thinking and you won't find it except he seems to think Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are the tripartite successors to east-slavic Kieran rus and everyone else can go to hell, and refuse to take him seriously (like biden and zelensky did) and prepare to go to war. You make lovely beautiful arguments that would do wonderful in a gilded court of law - but that's not where we are.
This is the best-articulated case I have heard for Ukraine and Zelenski in quite some time but it still doesn't mean that America should shoulder more of the load than the EU. Like others here have stated I too hope Trumps rhetoric o the matter is just a negotiating tactic.
Captain Bone Spurs is a despicable coward.
It's amazing to me that people kowtow to him
As he would say: Sad!
A great many admirers and tolerators of Trump are genuinely shocked by these statements. We can only hope this is a negotiating gambit, and that it succeeds. Otherwise, it is well nigh indefensible
Natan, here is that the rare case when you are wrong and I disagree with you.