West Provokes Russia to Protect Russians in Ukraine

[stuper1]

The Western geniuses who pushed Russia past all the red lines it laid out, and violated the Minsk agreements which Merkel recently admitted was their plan all along, didn't realize the consequences of sanctions on Russia, which is basically to ruin the European economy and push Russia into the arms of China:




In case my image posting is faulty, which is very likely, the above image is of Putin and Jinping appearing quite chummy. I've also heard reports that China and Saudi Arabia are getting friendlier. Pretty soon it's going to be the US/UK/France/Germany against everybody else, and our military is led by a man who feels he's a woman. I wonder which side will win?

Remember the story on how WW2 was won? Basically, because Russia had unlimited soldiers to attack Germany on the east, and because the USA had unlimited materiel to provide on the west. Well, if it's going to be the US/UK/France/Germany against everybody else, which side now has the unlimited soldiers and materiel? I'm pretty sure all those factories humming along in China can be used to build military equipment also.

[boglerdude]

Just as long as the fighting stays far away from me. Here's your pic btw

[SilentMajority]

In case my image posting is faulty, which is very likely, the above image is of Putin and Jinping appearing quite chummy. I've also heard reports that China and Saudi Arabia are getting friendlier. Pretty soon it's going to be the US/UK/France/Germany against everybody else, and our military is led by a man who feels he's a woman. I wonder which side will win?

Do you think France and Germany will go along with it all the way to direct war? They have massive, massive internal problems with all the migrants in the country and the socialism. Riots in both countries against the government are commonplace now and we're seeing more conciliatory language from both governments lately.

Poland seems onboard for war but this might just be to get back Polish territory from the country currently called "Ukraine". Looks like Hungary is out as Orban is rejecting Russian oil price caps from the EU. Romania might be onboard for further escalation but again, they have territory from old borders that was taken by the Soviets and given to this hodge-podge of land and people called "Ukraine".

[stuper1]

I have no idea whether France and/or Germany would go to direct war in Ukraine. I hope note. When I said US/US/France/Germany against the rest of the world, I wasn't thinking so much of this current Ukraine conflict, but more about the wider balance of power that may play out in coming years.

I think a mistake many people make on the Ukraine thing is not realizing that Russia has legitimate grievances with how Russian people in eastern Ukraine were being treated by the Zelensky regime, not to mention the questions about the legitimacy of the Zelensky regime to begin with, and the breakdown of the Minsk agreements. All of this means that according to some sources at least Putin has strong support at home for his operation in Ukraine (despite Western media insisting the opposite). With strong support at home, combined with the size of Russia as compared to Ukraine, the fact that Ukraine is right next to Russia not halfway around the world so supply lines are short, and the fact that Russia is by no means isolated but maintains relationships with China and India, I don't see how in the long-run that Ukraine could hope to win this conflict. But I doubt that Zelensky really thinks he can win either. He's just going to play along for as long as the aid keeps rolling in, so he can keep getting his cut and storing it off-shore, and then when things start to look really bleak, he will look for asylum elsewhere where he can enjoy the fruits of his labors. And he won't feel bad about the millions of Ukrainian lives lost and disrupted along the way.

[SilentMajority]

I have no idea whether France and/or Germany would go to direct war in Ukraine. I hope note. When I said US/US/France/Germany against the rest of the world, I wasn't thinking so much of this current Ukraine conflict, but more about the wider balance of power that may play out in coming years.

I think a mistake many people make on the Ukraine thing is not realizing that Russia has legitimate grievances with how Russian people in eastern Ukraine were being treated by the Zelensky regime, not to mention the questions about the legitimacy of the Zelensky regime to begin with, and the breakdown of the Minsk agreements. All of this means that according to some sources at least Putin has strong support at home for his operation in Ukraine (despite Western media insisting the opposite). With strong support at home, combined with the size of Russia as compared to Ukraine, the fact that Ukraine is right next to Russia not halfway around the world so supply lines are short, and the fact that Russia is by no means isolated but maintains relationships with China and India, I don't see how in the long-run that Ukraine could hope to win this conflict. But I doubt that Zelensky really thinks he can win either. He's just going to play along for as long as the aid keeps rolling in, so he can keep getting his cut and storing it off-shore, and then when things start to look really bleak, he will look for asylum elsewhere where he can enjoy the fruits of his labors. And he won't feel bad about the millions of Ukrainian lives lost and disrupted along the way.

And money can keep getting laundered back to crooks in the USA, probably via crypto.

Weapons go to Ukraine, weapons get sold to God knows who for crypto, crypto payoffs get transferred back to US gov't officials and the shadow government, some money goes into political campaigns to keep the scam going.

Or we're wrong and this is a highly moral cause for the US government to champion to bleed Russia on behalf of the American people. There's always that possibility.

Regardless, we are in a Democracy so there's no way to protest this. The only way the population can redress grievances is through voting but you only have two choices and both sides support the scam in 99% of political races.

In a democracy if you actually protest the government you are labeled "a threat to democracy" and "enemy of the people" or "against the will of the people". This in spite of the fact that the government collectively has maybe a 25% approval rating.

If we had a king or dictator at least then we could maybe protest it and they'd have to worry about revolution. They'd have to try to maintain at least 50% support of the people. In a democracy the government can have 1% support and there are zero consequences.

[stuper1]

"a highly moral cause" ? That might be possible if there weren't hundreds of thousands of people dying as collateral damage. I'm sure you knew that, but maybe some other people need to keep hearing it over and over before they will stop and think.

I have a question for you. I enjoy listening to The Duran podcast. Are you familiar with it? If so, do you think they are paid off by the Russians?

Even if they are, they make a whole lot more sense to me than the simplistic pablum fed to the masses.

I used to think they weren't, but I'm starting to have doubts. I mean, where do they get their funding? How do they have time to make all these podcasts if they don't have outside funding? One thing that stood out to me was one of their frequent guests was on last week and mentioned he was working on a new book that would be out soon, and then he mentioned what the price would be, which was zero, as in it will be free to download. That makes me suspicious. Who works on a book for months and years and then offers it for free unless he is getting funding say from the Russians?

[Tortoise]

And money can keep getting laundered back to crooks in the USA, probably via crypto.

Weapons go to Ukraine, weapons get sold to God knows who for crypto, crypto payoffs get transferred back to US gov't officials and the shadow government, some money goes into political campaigns to keep the scam going.

Or we're wrong and this is a highly moral cause for the US government to champion to bleed Russia on behalf of the American people. There's always that possibility.

It doesn't have to be either/or; it can also be both. Some "true believers" in the State Department and Defense Department who set most of it in motion may be driven by ideology, while other government officials and politicians may provide administrative and financial support to the cause not because they share the ideology, but mainly because it's "good for business" (increases funding to their orgs/agencies, brings defense business to the states/districts they represent, etc.).

If we had a king or dictator at least then we could maybe protest it and they'd have to worry about revolution. They'd have to try to maintain at least 50% support of the people. In a democracy the government can have 1% support and there are zero consequences.

The problem isn't with democracy or voting per se, it's with systems that are supposedly democratic but in fact give very limited choices to the voters -- a mere illusion of democracy. For example, my understanding is that in the former Soviet Union and other communist countries, they actually held elections, but they were mostly for show. All of the approved political parties were basically just the communist party with different labels slapped on them. So no matter who you voted for, they would be guaranteed to cooperate with the communist party.

We're not quite there yet in the US, but our two-party system with its vastly expanded administrative state of unelected bureaucrats (what some call the deep state or the swamp) has definitely limited our ability to make lasting influence on foreign policy.

[SilentMajority]

If we had a king or dictator at least then we could maybe protest it and they'd have to worry about revolution. They'd have to try to maintain at least 50% support of the people. In a democracy the government can have 1% support and there are zero consequences.

The problem isn't with democracy or voting per se, it's with systems that are supposedly democratic but in fact give very limited choices to the voters -- a mere illusion of democracy. For example, my understanding is that in the former Soviet Union and other communist countries, they actually held elections, but they were mostly for show. All of the approved political parties were basically just the communist party with different labels slapped on them. So no matter who you voted for, they would be guaranteed to cooperate with the communist party.

We're not quite there yet in the US, but our two-party system with its vastly expanded administrative state of unelected bureaucrats (what some call the deep state or the swamp) has definitely limited our ability to make lasting influence on foreign policy.

I've heard elections described as a suggestion box for slaves.

Well at least we can complain about it online to each other.......for now.

[Kriegsspiel]

I have a question for you. I enjoy listening to The Duran podcast. Are you familiar with it? If so, do you think they are paid off by the Russians?

Even if they are, they make a whole lot more sense to me than the simplistic pablum fed to the masses.

I used to think they weren't, but I'm starting to have doubts. I mean, where do they get their funding? How do they have time to make all these podcasts if they don't have outside funding? One thing that stood out to me was one of their frequent guests was on last week and mentioned he was working on a new book that would be out soon, and then he mentioned what the price would be, which was zero, as in it will be free to download. That makes me suspicious. Who works on a book for months and years and then offers it for free unless he is getting funding say from the Russians?

A lot of people do podcasts and write online without making much money. Maybe they have day jobs.

As far as books go, I'm pretty sure Peter Zeihan donates all proceeds from his book sales to charity, and makes his money from speaking gigs and other stuff.

And if you were just trollin, then to you sir.

[stuper1]

Yes, my default position is to not assume that people who do podcasts are paid off by any government, unless there is good reason to think otherwise, but some things I've heard lately on The Duran have had me wondering if maybe I'm too naive.

I'm not sure what it is about my writing style, but I seem to get accused of being a troll fairly often. I hardly know what a troll is. Maybe I am one without even knowing it. I try to always write in good faith, although sure like anybody I may use sarcasm on occasion and sometimes I write with my heart and not my head.

[SilentMajority]

Yes, my default position is to not assume that people who do podcasts are paid off by any government, unless there is good reason to think otherwise, but some things I've heard lately on The Duran have had me wondering if maybe I'm too naive.

I'm not sure what it is about my writing style, but I seem to get accused of being a troll fairly often. I hardly know what a troll is. Maybe I am one without even knowing it. I try to always write in good faith, although sure like anybody I may use sarcasm on occasion and sometimes I write with my heart and not my head.

Anyone who doesn't support the current thing, vehemently, looks like a troll.

[stuper1]

Washington is prolonging Ukraine's suffering:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... suffering/

[Xan]

Boris Johnson also wants the war to end quickly but has the opposite approach.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-a-quic ... 1670591008

I don’t care how often I have to say it: The war in Ukraine can end only with Vladimir Putin’s defeat. Russian forces must be pushed back to the de facto boundary of Feb. 24. There is no way Volodymyr Zelensky or the Ukrainian people could conceivably accept another outcome, not after the savagery they have endured. There is no land-for-peace deal to be done, even if Mr. Putin were offering it and even if he were to be trusted, which he is not.

Since the war can end only one way, the question is how fast we get to the inevitable conclusion. It’s in everyone’s interest, including Russia’s, that the curtain come down as soon as possible on Mr. Putin’s misadventure. Not in 2025, not in 2024, but in 2023.

The world can’t continue to watch as the Ukrainians are terrorized with missiles and drones. It is a moral abomination that millions are being left night after night without heating or light or water—to say nothing of the continuing and indiscriminate murder of civilians. And the longer Mr. Putin continues with his senseless attacks, the longer the global economic hemorrhage will continue as well.

There is a serious danger of complacency about the consequences of delay. For all who rely on supplies of Russian gas, this winter will be very tough, though thanks to prodigious organizational efforts to store gas supplies we will get through it. The bigger problem is next winter—2023-24—when those stocks will have been run down and become harder to replenish. Newly commissioned liquid natural gas terminals won’t yet be online. Some European countries are rushing to build more offshore wind capacity, but that won’t be ready either; and we certainly won’t have any more civilian nuclear reactors. Are we really going to wait and let this thing drift until Mr. Putin has regained some of his leverage?

It is time to look urgently at what more the West can do to help the Ukrainians achieve their military objectives, or at least to kick the Russians out of all the territories invaded this year. That’s the only plausible basis on which a conversation about the future could begin. The Ukrainians have the valor necessary to succeed. They have shown it. They just need the equipment.

The American contribution has already been prodigious—at least $17 billion in military aid. The U.K. has committed about £2.3 billion. Other countries have been stepping up. I know these expenditures are painful at a time of fiscal restraint, but time is money, and the longer this goes on the more we will all end up paying in military support.

So let’s share the burden and accelerate the denouement. First let’s give the Ukrainians the help they need against aerial attacks. Kyiv needs unmanned aerial vehicles to detect the launch sites of drones and missiles, as well as antiaircraft missiles to take them out. The drones have the same engines as Vespa scooters, so planes to shoot them down don’t have to be fast. As one Ukrainian put it to me, “Spitfires would do.” We don’t make Spitfires in the U.K. anymore, but plenty of countries have planes that would do the job.

Mr. Putin has reportedly taken to attaching conventional warheads to nuclear cruise missiles, which may indicate that he is running low on drones and missiles. This is just a guess, but we can’t afford to wait to find out. As former U.S. national security adviser H.R. McMaster recently told me, the Ukrainians need to be able to take out the arrows, and they need to be able to take out the archer as well. They need the longer-range systems, such as ATACMS, that would enable them to target launch sites, and they need armored cars and tanks to retake ground quickly.

I know the wearying counterargument that stepping up supplies to Ukraine risks escalation. We dare not risk “poking the Russian bear.” Surely to goodness, after almost a year of this hideous conflict, we can see what total nonsense this is.

Mr. Putin knows he can’t use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. He knows the consequences. The truth is that he’s the one who fears escalation. It wasn’t a threat from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that “provoked” him to invade. It was decades of Western lassitude and irresolution about Ukraine’s status that enticed the bully to make his mistake. The West has atoned for this failure with a stunning display of coherence and unity since February. We must be stronger and bolder.

This thing is only going one way. For the sake of the world, let’s help those brave Ukrainians finish the job, and the quicker the better.

[stuper1]

Well, I mean, surely you can see the hypocrisy in Boris Johnson's approach, can't you? If the war can end only in Vladimir Putin's defeat (I mean, who writes this stuff? But okay, whatever), then why aren't the UK, US, etc. sending their men and women over there to help shoulder the burden of fighting and dying? It's not like we aren't already at war with Russia. These proxy wars are just hypocritical nonsense.

Mr. Johnson's spiel, which was probably written by the press team for Raytheon, is typical neocon swagger and provocation.

[Kriegsspiel]

Boris Johnson is telling us Americans that we should spend our money to buy ATACMs and a fuckload of air defense equipment for Ukraine, in addition to the BILLIONS we've already given them, and that other countries should contribute their aircraft. Most of it (speculative) to be manned by conscripts with a few months of training.

Meanwhile, the head of the British armed forces told Ukraine that supplying them with the amount of artillery shells that Ukraine wants (maybe 3 or 4x fewer than Russia is using, according to US defense officials) would cause the EU to ". . . lose Europe. We will have nothing to live on if you fire that many shells."

[seajay]

why aren't the UK, US, etc. sending their men and women over there to help shoulder the burden of fighting and dying?

Increasingly more countries are moving away from using the US Dollar as a primary reserve/trading currency. There's less of a concern/issue for Europe/UK about such a move as only the country authorized to print it will be harmed. As such EU/UK support for Ukraine (US Dollar) is more token than of necessity.

[SilentMajority]

why aren't the UK, US, etc. sending their men and women over there to help shoulder the burden of fighting and dying?

Increasingly more countries are moving away from using the US Dollar as a primary reserve/trading currency. There's less of a concern/issue for Europe/UK about such a move as only the country authorized to print it will be harmed. As such EU/UK support for Ukraine (US Dollar) is more token than of necessity.

At this point I wouldn't characterize it as support. I'd say NATO is fighting a war against Russian in Ukraine using Ukrainian people as fodder.

[I Shrugged]

Well, I mean, surely you can see the hypocrisy in Boris Johnson's approach, can't you? If the war can end only in Vladimir Putin's defeat (I mean, who writes this stuff? But okay, whatever), then why aren't the UK, US, etc. sending their men and women over there to help shoulder the burden of fighting and dying? It's not like we aren't already at war with Russia. These proxy wars are just hypocritical nonsense.

Mr. Johnson's spiel, which was probably written by the press team for Raytheon, is typical neocon swagger and provocation.

Yes, it was lame propaganda. They know their audience though. This is how people end up convinced to go to war.

[stuper1]

As I'm reading that line that says "The war can end only in Vladimir Putin's defeat," I'm thinking: or it could end in a huge nuclear conflagration with untold millions of people dead.

Another thing that a lot of people get wrong about this conflict is they immediately hearken back to Hitler and they say that if we don't stop Putin in Ukraine, that next he'll by taking Estonia, Lithuania, and/or Poland, etc. Wiser men than me say that generals are always preparing for the last war, but then the next war comes along and it's quite different from the last one, so they are caught unprepared.

I don't think Putin is a threat to take any of those other countries besides Ukraine, mainly because I don't think he's a moron. He doesn't want or need the insurgent headache that would come along with taking any of those countries. He had a different calculation with Ukraine, because historically it's been much closer to Russia, and also he was defending the Russians who were being mistreated by the Ukrainians. Unlike Hitler, Putin doesn't need any more lebensraum. Russia already has plenty of lebensraum. Also, unlike Hitler, Putin is not a crazed, blood-thirsty, ideological fanatic. Have you ever watched any of his speeches, meaning at length, not just little gotcha bits that CNN might pull out? They seem pretty impressive to me if you put aside the propaganda we've been brought up with and just judge them from first principles. Yes, I know he's an authoritarian and certainly very cruel when he needs to be. As Jeffrey Sachs said in the podcast I posted on another thread today, it's no wonder that Russia has an authoritarian leader. They've had such leaders for centuries and maybe millenia. It is ingrained in their culture. Maybe it will change with time, but probably not any time soon. We just have to accept that and deal with it, hopefully without getting the whole world blown up in a nuclear holocaust.

[yankees60]

Boris Johnson also wants the war to end quickly but has the opposite approach.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-a-quic ... 1670591008

I don’t care how often I have to say it: The war in Ukraine can end only with Vladimir Putin’s defeat. Russian forces must be pushed back to the de facto boundary of Feb. 24. There is no way Volodymyr Zelensky or the Ukrainian people could conceivably accept another outcome, not after the savagery they have endured. There is no land-for-peace deal to be done, even if Mr. Putin were offering it and even if he were to be trusted, which he is not.

Since the war can end only one way, the question is how fast we get to the inevitable conclusion. It’s in everyone’s interest, including Russia’s, that the curtain come down as soon as possible on Mr. Putin’s misadventure. Not in 2025, not in 2024, but in 2023.

The world can’t continue to watch as the Ukrainians are terrorized with missiles and drones. It is a moral abomination that millions are being left night after night without heating or light or water—to say nothing of the continuing and indiscriminate murder of civilians. And the longer Mr. Putin continues with his senseless attacks, the longer the global economic hemorrhage will continue as well.

There is a serious danger of complacency about the consequences of delay. For all who rely on supplies of Russian gas, this winter will be very tough, though thanks to prodigious organizational efforts to store gas supplies we will get through it. The bigger problem is next winter—2023-24—when those stocks will have been run down and become harder to replenish. Newly commissioned liquid natural gas terminals won’t yet be online. Some European countries are rushing to build more offshore wind capacity, but that won’t be ready either; and we certainly won’t have any more civilian nuclear reactors. Are we really going to wait and let this thing drift until Mr. Putin has regained some of his leverage?

It is time to look urgently at what more the West can do to help the Ukrainians achieve their military objectives, or at least to kick the Russians out of all the territories invaded this year. That’s the only plausible basis on which a conversation about the future could begin. The Ukrainians have the valor necessary to succeed. They have shown it. They just need the equipment.

The American contribution has already been prodigious—at least $17 billion in military aid. The U.K. has committed about £2.3 billion. Other countries have been stepping up. I know these expenditures are painful at a time of fiscal restraint, but time is money, and the longer this goes on the more we will all end up paying in military support.

So let’s share the burden and accelerate the denouement. First let’s give the Ukrainians the help they need against aerial attacks. Kyiv needs unmanned aerial vehicles to detect the launch sites of drones and missiles, as well as antiaircraft missiles to take them out. The drones have the same engines as Vespa scooters, so planes to shoot them down don’t have to be fast. As one Ukrainian put it to me, “Spitfires would do.” We don’t make Spitfires in the U.K. anymore, but plenty of countries have planes that would do the job.

Mr. Putin has reportedly taken to attaching conventional warheads to nuclear cruise missiles, which may indicate that he is running low on drones and missiles. This is just a guess, but we can’t afford to wait to find out. As former U.S. national security adviser H.R. McMaster recently told me, the Ukrainians need to be able to take out the arrows, and they need to be able to take out the archer as well. They need the longer-range systems, such as ATACMS, that would enable them to target launch sites, and they need armored cars and tanks to retake ground quickly.

I know the wearying counterargument that stepping up supplies to Ukraine risks escalation. We dare not risk “poking the Russian bear.” Surely to goodness, after almost a year of this hideous conflict, we can see what total nonsense this is.

Mr. Putin knows he can’t use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. He knows the consequences. The truth is that he’s the one who fears escalation. It wasn’t a threat from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that “provoked” him to invade. It was decades of Western lassitude and irresolution about Ukraine’s status that enticed the bully to make his mistake. The West has atoned for this failure with a stunning display of coherence and unity since February. We must be stronger and bolder.

This thing is only going one way. For the sake of the world, let’s help those brave Ukrainians finish the job, and the quicker the better.

All quite persuasive to me!

[yankees60]

Well, I mean, surely you can see the hypocrisy in Boris Johnson's approach, can't you? If the war can end only in Vladimir Putin's defeat (I mean, who writes this stuff? But okay, whatever), then why aren't the UK, US, etc. sending their men and women over there to help shoulder the burden of fighting and dying? It's not like we aren't already at war with Russia. These proxy wars are just hypocritical nonsense.

Mr. Johnson's spiel, which was probably written by the press team for Raytheon, is typical neocon swagger and provocation.

I know that you are a student of history. So how is what he is advocating (which is really an extension or expansion of what we are already doing) any different than Roosevelt's Lend Lease during World War II to England prior to our entrance to the war. Unless you believe he was wrong at that time to be doing that. I am almost certain that that was the premise of Pat Buchanan's book regarding how we should not have been involved in World War II.

[stuper1]

Well, I mean, surely you can see the hypocrisy in Boris Johnson's approach, can't you? If the war can end only in Vladimir Putin's defeat (I mean, who writes this stuff? But okay, whatever), then why aren't the UK, US, etc. sending their men and women over there to help shoulder the burden of fighting and dying? It's not like we aren't already at war with Russia. These proxy wars are just hypocritical nonsense.

Mr. Johnson's spiel, which was probably written by the press team for Raytheon, is typical neocon swagger and provocation.

I know that you are a student of history. So how is what he is advocating (which is really an extension or expansion of what we are already doing) any different than Roosevelt's Lend Lease during World War II to England prior to our entrance to the war. Unless you believe he was wrong at that time to be doing that. I am almost certain that that was the premise of Pat Buchanan's book regarding how we should not have been involved in World War II.

We shouldn't have been involved in either World War I or World War II. If we hadn't been involved in World War I, there probably wouldn't have been a World War II. Even if we did get involved in World War I, we never should have gotten involved in World War II. Hitler was never any threat to attack America. He didn't even have a navy other than submarines. He just wanted more room in Europe including a bunch of lands where a bunch of German people were already living and had gotten split off over the years. He wasn't after world domination. That's just hysteria that Hollywood likes to throw around to sell more movie tickets. No way could not-very-big Germany dominate the whole world. That whole line about we had to defeat Hitler or we all would be speaking German now is just silliness.

[yankees60]

As I'm reading that line that says "The war can end only in Vladimir Putin's defeat," I'm thinking: or it could end in a huge nuclear conflagration with untold millions of people dead.

Another thing that a lot of people get wrong about this conflict is they immediately hearken back to Hitler and they say that if we don't stop Putin in Ukraine, that next he'll by taking Estonia, Lithuania, and/or Poland, etc. Wiser men than me say that generals are always preparing for the last war, but then the next war comes along and it's quite different from the last one, so they are caught unprepared.

I don't think Putin is a threat to take any of those other countries besides Ukraine, mainly because I don't think he's a moron. He doesn't want or need the insurgent headache that would come along with taking any of those countries. He had a different calculation with Ukraine, because historically it's been much closer to Russia, and also he was defending the Russians who were being mistreated by the Ukrainians. Unlike Hitler, Putin doesn't need any more lebensraum. Russia already has plenty of lebensraum. Also, unlike Hitler, Putin is not a crazed, blood-thirsty, ideological fanatic. Have you ever watched any of his speeches, meaning at length, not just little gotcha bits that CNN might pull out? They seem pretty impressive to me if you put aside the propaganda we've been brought up with and just judge them from first principles. Yes, I know he's an authoritarian and certainly very cruel when he needs to be. As Jeffrey Sachs said in the podcast I posted on another thread today, it's no wonder that Russia has an authoritarian leader. They've had such leaders for centuries and maybe millenia. It is ingrained in their culture. Maybe it will change with time, but probably not any time soon. We just have to accept that and deal with it, hopefully without getting the whole world blown up in a nuclear holocaust.

In this one I agree with far more with what you have said then what I disagree.

1. Agree that Putin is not a threat to take the other countries.
2. He is definitely not a moron.
3. Yes, calculation for Ukraine different than all other countries.
4. Maybe he believes he is defending Russians but I do not agree with that belief.
5. Agree he does not needs any more lebensraum.
6. Agree he is no Hitler.

[Dieter]

I wouldn’t trust Putting to stop with “Just” Ukraine

The actions of countries bordering Russia sure seems to imply they agree

[seajay]

Well, I mean, surely you can see the hypocrisy in Boris Johnson's approach, can't you? If the war can end only in Vladimir Putin's defeat (I mean, who writes this stuff? But okay, whatever), then why aren't the UK, US, etc. sending their men and women over there to help shoulder the burden of fighting and dying? It's not like we aren't already at war with Russia. These proxy wars are just hypocritical nonsense.

Mr. Johnson's spiel, which was probably written by the press team for Raytheon, is typical neocon swagger and provocation.

I know that you are a student of history. So how is what he is advocating (which is really an extension or expansion of what we are already doing) any different than Roosevelt's Lend Lease during World War II to England prior to our entrance to the war. Unless you believe he was wrong at that time to be doing that. I am almost certain that that was the premise of Pat Buchanan's book regarding how we should not have been involved in World War II.

We shouldn't have been involved in either World War I or World War II. If we hadn't been involved in World War I, there probably wouldn't have been a World War II. Even if we did get involved in World War I, we never should have gotten involved in World War II. Hitler was never any threat to attack America. He didn't even have a navy other than submarines. He just wanted more room in Europe including a bunch of lands where a bunch of German people were already living and had gotten split off over the years. He wasn't after world domination. That's just hysteria that Hollywood likes to throw around to sell more movie tickets. No way could not-very-big Germany dominate the whole world. That whole line about we had to defeat Hitler or we all would be speaking German now is just silliness.

Excepting he did write about a interlude after WW2/Europe/Africa before conquering the US, and was already devising the likes of Amerikabomber's and development of massive naval powers for such purposes. He was also very close to nuclear bomb capabilities.