Is Russia Going to Invade Ukraine? Should America care if they do?
I guess in this situation I do have a bias. I'm Ukrainian. I have relatives in Ukraine. I've been to Ukraine more than once. I have a bias, but I may also have a bit more insight into the situation.
Russa invaded Ukraine in 2014. The propaganda will say it was Ukrainian separatists, it was those people supported, funded, and assisted with soldiers by Russia. That conflict has not ended. Ukraine has lost over 14,000 soldiers and over 3,000 civilians.
When obama was President Russia annexed Crimea. obama sent blankets, food and other things. This did not help Ukrainians fight the Russians. I can tell you in Ukraine there was a feeling that President Donald Trump supported Ukraine. He provided Ukraine with the latest surface to air rockets as well as the most advanced tank destroying weapons and more. Russia knew President Doanld Trump supported Ukraine. They knew it was not wise to attack Ukraine with Donald Trump as president.
Now biden is viewed around the world as an old, weak and feeble leader. Russia has no fear or respect for biden. He is a joke to them. biden lack of actions have emboldened Russia and their goal to take over Ukraine. biden has made the situation in Eastern Europe very volatile.
I have ties to Ukraine, but I am an American and former soldier. I don't think the United States should get involved unless it directly impacts our country. War is a horrible thing. It would hurt me deeply to think of our soldiers going over there to fight. Every possible option must first be exhausted.
I do worry, because if there is not resistance to Russia now, and they do take over the Ukraine, what's next? I don't think they will stop. To not make a stand now could have very serious consequences in the future. I will tell you once Russia starts, they won't stop.
"Ukraine tension: President Zelensky hits back at Biden comments"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60072502Here is a link to the transcript of the press conference Biden gave yesterday --- Jan 19. I think it important to read the full question and his answer to give total context to what Biden said. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … ference-6/
Q. " Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Your top foreign policy advisors have warned that Russia is now ready to attack Ukraine. But there’s still little unity among European allies about what a package of sanctions against Moscow would look like. If the U.S. and NATO aren’t willing to put troops on the line to defend Ukraine and American allies can’t agree on a sanctions package, hasn’t the U.S. and the West lost nearly all of its leverage over Vladimir Putin?
And given how ineffective sanctions have been in deterring Putin in the past, why should the threat of new sanctions give him pause?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, because he’s never seen sanctions like the ones I promised will be imposed if he moves, number one.
Number two, we’re in a situation where Vladimir Putin is about to — we’ve had very frank discussions, Vladimir Putin and I. And the idea that NATO is not going to be united, I don’t buy. I’ve spoken to every major NATO leader. We’ve had the NATO-Russian summit. We’ve had other — the OSCE has met, et cetera.
And so, I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.
But if they actually do what they’re capable of doing with the forces amassed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they further ingra- — invade Ukraine, and that our allies and partners are ready to impose severe costs and significant harm on Russia and the Russian economy.
And, you know, we’re going to fortify our NATO Allies, I told him, on the eastern flank — if, in fact, he does invade. We’re going to — I’ve already shipped over $600 million worth of sophisticated equipment, defensive equipment to the Ukrainians.
The cost of going into Ukraine, in terms of physical loss of life, for the Russians, they’ll — they’ll be able to prevail over time, but it’s going to be heavy, it’s going to be real, and it’s going to be consequential.
In addition to that, Putin has — you know, has a stark choice: He — either de-escalation or diplomacy; confrontation or the consequences.
And, look, I think you’re going to see — for example, everybody talks about how Russia has control over the energy supply that Europe absorbs. Well, guess what? That — that money that they earn from that makes about 45 percent of the economy. I don’t see that as a one-way street. They go ahead and cut it off — it’s like my mother used to say: “You bite your nose off to spite your face.” It’s not like they have all these wonderful choices out there.
I spoke with the Prime Minister of Finland. And, you know, we’re talking about concern on the part of Finland and Sweden about what Russia is doing. The last thing that Russia needs is Finland deciding to change its status. They didn’t say they’re going to do that, but they’re talking about what, in fact, is going on and how outrageous Russia is being.
We’re finding ourselves in a position where I believe you will see that there’ll be severe economic consequences. For example, anything that involves dollar denominations, if they make — if they invade, they’re going to pay; they’re not going — their banks will not be able to deal in dollars.
So there’s — a lot is going to happen.
But here’s the thing: My conversation with Putin — and we’ve been — how can we say it? We have no problem understanding one another. He has no problem understanding me, nor me him. And the direct conversations where I pointed out — I said, “You know, you’ve occupied, before, other countries. But the price has been extremely high. How long? You can go in and, over time, at great loss and economic loss, go in and occupy Ukraine. But how many years? One? Three? Five? Ten? What is that going to take? What toll does that take?” It’s real. It’s consequential.
So, this is not all just a cakewalk for Russia.
Militarily, they have overwhelming superiority, and on — as it relates to Ukraine. But they’ll pay a stiff price — immediately, near term, medium-term, and long term — if they do it."
It seems clear to me Biden at this point is of the mind to only step in if Russia launches a large take over of Ukraine. Hey, he is vague about what he would consider a "minor incursion?" This is a politician's way of saying --- I don't know what to do in my view.
I am never for war, but I am also not one that cares to turn the other way if innocent people are being killed due to this kind of waring aggression.
I would hope Biden would go the way of Trump, and aid with weaponry for Ukraine to fight back with state-of-the-art weapons. Hey, did not we know this would be coming? In my view, Biden is seen as a weak man that does not have the ability to make strong sound dessions."But Mr Zelensky tweeted: "There are no minor incursions. Just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones."
biden's "minor incursion" comment sent shock waves in Ukraine. I know how they think in that part of the world. What biden said will be interpreted by the Russians as a green light to do what they want in Ukraine. biden and his handlers have NO idea how badly they are really messing this up.
The western European countries are like they have always been, they talk a lot. Too much. Russia doesn't worry about them. Russians believe the western Europeans don't have the courage to engage with Russia. They may be right.I would hope Biden would go the way of Trump, and aid with weaponry for Ukraine to fight back with state-of-the-art weapons. Hey, did not we know this would be coming? In my view, Biden is seen as a weak man that does not have the ability to make strong sound dessions.
A State Department spokesperson confirmed to The Hill that the agency has authorized third-party transfers for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to send “U.S. origin equipment from their inventories for use by Ukraine.”
“The United States and its allies and partners are standing together to expedite security assistance to Ukraine,” the spokesperson said. “We are in close touch with our Ukrainian partners and our NATO Allies on this and are utilizing all available security cooperation tools to help Ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of growing Russian aggression.”
The U.S. has invested more than $2.7 billion in military assistance to Ukraine under the authority of the State Department and Department of Defense since 2014, when Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
In the last year alone, Washington has committed $650 million in defense equipment and related services to Ukraine, the spokesperson said, more than at any other point since 2014.
On top of this funding, the U.S. has expedited up to $60 million in lethal and nonlethal equipment from existing Pentagon stocks since August and in December authorized up to $200 million in additional security assistance to Ukraine.This is great news. As I said, I am never for war, but I am also not one that cares to turn the other way if innocent people are being killed due to this kind of waring aggression.
I would hope Biden would go the way of Trump, and aid with weaponry for Ukraine to fight back with state-of-the-art weapons. Looks like Biden came through, and with good speed.
Exactly, Biden is the laughing stock of the world. He is beyond inept.
For once I agree with you, we should arm the Ukrainians and support them up to and not including sending in troops. An international effort if agreed to by NATO may be more appropriate for addressing this crisis.
It is the same principle that may well apply to Taiwan and one we would well employ if any of these major powers were messing around in our region of influence.Cred,
I spoke with a guy who is for a war with Russia. I told him to come down to the VA with me to the residential section. I can introduce him to some fellow soldiers who have lost limbs, eyesight, have partial plastic skulls because part of theirs was blown away. He can look at all the bullet scars and more. THEN talk to me about sending out troops to war. I go down to the VA regularly, and I don't think people see this enough to understand the toll war takes on those who fight them.I see Putin as having a direct hatred toward the US and wishes to undermine its power and influence worldwide. Did he not say, that the dissolution of the forme r Soviet Union was the worst thing that happened. Putin is KGB and beyond ruthless. The comment that we underestimate him applies to the current administration as well as the last one. And I reiterate, that it is best to stay out of the sph res of influence belonging to other powers as we are not prepared to wage war on Russia in their own backyard.
I think your "sphere of influence" thought is right. And, as I discovered so do a lot of other rational and knowledgable sounding "experts and scholars."
GAYes, and that goes for China in relation to Taiwan as well, no other option is really possible.
We certainly did not like the idea of the Soviet Union moving nuclear warheads 90 miles from our shores in 1962.Although I sympathize, and mostly agree with, the sentiment, does that not leave Russia almost completely free to rebuild the USSR through simple invasion?
Certainly European nations are not going to stop it....does that not leave Russia almost completely free to rebuild the USSR through simple invasion? ...
Having family and business ties to Russia, i would disagree. I don´t think the objective of Russia is to rebuild the USSR. All in Russia are fully aware of the big nationality problems in former USSR. It is not a pure coincidence that countries were shaped after the collapse to their respective nationalities. And as the name USSR says, it was a union of republics. And this union needed strong efforts to keep it together. Why waste power and exhaust on this issue?
The internal problems in Russia of corruption and powerplay between central government, oligarchs and regional administrations prevent from having appetite for extending territory.
This does not prevent Putin from playing political chess on a grandmaster level. Actually he needs this skill to prevail domestically in Russia´s lions den.I agree with what you are saying. But that does not mean that Russia will not do exactly what Iraq did, or what they are poised to do in the Ukraine; walk over smaller countries, re-instituting them into the Republic.
It may not be in Russia's best interests, at least from our point of view, but that does not mean it won't happen.
Chris57 has a good answer to your question. I agree with him that this isn't really a matter of containing Russia to prevent expansion.
GA
Following the news on Ukraine crisis over here in Germany a new development can be seen:
Apparently the US administration was on tour in Europe last week to convince governments of the Russian threat to Ukraine. This seemed to have been a total failure. None of France, Italy, UK, Germany was convinced by the "truckload" of evidence that the Americans had brought with them.
Even more: When it became apparent that German government was not in line, chancelor Scholz was invited to Biden on short notice. Scholz declined. They then agreed on meeting sometime later in February.
https://www.politico.eu/article/white-h … en-invite/
Even more: Part of proposed sanctions on Russia is the exclusion from SWIFT international banking protocol. But the main trading currency (including Russia´s foreign currency reserve) is Euro, not USD. Europe will not support thes SWIFT sanctions so the USA will stand alone.
May be it is a better idea for the USA to stay out of these quarrels. Russia only wants NATO to stay out of Ukraine, that is all.If history is any type of lesson, Europeans are not good judges on the behavior of dictators. If Ukraine falls, what will an emboldened Putin do to western Europe?
Poland was the first country to fall to Hitler. History teaches us that if he had met any resistance from western Europe, he would have left. World War II may not have happened.
I tell often think about the quote from England's George Santanya that goes "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."We don't have to ignore Putin to the extent Western Europe once appeased Hitler's aggression. Any attack on a NATO member state would be grounds to circle the wagons against him, as now he is attempting to play outside of his own playground. Is he prepared to take on the "West" in its totality?
History only repeats itself if circumstances are the same.
What does a prospering Europe of today have to do with struggling economies in the aftermath of the great depression? What does isolationist USA of the 1930ties have to do with global interests of today? Is there a Hitler-Stalin pact or equivalent?
To look at history is not a good advice. History raises sentiments, collective memories, some feelings in your stomach, moral justifications in the aftermath. But history does not help to navigate in todays situation.
As German advisor Egon Bahr (our equivalent to Henry Kissinger or alike) once said: There are only interests in politics, no morals, no sentiments. If someone starts talking about history and morals, you should leave the room on the double.
By the way, if history was the measuring bar: where did Crimea belong to in the 1930ties?I am not disagreeing with you on your point Chris.
It's not 1939
Hitler had ideas of continental scale conquests, I think Putin just wants the West and NATO out of his backyard.
Today, there is a militarily armed NATO, and not the weak League of Nations of the 1930s.
This total war stuff does not play well in the nuclear era. That little impediment did not exist in 1939. Based on that, all previous assumptions are out the window.
For these reasons, Putin does not rise to a Hitler level world crisis.
I have noted Soviet control of the Crimea during the 30s.You do realize the Soviet Union controlled many things during the 1930s.
This includes the Baltic nations of Latvia, Estonia and Belarus. Poland, Lithuania and others.
What does it matter what the Soviet's controlled during the 1930s?Mike, you are right ... What does it matter what the Soviet's controlled during the 1930s? ...
I brought this into discussion as an example the looking at history doesn´t get us anywhere. It is only important what circumstances, objectives are there today and what means are possibly used to achieve the goals.Exactly, Ukraine endured a particularly brutal Soviet regime, especially in the 1930s. There is a Ukrainian fear & hatred of the Soviet regime. Putin has resurrected these hatreds & fears.
One important thing to remember is military history.
Many times, in history leaders have tested the resolve of other countries to see if they could easily achieve their goals.
Germany did this in the 1930s. Other militaries have done similar things throughout time.
Putin could be doing the exact same thing.
I hope Putin is sitting back and laughing saying how he has made NATO and Ukraine so upset by moving some troops around. Maybe doing just this will be welcomed in Russia. I hope it is something viewed as a Russian success. A way Russians can make the west dance like puppets. I hope this is all that comes of what is occurring.
I don't know how the Russian people will react to the significant loss of life that would occur between the Russian and Ukrainian militaries.
The loss of life could be something he struggles to sell to the people in his country.Putin is not the type to be concerned with how the Russian people will react. There are no polls that he has to pay attention to.
Putin may be in error if he tests the West's resolve and crosses a line that may be one of no return. He will keep his matters regional and not invite outside intervention."There are no polls that he has to pay attention to"
I would have to disagree with that one. The public sentiment does have a strong influence over the Russian government. The Levada Center is a Russian independent, nongovernmental polling and sociological research organization.
"According to a poll by the independent Levada Center published last month, almost 40 percent of Russians see war as either probable or certain. Almost the same number, 38 percent, consider a war between the two countries unlikely, and another 15 percent completely rule out the possibility. That means, in effect, that a majority of Russians are psychologically unprepared for war.
Which is one reason escalation of the conflict with Ukraine could be a tough sell for many Russians.
“In an urbanized and modernized society, there are not that many families who are willing to send their boys to a real war,” Andrei Kolesnikov, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center think tank, told me.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … war-526967
Nobody should ever underestimate Putin or anything he could do. People in the Ukraine are nervous, but I wouldn't say scared. The ones I spoke with believe a war can and should be avoided. I don't think the Russian people, or the people of Ukraine want this.Mike, i agree with your assertion on Russian sentiments.
As i wrote earlier in this discussion: There is not much from Ukraine in economy and natural resources that Russia doesn´t have.
So yes, ... the conflict with Ukraine could be a tough sell for many Russians ...
This is different today than it was in 2014. When Russia annected Crimea and faced criticism, some of my Russian friends, grown, sober men got agitated and said something silly like " if i was younger, i would join the fight for our country". Again, this is different today.Yes, the annexed Crimea without a fight. It was easy for them.
Do you know in Ukraine Crimea was always referred to as "The autonomous area" They were part of Ukraine, but not really a state within the Ukraine.
Many people in Ukraine found the annexation of Crimea disturbing, but not really all that upsetting.
Of course, Putin isn't concerned. He is a 21st century version of Josef Stalin. He is the ultimate totalitarian.
For interest I read a scathing opinion article on Putin you may like from the Guardian. I found it informative for me to get more insight. Yet, it leads back to my question way back, "Why?" Like you shared above it is history and Putin basically is egotistical scoundrel the way I see now.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … GTUS_emailThere is only one part in the opinion piece that holds thruth: Putin is small.
I should know. One of the people on the photo is me.
To call him rogue is way off track. He is simply thinking ahead further than most others do. And with thinking ahead the recent US administrations didn´t and don´t earn much merit.Thanks for the input! I must share I was being flippant calling him an egotistical scoundrel as a reaction to the opinion piece. However, I do think with a sifter there are truths discovered within the article. Yet I am unarmed compared to your knowledge of current affairs in Europe as well factors such as history, economics, and etc. I appreciate your perspective while am learning.
I think if you have followed my previous posts informed by your two videos presented and posts I am in agreement there is somewhat of a simple solution he seeks - Keep NATO off my doorstep. As I see it he sees that as threat to his sovereignty and liberty. (He and His being Russia) Is that the answer to my ongoing question, "Why?" Will that put and end to current situation and he would withdraw his troops. What position will the Ukraine take if that is so?
May I respectfully ask, do you see more threat from the U.S. than with Russia? That is what I gather. If that is so, does that reflect European thought at this time as well?tsmog,
to answer your question directly: I don´t see a threat from Russia and also not from the USA.
But what is a threat? Is it power and influence enforced by military action and superiority? Or by economic influence? Or by cultural influence?
The USA is a cultural threat. Way too many Hollywood movies :-)
Russia is a resource threat. We don´t have any natural resources in central Europe and our economies run on turning natural resources into cars, lawn mowers, medical equipment, chemicals, ..
The USA is running NATO, us in Europe being part of NATO, so no immediate threat. However if the USA decides to run ahead us smaller allies may have to follow suit. I would call this a secondary threat.
After WWII the USA accounted for more than 60% of world GDP. This is now down to a little over 20%. While still a big boy on the block, the USA lost its ability to control the streets. (This Ukraine conflict being one of the "streets"). The USA is economically very vulnerable, because a lot of its GDP is wasted on high military spending and more than 5% of annual GDP are used to import products.
The real threat of the future will be China. But China will not attack with a sword. China will use economic and organisational superiority and impose their will on much of our planet. We see this already unfolding in Africa.
Future wars will not be fought with military but with economic power, me think.Thanks again for the background info giving food for thought. That leads to another thought of inquiry regard Ukraine and Russia. Does Russia only see it as a threat seen with NATO. In other words it is militarily and cultural forces at play.
Or, economically is their some value the Ukraine has they want as well? Are there any natural resources with that much value? That is why I was questioning why earlier. In other words is it only intangible values at stake? Otherwise wouldn't it just be handled through trade?I am not too firm on the distribution of productivity and wealth in Ukraine. But i have the impression that most of natural resources are in the Donbas region and most of the industrial backbone is more to the south along the river Dnjepr. The north western part of Ukraine with very nationalistic sentiments is not interesting economically.
In general the Ukraine holds nothing of value that Russia doesn´t have. Except may be secure access to the Black Sea (but that was achieved by adding Crimea to Russia). The separation of Ukraine from the USSR hurt Ukraine much more than it did Russia, because much workshare for industrial production were allocated in Russia and had to be reallocated or were lost completely.
An example from my personal work experience: Company Antonov in Kyiv used to build large transport aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov
Prominent examples are the AN124 and the by far worlds largest transporter AN225. Now - this AN225 was only built once, shortly before the downfall of the USSR. Crucial parts came from Russian plants and these plants had been torn down in the wake of the collapse, for what reason ever.
So by now Antonov is no more able to manufacture the AN225. When Chinese tried to buy the remnants of the AN225 design and preproduction they soon found out about this and halted purchasing. Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7pSK2o3krg is kind of inaccurate and outdated, but to some extent shows the decade long crippling of the Ukrainian industry.
Although, as an opinion piece, I don't agree with a lot of it, I think it does reinforce the point that Putin is a 19th-century man and must be addressed in that manner. He is trying to increase his nation's power and protect his backyard, (sphere of influence).
As many say, he may be a chessmaster playing many moves ahead, my perception is he is playing by 19th-century rules and doesn't give a hoot about international respectability or morality.
GAPutin is playing by his own rules. But don't we all do that? We may decide what our rules will be based on what others threaten us with, but ultimately we all decide our own rules.
Certainly the Cuba Crises was set up when we made our own rules about what others could or could not do. We have been doing that every since we were strong enough to do so, and Putin is no different.
We just don't like his rules, and given that it is up to us to either accept them anyway or deny them with sufficient force to convince Putin to change his rules.Interesting! I must confess not being literate with history as yourself, what do you mean by 19th century. My thought without visiting Google University is manifest destiny and western expansion here in the U.S. I am not familiar with European history. I agree he is certainly playing his chess pieces. Hopefully it remains a game while their seems to be recent alarm with staff evacuations and travel advisories.
Putin is acting like an imperialist. He believes that Ukraine is his or should be his. He contends that Russia's former territories are his by right. He doesn't believe that each nation should be autonomous. He wants a Russian empire. He has a tsarist mentality.
No expert here, yet I have great concern almost to the extent of grave. It is evident with your discussion with Chris there is history and differing views to consider. But, the bottom line for me is Russia is getting more aggressive not only there yet in many places in Europe. Why? What do they desire to gain? Is it that they just feel threatened based on nothing but paranoia?
To get a grasp I read the link below from the State Department by Blinken on the 20th. I am still trying to wrap my brain around why Russia is being so bold.
https://www.state.gov/the-stakes-of-rus … nd-beyond/
I follow Sweden closely seeing they have stepped up their military because of Russian activity near the Baltic Sweden island Gotland.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sw … 022-01-13/In case you missed it, I recommend the link from Chris57: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
I liked it because it offered a different perspective that makes a lot of sense, and may partially answer your "why" question. I don't know if the speaker's perspective is right, but he knows a lot more about the subject than I do, and what he says seems logical.
GAThanks for bringing it to my attention. I read your thoughts on it earlier and that perked up my curiosity. I was reluctant with the 1 hour+ time for it, yet more motivated now. I'll let you know if I do.
Edit (Later in the afternoon)
I watched and now have a better grasp of what is happening while agreeing with his perspective at this time. Especially with the three central areas of importance - Persian Gulf, Northast Asia, and Europe. I liked how he brought those into the mix for a big picture of what our foreign policy making is faced with. I have been enlightened.
I had not thought about the goals being promoting democracy, EU expansion, and NATO expansion regard Ukraine. Makes sense and see how Russia is not in favor of that of course. I ask can we let go of those goals enough to compromise with Russia for the benefit of the Ukraine while giving and taking for Russia and the West to be satisfied. In other words where is the line of how far is far enough for both of their ambitions.
"Russia is getting more aggressive not only there yet in many places in Europe. Why?"
The truth? Because biden is president and the Russians see him as weak and unpopular. I know how they think. They probably believe biden's lack of popularity will keep the United States from directly confronting anything they do. They doubt biden's ability to do anything. They have no fear of a world leader they see as weak, feeble, old and senile.
That is that is the truth.You may be right while I can't argue with it. I bite my tongue regard Biden while flip a coin on many things not being as learned as many here are. From what I have learned from this thread and the links it is much more complicated than many realize such as the history, culture, language, economics, politics, and on it goes. That is true just with our relationship with both Ukraine and Russia. I am learning much.
From my gut I think the solution is easy, but as said I am not a learned man . . . yet. Assure Ukraine full independence as a non-NATO actor and support them fully on developing themselves as a nation guided by principals of Democracy. To me that is a worthy compromise. Again, that is just a gut feeling.
let's put the Obama "sent blankets to the Ukraine" misinformation to rest. He didn't provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, but did provide more than $100 million in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment.
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th … ruary-2014"He didn't provide lethal assistance to Ukraine"
Don't know if you've ever been involved in a war, but when the bad guys are coming at you with their bombs and bullets lethal assistance is what you need. What exactly did they define as "security assistance?"
It's kind of silly to me to think you can win a war without lethal assistance. Night vision devices, armored Humvee vehicles are great if you want to run, not too good if you want to stand and fight.
The question remains, why didn't obama provide Ukraine with what it needed at the time? They had the resources. If they had given Ukraine as much military equipment as biden did the Taliban, Ukraine would have one impressive military.According to former CIA director John Brennan, the military was opposed to providing Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainians during the Obama administration "because of fear that the Russians would get access to Javelin's sensitive technology,"
He said, "The Russians had deep penetrations of Ukrainian intelligence, security, and military forces in the aftermath" of that country's 2014 revolution that overthrew a pro-Russian government he said, and it took time to rid those forces of Russian moles, agents, and spies"
He added, "I believe it is appropriate that Ukrainian forces have Javelins now because of the work that has been done over the past five years to reduce Russian presence and influence, but giving Javelins to the Ukrainians earlier would have risked compromising a very important and sensitive weapon system that could have come back to haunt U.S. forces on the battlefield."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation … y-n1089926John Brennan? You cite John Brennan? Do you know anything about the history of this proven and established liar? He was so terrible he had his security clearance revoked. Is this all you have? A corrupt former head of the CIA?
Guess what? Under President Donald Trump Ukrainians got Javelins and much more. There's not been a problem. So THAT argument is ridiculous.
obama didn't provide lethal aid to Ukraine because he was afraid of Russia. It's the lack of lethal aid to Ukraine that made it possible for Russia to annex Crimea. It also led to deaths of many Ukrainian soldiers who would have been better able to protect themselves with the right weapon systems.
Under obama Ukrainians were on their own and you have no idea how bravely they fought to protect their homeland against Russia.
Oh, and the United States doesn't "give" weapon systems to Ukraine, all of them are paid for by Ukraine.
"This did not help Ukrainians fight the Russians. " - And you begin your forum with misinformation.
Obama did send non-lethal weapons. One could say these weapons could aid one in battle. But, do little to win in combat.
It well appears Obama did not sell lethal weapons to Ukraine even under great pressure from Congress (both sides). He as Biden showed weakness in regard to Foreign affairs. https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-barack … 1646692058
Why Obama Didn’t Arm Ukraine
He misunderstood Putin and the reality of military force in foreign affairs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/worl … raine.html
The US is rushing to arm Ukraine now, but for years it stalled
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … ms-supply/
To be very fair --- here is what Obama gave Ukraine ---non lethal weapons " By March 2015, the US had pledged $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices, medical supplies and 230 armored Humvee vehicles, according to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency."
Please read quote --- "Poroshenko used a speech to members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to appeal for lethal aid.
“Please understand me correctly. Blankets, night-vision goggles are also important. But one cannot win the war with blankets.” He added: “Even more, we cannot keep the peace with a blanket.”
Drawing cheers from those lawmakers who want to arm the former Soviet state, Poroshenko declared his forces “need more military equipment, both lethal and non-lethal, urgently need.”
At the White House, Poroshenko told reporters after his talks with Obama that he was satisfied with the level of cooperation." https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe … -blankets/
A second source on what Obama actually sent to Ukraine. -- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor … /15819211/
I would be very interested if you have information on Obama sending any lethal weapons to Ukraine. It is clear he sent non-lethal weapons as well as aid."One could say these weapons could aid one in battle." - [i]\Yes, you certainly COULD say that. Consider the weapons Obama (and Trump) sent.
- UAVs,
- counter-mortar radars,
- night vision devices,
- medical supplies and
- 230 armored Humvee vehicles,
Obama had his reasons for not sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. I disagreed with him, but he has a LOT more information available to him than either you are I do. Maybe he had intel that suggested giving Ukraine lethal aid might start WW III. Are you in favor of chancing that?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/16/politics … index.html
Trump sent the same things plus a few Javelins which, as it turns out, they couldn't us at the time since Russia had withdrawn its armor.
But that wasn't my point, was it. My point was that Mike started out reporting misinformation in his attempt to denigrate President Obama and you failed to address it.My comment in regards to what Obama sent was non-biased. I just offered info on what was reported he had sent. I also clarified the "blanket" statement and how it started with Poroshenko speech to members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to appeal for lethal aid.
This is clearly how the Republicans, as well as Trump, started using the statement.I wasn't talking about your comment regarding Obama, I was referring to Mike's deceptive claim.
As I responded to Mike below, it turns out Obama DID authorizes lethal aid in late 2015.Obama never authorized lethal weapons to Ukraine. Not sure where you got the idea he sent lethal weapons? The weapons he approved were considered non-lethal. You have the right to say you feel the weapons are lethal in your view. However, the weapons are technically non-lethal.
The fact is Obama did not supply Ukraine with lethal weapons or sign any bill that would sell or give Ukraine lethal weapons. . He went against his own Congress that perused Ukraine to be armed with lethal weapons. Congress pushed to arm Ukraine, and Trump took his time before signing the bill to send lethal weapons. It was widely debated in Congress, and many Democrats supported sending lethal weapons. Just never got Obama to agree. If would be interested in seeing something I missed, I followed it while it all was going on. I posted a Cspan that I watched when Congress debated the need to arm Ukraine. Sorry, I lay this on Obama, Congress tried like hell to arm Ukraine with lethal weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/worl … raine.html
H.Res.162 - Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con … n/162/text
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ … ine-115999
CSPAN Congress debates sending lethal weapons - https://www.c-span.org/video/?324438-1/ … ng-ukraine
The facts show( and I repeat) Trump armed Ukraine with lethal weapons on two occasions of his presidency, in fact, he sold the most lethal weapon that had ever been sold to Ukraine. In my view -- It would appear Biden will break this record due to a Ukraine at war.
Why does this all matter at this point?Hmm . . . "What difference does it make"
GAYes, my very last sentence to ECO --- "What difference does it make"
Why does it matter? This is a forum that although I would not consider a social media forum, should not what appears to be misinformation be addressed? Should it be addressed at AdNauseam? No, but I get into the weeds more often than I should, is that not my prerogative?
In my view, misinformation, should be addressed with facts or another view? In fact, it's one way to unmuddle what we get from media.
The difference may be an open discussion, a dispute over facts can work to clarify misinformation. Ultimately it may not make a difference at all ib the current situation. However, if Ukraine had been armed to the teeth could have this war been prevented? In this scenario, Mike brought up a good point about the Obama administration not sending lethal weapons. Especially after Putin's take over of Crimea. A what-if, but a very interesting what-if.Nah, you missed it. I was only scanning the thread when your statement exposed a soft spot. Sorta like the poke in the ribs one might get when they step in with high elbows. I don't even know what either point was, so it certainly was not an informed "poke."
You didn't say "What difference does it make," you said, "Why does this all matter at this point?."
Hillary was the one that said "What difference does it make?" relative to the Benghazi stuff.
Sorry, it's the devil again. Just throwing in nonsense to derail the train.
GA ;-O
"Obama never authorized lethal weapons to Ukraine. " - You sure you want to stick with that piece of disinformation? Let me repost my reply to Mike
Tell me how Night Vision devices, Drones, AFVs, and Counter-Mortar radars are "are good for running away from an enemy."? If they are so useless, why were they the most of what Trump sent?
Maybe this will help to inform you better. In the 2016 DAA (effective Nov 2015), Obama authorized these additional weapons:
- anti-armor weapon systems (not the Javelin)
- mortars
- crew-served weapons
- ammunition
- grenade launchers
- small arms
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … -military/
I bet you are going to tell me now that ammunition, small arms, mortars, anti-tank weapons, grenade launchers, and crew-served weapons ARE NOT lethal weapons. LOL. Why do you read a lie in your right-wing propaganda outlets and proceed to distribute it?
Why does it matter, because your side keeps bringing it up and lying about it.
Then I apologize for misreading your comment.
This is very interesting, could you supply information on Obama sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. in 2015. I remember him sending non-lethal weapons only in 2014. In fact, he fought Congress in 2015, and never agreed to send lethal weapons is what I remember. Are we in the weeds over lethal and non-lethal? I have been disputing that Obama at any point sent Ukraine what are to be considered lethal weapons.
Let me just jump in here with a little aside. President Obama's decision was portrayed as an example of his timidity in foreign policy. But the story is more complicated than that or at least has some confounding factors. Former CIA Director John Brennan stated the military was opposed to providing Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainians during the Obama administration "because of fear that the Russians would get access to Javelin's sensitive technology," he said.
"The Russians had deep penetrations of Ukrainian intelligence, security, and military forces in the aftermath" of that country's 2014 revolution that overthrew a pro-Russian government he said, "and it took time to rid those forcesof Russian moles, agents, and spies. That was the purpose of my visit to Kiev less than eight weeks after the Revolution of Dignity."
Additionally, Even at that time there were arguments that providing such weapons would further escalate the situation. That's how Russian expert Fiona Hill described the Obama administration's thinking in her testimony to Congress.
But We don't know if that would have deterred Putin from invading Ukraine on Feb. 24. It looks like many think that Putin felt that no matter how well armed Ukraine was, that he would be able to roll over Ukraine.
Additionally, Mariya Omelicheva, a professor of national security strategy at the Washington-based National War College, noted that Ukraine's ability to "absorb" such (high tech military)systems "was a serious problem." She said very expensive equipment has been supplied that is just standing idle because there aren't enough military personnel who are trained to operate it. Although , I have read accounts in recent history of the West's efforts to train Ukraine's military.
In the end what do we have? In my opinion, successive administrations showed resistance to arming Ukraine
Like other countries and issues, they had become a political hot potato tossed from one to the next.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obama-tru … -1.6371378Yes, Obama certainly did have advisors that advised against arming Ukraine, as did Trump. The media took the opportunity to slam Trump for waiting on sending lethal weapons ASAP. Long story short he did listen to Congress ultimately and sent the weapons. Just a fact dispute. It would be misinformation to say Obama armed Ukraine with lethal weapons, was stated in this thread.
Faye this conversation was more technical than all the whys of it. It was just looking for ultimately one fact --- did he or didn't he send lethal weapons. Your summation was well put together, and historically true.
"But We don't know if that would have deterred Putin from invading Ukraine on Feb. 24."
No one has claimed that. I think that would be conjecture, and a view one could think about, but there is a way of knowing what would have happened if Ukraine was well-armed by previous presidents.
"Fiona Hill described the Obama administration's thinking in her testimony to Congress."
Yes, I offered a CSpan video of the hearings, which I watched as they happened in 2015.
The hearings gave a good picture of what Congress wanted, and ultimately
they did not get. Hill, gave presented a good case for Obama's thoughts on the matter.
I just wanted to point out a bit of misinformation on the subject. As I told ECO --- "why does all this matter? " All that mattered to me was misinformation."The media took the opportunity to slam Trump for waiting on sending lethal weapons ASAP. " - [i]When did they do that?? I never read such criticism in the MSM.[/i[
"the military was opposed to providing Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainians during the Obama administration " - Great Point. Now I hope the Obama-bashers will start bashing our generals as well so that they can stay consistent.
"because of fear that the Russians would get access to Javelin's sensitive technology," - Either the Ukrainians tightened up their security greatly or Trump didn't give a damn about passing along our Javelin technology to Putin.
Here, I will do it a third time.
Tell me how Night Vision devices, Drones, AFVs, and Counter-Mortar radars are "are good for running away from an enemy."? If they are so useless, why were they the most of what Trump sent?
Maybe this will help to inform you better. In the 2016 DAA (effective Nov 2015), Obama authorized these additional weapons:
- anti-armor weapon systems (not the Javelin)
- mortars
- crew-served weapons
- ammunition
- grenade launchers
- small arms
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … -military/
I will tell you the things Obama sent are good for running away from an enemy. They are not so good when trying to stand ground and advance on an enemy. That require offensive weapons. Bullets, bombs, and lots of "boom boom" is what is needed. Sorry, that is a fact of warfare. Obama did next to nothing to help Ukraine defend itself.
YOU try and defend yourself against an enemy with what Obama sent and then tell me about it. Use your military background to explain how to stop an advancing enemy with what Obama sent. I want you to explain.Tell me how Night Vision devices, Drones, AFVs, and Counter-Mortar radars are "are good for running away from an enemy."? If they are so useless, why were they the most of what Trump sent?
Maybe this will help to inform you better. In the 2016 DAA (effective Nov 2015), Obama authorized these additional weapons:
- anti-armor weapon systems (not the Javelin)
- mortars
- crew-served weapons
- ammunition
- grenade launchers
- small arms
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … -military/
As to stopping an advancing enemy, I don't need to rely on my experience. I will simply point to Ukraine who DID stop them from 2014 to 2022.
Yes, Trump, would have been a mighty deterrant if he had given a second mandate. But America, foolishly choose joe biden over Trump. It was terrible and awful. 25 year sentence was for Vladimir Mara was terrific! Thanks for the link. It's a read.
I am not sure when Mike posted that comment, but I need to correct the record and expose some right-wing mythology.
Yes, Obama sent blankets. He ALSO sent all sorts of military equipment and supplies. Those things DID HELP UKRAINE fight Russia. He just didn't send lethal aid. Should have he? Certainly. But to say he did basically nothing is a lie and being very biased.
I don't doubt Ukraine appreciated the lethal aid Trump sent? But you know what they didn't appreciate? Trump saying Crimea belongs to Russia and for dragging Zelensky into his illegal scheme to hurt Biden politically (which didn't work as Biden clobbered him as badly as Trump says he beat Clinton)
I really doubt Putin was afraid of his friend Trump.
No, Biden is NOT " viewed around the world as an old, weak and feeble leader". The OPPOSITE is true. The only people who think that are the undemocratic, Putin-loving MAGA-types.Yep, as you said, “Biden is NOT " viewed around the world as an old, weak and feeble leader".
I just looked at the latest YouGov opinion poll in the UK to see what the British think of foreign leaders, and the results are quite interesting:-
In the UK the most popular foreign leader is Barack Obama – the top 10 most popular foreign leaders in the eyes of the British are:-
1. Barack Obama @ 72% popularity.
2. Volodymyr Zelenskyy @ 57% popularity.
3. Joe Biden @ 33% popularity.
4. Angela Merkel @ 32% popularity.
5. Justin Trudeau @ 31% popularity.
6. Hilary Clinton @ 29% popularity.
7. Bill Clinton @ 27% popularity.
8. Bernie Sanders @ 25% popularity.
9. Kamala Harris @ 24% popularity.
10. Imran Khan @ 23% popularity.
Donald Trump is 13th at just 18% popularity.
So in the UK Biden is almost twice as popular as Trump – which shouldn’t be any great surprise.
Of the 33 foreign listed, Vladimir Putin is in 32nd place, at just 6% popularity; with Abiy Ahmed in last place with just 4% popularity, but I think that’s only because 16% of those who were asked knew who Abiy Ahmed was, whereas 98% of Brits who were asked know who Vladimir Putin is.I see Biden is the leader of the second pack, lol. Quite a drop between Obama-Zelenskyy and everybody else. I suspect Trump did as well as he did because there are a lot of right-wingers in Britain.
I had to look up Ahmed myself, although the name sounded familiar.
Thanks for the education.Yes, the gap between, Obama/Zelenskyy and everyone else is striking; Obama has defiantly left a positive mark as a great leader in the minds of the British.
Yep, there are a small core of hard right wingers in Britain, who will always vote Conservative regardless, just as there’s a small core of hard left wing socialists who will always vote Labour regardless; and I think that percentage on the both extremes is similar, at around 20% (give or take a small percentage point). And everyone else is generally spread evenly across a wide political spectrum.
In the UK, the voters that the political parties are most interested in aren’t so much their staunch supporters but more those in the middle politically – the floating voters.
The latest opinion poll showing UK people’s voting intention at the next General Election (in 18 months’ time), taken on the 18th April (yesterday):-
• Labour = 45%: Which under the British ‘first past the post’ voting system in a multi-party system would be enough for a landslide victory, with Labour winning 2/3rds of the seats).
• Conservatives = 27%: which would be a humiliating defeat e.g. they could easily lose a 1/3rd or a half (or more) of their seats at the next General Election.
• Liberal Democrats = 10%
• Green Party = 5%
• SNP (Scottish National Party) = 3%: Although the SNP only has 3% in the national polls, that 3% is concentrated in Scotland, which translates to the SNP having 45 out of the 59 Scottish seats in the UK Parliament. So with there being 650 seats in Parliament, 45 seats gives the SNP a formidable voice in British politics.18 months can't come soon enough and I hope opinions haven't changed by then.
It is clear by the poll Obama receives such wonderful adoration, and at this point, we find the US president receives such a low popularity percentage. Obama was a man that had respect around the world.
Interesting poll -- https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public … than_trumpYes, there’s no doubt that Obama commanded a lot of adoration from around the world.
Thanks for your link to USA opinion poll. It shows that 53% of Americans think that World Leaders See Biden as being Weaker than Trump: which I guess for American elections is going to be important.
But of course, views in different parts of the world are going to differ. I don’t know how leaders of African countries or the Middle East view Biden in comparison to Trump; but in Europe Biden is generally seen as a better Leader e.g. relationships between Trump and European leaders, (including UK) was strained at the best of times. Trump was tolerated by our British leaders because he was President, but he wasn’t liked in Britain, and he wasn’t welcomed either.
UK Trump ban debate: Trump branded "dangerous fool", “crazy", by UK Parliament https://youtu.be/PCSrnrlepl0
Trump banned from speaking in Parliament on his visit to UK: https://youtu.be/vELQlgoaDdQI am not surprised by that poll of Americans. Studies show that the election of black man to the presidency was what lit the fuse to what has exploded into MAGA and the Trump phenomenon we are experiencing in America today. It put the fear of God into the tens of millions of racist that exist in America at the time.
That doesn’t surprise me for America. While in contrast in the UK:
• Londoners voted in Sadiq Khan (Labour politician), a Muslim as their Mayor in 2016, and re-elected him as their Mayor in the 2021 Mayoral elections.
• Our current Conservative Prime Minister is a Sikh, of Indian origin.
• Our Bristol Mayor (Labour politician), elected into Office in 2016, is black.
• Of the 650 MPs in Parliament (elected politicians); there are currently 4 Conservative Muslim MPs, and 16 Labour Muslim MPs.
So although racism does exist in Britain, it’s not tolerated by any political party, and it doesn’t have the same political fuse with voters that exist in the USA.
Thank you for the information. I did read the poll, and certainly, I picked up on the most to least popular status of the presidents. So, many very unpopular presidents, hard to compare one to the other.
So, I concentrated on the positive, Obama. He certainly was, and is well-liked
I think you have well made your point in regard to Trump's popularity in the polls you shared.
I appreciate your info.
At this point, Trump is slightly ahead of Biden in the polls. It is evident Trump is still well-liked here in the US. Polls are very fickled and certainly could change. Trump's indictment slightly boosted his numbers.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/1 … m-00092190Isn't that a terrible thing where indicting someone makes him more popular with his supporters. SAD.
Yeah, polls can be very fickle, and can change. Assuming the polls are done properly, and most independent pollsters do, they are generally accurate to within a 2% margin of error.
The main problem with opinion polls is that they are only an ‘as at’ this moment in time ‘snap shot’ of public opinion; and public opinion can and does shift overtime – especially in the run up to an election, when politicians are promising the earth to millions of voters who believe what they hear and read, or when politicians sling mud at their opposition to discourages people voting for the opposing party.
I see you failed to mention how much worse Trump did. Odd.
I feel the same way you do. But I fear that biden will screw it up to the max no matter what happens. Just as I have alway said; biden is living proof that stupidity has no limits.
Like Obama said, Biden will always find a way to f_ck things up. Who has killed better than Obama? and won a prize..
They already have a civil war at home. Dose anyone here trust a man who is out of mind then let him play with nukes?
Chinese saying ,(who haven't had a major war since 1979,) Firey Dragon cannot defeat the snake in the grass.Wanted to bring up an old thread regarding this topic (Ukraine) rather than start a new one.
I watched a very interesting discussion, key views and perspectives being reviewed... it is worth the watch if this war concerns/interests you... its still a very big problem for America and the world, not just Ukraine and Russia.
How war in Ukraine will end | Dave Smith and Lex Fridman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDuBQelbdf8
Stick a contingent of our troops on the Ukraine-Russia border, much like we had on the Syria-Turkey border, or currently have in South Korea, and let it be known that any harm that comes to our forces will be considered an act of war with the United States, and by extension, NATO.
I doubt Putin would want to risk an oops situation with an invasion that begins an engagement with our troops. I'd park the pair of navy ships we have there just short of the border in the Black Sea for support.What business would US or any other foreign troups have on Ukraine grounds except aggressively threatening Russia?
Russia is relocating troops inside its own territory and this is considered dangerous? Meanwhile NATO has moved directly to Russian borders (Estonia, Latvia). Who is threatening whom?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
This guys tells it all, even though the lecture was kind of in the aftermath of the Crimea annection.
Goestrategic policy of the USA is to destabilize the landmass between Europe and Asia. There is Iran, an issue of its own. Then there is the Caucasus (Didn´t Georgia try to become Nato member, but got clobbered?). Last but not least: Ukraine. Easy prey for USA strategies. 3 major domestic problems:
1. the deep divied between western Ukraine (Galicia) and Eastern Ukraine.
2. Struggle between administration and oligarchs, namely Zelensky against Akhmetov.
3. Corruption on the express lane. The not so big Ukraine is no. 1 in the Pandora papers on tax evasion and money laundering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora_Papers
Seems to be very conveniant for the Ukraine (remote controlled by the USA) to destract from internal problems with this supposed threat by Russia.
At least this is my point of view."Russia is relocating troops inside its own territory and this is considered dangerous?"
Yes, all military people know you must mass troops before an invasion. To say it is simply "relocating troops" is foolish.
"Meanwhile NATO has moved directly to Russian borders (Estonia, Latvia). Who is threatening whom?"
I guess you don't comprehend the significance of massing large numbers of a military. Have a presence is far different from massing troops.
To the rest, yes, Ukraine has problems. But so does EVERY country. There are still challenges between the former west and east Germany.
"Seems to be very convenient for the Ukraine"
It's very insulting to refer to it as "The Ukraine." That was its name before it obtains independence. Now, it should simply be referred to as "Ukraine."
"Goestrategic policy of the USA is to destabilize the landmass between Europe and Asia. There is Iran, an issue of its own. Then there is the Caucasus (Didn´t Georgia try to become Nato member, but got clobbered?). Last but not least: Ukraine. Easy prey for USA strategies. 3 major domestic problems"
This is absolute nonsense.
There is a long history between Russia and Ukraine most people just don't understand. Majority of the world doesn't seem to know about Holodomor.Mike,
we exchanged viewpoints previously. You know that my insight on Eastern Europe is not superficial from the media but from personal involvement (similar to yours).
So, lets not talk about nonsense. Political power and influence is always linked to strategies. And these strategies were layed by advisors like Zbigniew Brzezinski or Henry Kissinger decades ago and hold merit until today.
Concerning the great famine: Wasn´t that during the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin? Him not even being Russian, but Georgian. What does Holodomor have to do with the situation today and Russia supposedly threatening?"What does Holodomor have to do with the situation today and Russia supposedly threatening?"
It is part of the long history between Ukraine and Russia. The attitude of Russians for a long time has been that Ukraine is like their out-of-control little brother and needs to be smacked around and dominated for their own good. During World War I, Russia gave parts of Ukraine to be occupied by Austrians and Germans. Ukraine tried for its independence but was defeated. Then there was the Ukrainian civil war, which too complicated to even mention. During the 1940s and 1950s Ukrainians fought for their independence from Russia and failed. Once the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine became independent. Many Russians believe it is their right to control the land of Ukraine. It is in their national psyche. They don't think much of Ukraine and its ability to fight. When Ukraine stood against them in 2014, Russia was both shocked and angered. I don't think many people realize how hard Ukraine will fight if invaded. Nothing is worse for a bully than when those they bully are not afraid to fight them.Your thoughts seem to support the video speaker's premise that a neutral Ukraine is the best choice for all.
The comparison of the Cuban missile crisis, (threats on our doorstep), to the Russia/Ukraine positioning, makes sense to me.
That thought is further cemented by the apparent Russian offer of positive engagement if the Ukraine NATO-membership question is resolved.
No Cuban missiles on a doorstep to the U.S and no NATO missiles on a doorstep to Russia—aren't they the same, relative to national security?
GAThe comparison to the Cuban missile crisis seems to be obvious.
But if we look deeper: Cuba was a symmetric power play. At that time the Soviet Union was at their peak (the Sputnik shock not long ago then).
Today Russia is a shadow of what the Soviet Union was 60 years ago. Looks very strong superficially from the outside, but industrial base to support even medium term modern warfare is not existent. Too much corruption trickles down into every corner of the economy.
NATO is not much better off. A fairly well functioning industrial backbone is countered by endless decision making processes.
So today the powerplay is either no more symmetrical or if so, then at a much lower level of deterrence. - One exception: If the USA decides to go on their own and make the first step of aggression, then NATO may fall in line. But then: Who is the aggressor?
We should not expect any hot conflict to emerge. Both sides know their status quo. Putin sitting naked on a horse in the wilderness or Biden making foolish comments doesn´t change the overall picture.
So we were threatening Turkey and North Korea? That was our policy goal as opposed to protecting allies?
I definitely disagree with your viewpoint that a troop presence is unilaterally a threat as opposed to a defensive strategy....So we were threatening Turkey and North Korea? That was our policy goal as opposed to protecting allies?...
A typical American viewpoint.
May be some "allies" don´t want to be protected. I am not sure about Turkey in this aspect.
And when previous president Trump announced that he would withdraw troops from Germany, a lot of people rejoyced and chanted: "take the nukes with you". Well, at the end of the day he didn´t do it, but anyways: sentiments are not always what you would expect.
Back to the Ukraine:
There is a historic brawl in and around the region of former Galicia, involving Poland and Western Ukraine. Going on for centuries, for almost 1000 years, just to mention the role of the Kievian Rus in the 11th century.
While one part of the Ukraine today is pro western, the eastern part is pro Russian. This does not necessarily mean much, Belgium is half French, half Flamish and they get along (with some struggles once in a while). Switzerland is a mixture of French, German, Rhaetoroman(Italian) and they manage perfectly. But Ukraine never got things straight until today. What to think of fascist movements of Stepan Bandera and the "Western Ukrainian Republic" after the revolution in Russia.
There are many, many domestic problems in the Ukraine. Any distraction is welcome. Foreign powers should keep their fingers off.
Great video. I find myself agreeing with the speaker. To me, the speaker's points sound realistically and historically true. The fact that the video is dated to 2013 gives the benefit of hindsight as support.
I think the guy nailed it.
Although I do think the Russian troop movement is highly dangerous, I also think it is more of a reaction than a provocation.
One theme of the talk really agreed with my mindset, (as can probably be seen in my many responses to discussions of our own current Constitutional issues), and that was his reference to 19th-century thinking vs. 21st-century thinking. That is the point that I think is missed by most in discussions like these.
Discussions of sanctions as a tool for this type of issue are 21st-century thinking that ignores reality. I think sanctions are useless in this situation.
GAStumbled over this guy. He seems to be well informed and he gives a good overview on the international interdependencies associated with sanctions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk9b0yw1XBk
I have said this before: Putin and Xi play 3D chess while the US administrations barely match checkers, no matter the Biden or the Trump administration.You always have to be careful about the sources. My previous video link is from Alexander Mercouris, a former British lawyer with a doubious past, putting him in line with barred US lawyers from the Trump theater.
Having said this, the information this guy presented seem to be accurate however.
The big issue with natural gas in Europe is not that new and recent info in German news media suggest that Russia had long prepared for the current setup.
Germany has a huge underground storage system for natural gas. But now the filling is as low as never before. A reason may be that Russian deliveries through Ukraine and Belorus pipelines were low in the past year, only direct Germany-Russia connection North Stream 1 was operating at full capacity. May be a hint that there was deliberate coordination between troop relocation and natural gas delivery reduction.
And while we are sorting out the moves on the chess board, there probably was a move even before the gas delivery reduction.
Russia carefully observed what is happening in Germany with CO2 reduction. Electricity relies to some 30% on hard coal and lignite. Their CO2 output per kWh is almost double of natural gas. So in the effort to reduce CO2, coal fired power plants are shut down. The transition speed is too fast for renewables to step in. So the burden is on natural gas, making the European economies, foremost Germany even more at mercy to Russian gas supplies.
Perfect "keep NATO out of Ukraine" gambit for Russia:
1. observe growing demand for natural gas
2. relocate troups and cut gas deliveries ( at that time the USA was playing in the dust of Afghanistan)
3. Make Ukraine, USA and allies furious about troup relocations
4. The USA then decides prematurely on sanction threats
5. The EU is aware of the natural gas issue and does not immediately follow suit.
5. Then the USA finds out about the trap and that the EU, UK, allies and the USA are hurt severely if sanctions were imposed.
6. Russia can sit back and watch what is coming.
7. The USA is trying to step back (that is where the new more friendly tone is coming from)
Let us see what the future will bring. The goal of Russia is to keep NATO away from its borders. Ukraine is only means for the purpose. As situation is now, there will be no hot conflict, there will be no sanctions. And Ukraine will not join NATO.It's another reason I enjoy the peaceful and loving life of an Anarchist.
So called liberals play the game of chess and the conservative eat the chess pieces, a not ever ending life of conflict. It's easier to move to another country of less conflict. My main beef is Centralist military fixed that with forced vaccines against ones will.
Thanks. I get the point being made, and it seems logical—for this situation, but I couldn't last past the 7-minute mark on this latest guy.
GA
Putting politics aside, as a Brit we’ve always seen Russia as a threat, hence our four nuclear submarines of which one is always hidden at sea equipped with nuclear warheads.
Therefore, we’re on the same page as you with regards to this issue.
50 years of nuclear submarines on the Clyde: https://youtu.be/nnAwW5So5QULooking at the way the USA and UK are reacting to Putin, show they have no clue how to deal with him. The UK better forget about its past glory and look at reality and the USA is a defeated nation, exerting on Ukraine is not going to help. If I were Putin I would launch an invasion straightaway and wait and see whether the UK and USA would like to destroy their civilization for Ukraine which was always a part of Russian sphere of influence.
Sad but true. Ukraine and Russia have had battles for many, many years.
The Americans have always made the rules and played the game the way they wanted it. No wonder no American or western nation ever talks of the atomic bombing and killing of 200,000 defenseless civilians during the last days of WWII. But times are changing and now the Americans are on the back foot and they're facing an adversary jointly with China that also wants to play the game by its rules. The Americans have now to play the game with a different set of rules and they have to decide whether the destruction of the United States is worth fighting for an inconsequential country like Ukraine, which in any case was always in the Soviet or Russian sphere of influence.
NATO is not united and the UK and US should not try and lord over everything. The recent statement of the chief of the German navy is a pointer, though he resigned later. Please read https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ … er-ukraine
He made this statement in Delhi on a visit to India.I'm hoping that all of this is for show, and nothing comes from it.
There is NO benefit to Russia, NATO, the United States and especially Ukraine to engage in an armed conflict.
I know the Russian mind and what they think about Ukraine. This is more about the Russian ego than it is about a Russian benefit. There is a long history of Russians being enraged when Ukrainians stood up to them. Russia does want to have their leader put back in power in Ukraine.
This is probably why Russia was not so upset when Poland became part of NATO.
I am praying this does not turn into a war. Let us pray that his conflict can be resolved without any armed conflict.
The whole thing makes no sense at all.
"NATO sends more ships, jets to eastern Europe as Russia builds up troops near Ukraine"
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nato-jan2 … -1.6325096Thanks for the informative article Mike bringing current events closer to mind. As shared earlier I keep an eye on Sweden and their concern with landing craft near in the Baltic Sea. I am getting a grasp on things now including how much as you shared is embedded in history with previous relations.
I, too, will keep this in prayer for the Ukraine, Europe, and you as well with such close family ties!Thankyou.
It is a very stressful time for people in Ukraine.
I am hoping for a peaceful solution.
Ukraine should have autonomy. The Ukrainian people should exist without interference from Russia. Russia doesn't own Ukraine although Putin wishes that it was so. Russia should mind its own business & leave the Ukrainian people & nation alone. Ukrainians have encountered problems with Russia for centuries. It is time for Russia to stay out of Ukrainian affairs. It is analogous to an authoritarian parent who refuse to believe that their children are separate entities.
I have relatives in the Ukraine right now that would hear what you said and cheer.
I mean it. Ukrainians have a right to autonomy. What right does Putin have to want Ukraine. Ukrainians have been fighting against Soviet now Russian hegemony for centuries. Each nation has a right to its own autonomy. Isn't imperialism &/or colonalism a thing of the past? Putin is a Stalin. Ukrainians should fight & better fight to REMAIN AUTONOMOUS.
I think you are simplifying everything because Ukraine in particular is an extremely complex subject and the world apart from Europe is not concerned about Ukraine and nobody wants the world should be destroyed just for Ukraine. The villains here are the USA and UK and I have not been able to fathom what freedom they're talking about? Does freedom mean that you ring a country like Russia with weapons and threaten it? The eclipse of the west, in particular, the USA and UK has already begun and it will be hastened by their actions in Ukraine. All over the world, I find no sympathy for American action in Ukraine because the Americans are known to destabilize every country they went from Afghanistan to Korea, Middle East to Vietnam. I will also state that Russia is not going to invade Ukraine, which is a boogie created by the US and UK.
"I will also state that Russia is not going to invade Ukraine, which is a boogie created by the US and UK."
Maybe having over 100,000 combat troops, war planes, tanks, etc. within 23 miles of Ukraine is not an invention of anyone, it is a fact. You don't build a military force this large to just enjoy the eastern European winter weather.
There is always a reason for it.
Hi Ya! I talked to a man in the pool, where I swim, who had come from from Russia three years ago. He told me Putin is just trying to to look powerful to his people who are suffering and doubting him right now. Things are not good in Russia. There is a lot of corruption in education and healthcare. This man, Viktor, felt so happy and fortunate to be able to come to the United States. He says Putin is a horrible "president" and is only posing in his stance with Ukraine. Victor asked his Russian friends how they felt about war with Ukraine and they expressed that do not want war at all. Who wants their sons to die ... and for W H A T?
I also think Putin wants to fight over Ukraine's Nato involvement for the purpose of maintaining Russia's connection to Ukraine, which has always been part of the Soviet Union.
Therefore, Biden needs to chill out.I would have to agree with your Russian friend. I believe most Russians would not support an invasion of Ukraine. There are Russians who think of Ukrainians as their family, others who think Ukrainians are less than Russians and owe Russia everything and then there are those who believe Ukraine should be made part of Russia whether they want it or not. These are the same people who believe Russia should be able to pick the president of Ukraine. I've spoken with them. Don't understand them.
"Therefore, Biden needs to chill out."
I think that biden is behaving like Putin. We have no defense of our southern border, supply chain issues, high inflation and its only getting worse.
Building up a story like this about Ukraine and Russia gets his failure off of the front of the news cycle for a little while.
I do remember the thread.
For my part in hinsight i never expected Putin to be that foolish and invade Ukraine. So i had to adjust my attitude towards Russian administration.
And i had to adjust my interpretation of Ukraine being a country divided by language barrier. As i found out from personally talking to refugees, there is no real language barrier.
While Russia and Ukraine both earned a reputation of being thorougly corrupt, Ukraine seems to work itself out of the dirt slowly in the past decade, while Russia is stuck in the corruption mud. Is it an indication that democratic ideas and western support do work? At least since 2014?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruptio … ions_IndexWikipedia might as well be written by the CIA propaganda branch these days.
The pretense that this is a war between Ukraine and Russia will be dropped after the November elections.
After that it won't matter who you want to blame.
Ukraine pushed the West into giving them Battle Tanks. Will Jet Fighters be next?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/26/europe/u … index.htmlOne bit of good news, the owner of the gay nightclub in Bristol recently raised donations for humanitarian aid for Ukraine, and raised enough money to buy and fill two vans full of supplies. So, rather than just give it to charity the gay nightclub owner decided to drive the van and supplies to Ukraine in person. Before starting his journey he stuck removable self-adhesive stickers on the outside of the van, which in large print reads “Humanitarian Aid for Ukraine”, and he put donations buckets in the van to collect more money on the long journey from Bristol to Ukraine.
For those who’ve been keeping tabs on UK news, you might be aware that due to Brexit, there were 16 hours delays at the port of Dover last week. The good news is that on his approach to Dover the police spotted his van, and seeing the sign ‘Humanitarian Aid for Ukraine’ on the side of the van, offered to give him a police escort all the way to the port. So he had a police escort, bypassing the 16 hours of queues e.g. being escorted by the police to the front of the long queue, and on arriving at the port the British border control just waved him onto the ferry without doing any of the border checks, and on the other side the French border control, likewise, just waved him on his way, without carrying out any of their border checks – so when he Facebooked us he was already in France, and making good progress towards Ukraine; the owner of the Bristol gay nightclub is a close family friend, and kept in touch with us via my wife’s Facebook.
On reaching Germany and heading for the Polish border, while still in Germany he was advised by the authorities to remove the stickers before entering Poland, as there had been a spate of hijackings in Poland, targeting ‘humanitarian aid’ – but once he crosses the border into Ukraine it will be safe (and desirable) to put stickers back on.
When he reached the Polish/Ukraine border he stayed overnight in an animal rescue centre on the Polish side of the border, before venturing into Ukraine; and while there, used some of the cash he raised from donations on his journey through Europe to buy a large supply of cat and dog food for the warzone, and crammed the van full with the extra supplies.
On entering Ukraine, he was given a police escort through the back roads to the outskirts of the war zone, where he and his co-driver meet their Ukrainian contacts; the back roads being a much longer but much safer route.
Now in the warzone, the van broke down, and they had a scary moment when their van was towed to a garage for repairs, only to be confronted by two huge blocks, heavily armed with machine guns – but fortunately their Ukrainian contact was able to explain who they were, and then they were welcomed with open arms, and the garage worked overnight to do the repairs, ready for the following morning; and in gratitude the garage did the repairs free of charge.
On leaving the garage they drove to their final destination in the war zone, where they could hand over the humanitarian aid, cat & dog food, and the van itself, to the Ukrainians to put to good use. And spent the night with a Ukrainian family, who took them in and gave them full hospitality, in gratitude; including what turned out to be a vodka party – a social evening with the family, being plied with lots of vodka.
The following day, they were taken to the airport and flew back to Heathrow, London, and from there caught a train to Bristol.
They’ve got enough money to buy a 2nd van full of humanitarian aid; so I’ll have to wait and see if they make a 2nd trip themselves.
Certainly I think it’s a brave thing to do; I wouldn’t have the guts to voluntarily make such a trip.Great report! Inspiring! Thank you.
It takes a special kind of person to do that. The best I do is give regularly to one of the three donation sites at https://u24.gov.ua/Inspiring story. It bolsters the faith in humanity and reminds us that there is good out in the world especially in these days where many prefer to focus and hate and division. Thank you for posting.
Slovakia sends jets to Ukraine. Why can't Biden? After all, the leaked documents show that the Ukrainian air force is severely depleted. MAGA Marjorie Taylor Green and Kevin McCarthy thanks the traitor you stole these documents and let Russia know this weakness. We really should fill this void.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ru … index.html
(I spent time in Slovakia on a NATO mission to help them figure out the best way (cost-wise) to stand up a new air force so that they could gain admission. During that time, I took cover under the wing of a Mig-29 when a brief rain shower passed over head. I have to wonder if that is one of the planes they are sending even though it is almost 20 years since I went.)Good on Slovakia
Poland is also planning to send MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine in the coming days/weeks; NPR says 13 planes, the BBC says 4 planes.
Although the UK have ruled out sending any of its planes to Ukraine (at least for the foreseeable future), the UK have nevertheless been training Ukrainian fighter jet pilots to fly the older stock of RAF fighter planes?
However, the UK is prepared to supply some of its older fighter jets to Eastern European allies to enable them to release their Soviet-era planes to Ukraine.I have been to Poland as well, but with no so fond a memory as I had with Slovakia (did I mention how great their food was?)
It wasn't Poland's fault that 1) I caught a bug that forced me to leave early, 2) had the worst massage by a male, I hurt a week later, and 3) watched a team from General Electric trying to sell Poland their engines have a new rectum torn for them because they were acting like the proverbial Ugly American.Wow, quite an experience you had in Poland - an unfortunate string of events.
Yes it was. I really would have liked to looked around Warsaw a bit but I spent most of my time between meetings and bed.
I haven't made it yet, but I really would like to get back to Slovakia. I brought back a beautiful tea set (made in Czech Republic) and tour that beautiful country at my leisure.
(Yes, I have been to England as well, to give a presentation on that AFTOC MIS I mentioned in one of these forums). A co-worker and I arrived one somewhat rainy morning and had time to visit a site in London (damned if I can remember what, but a castle of some type comes to mind - did I tell you I hate old age). We returned to get a rental car where I learned to drive from the right on the left and had my first experience with real roundabouts (and not their fake cousins in New Jersey). We travelled to Mendenhall RAF where I was to give my presentations. While there, I also learned that British food is really quite good, lpl.Thanks for the update, and I hope you do manage to get back to Slovakia. Yep, that sums up Britain quite well – the rain; we never get the heavy rains that they have in Australia, so when my Australian cousins visited the UK (and us) a few years ago they thought we Brits complain about nothing (with the drizzles we get in the UK); but after spending 3 months touring the UK they were thoroughly fed up with the constant rain – but otherwise they enjoyed their visit to the UK, and thrilled with finally meeting me and my family in person.
Yeah, our Australian’s had a word or two to say about the sheer numbers of our roundabouts; and they weren’t that thrilled about the mini and double mini roundabouts either (which I think are quite cute).
The most famous roundabout in Britain is the ‘Magic Roundabout’ in Swindon.
See How an Insane 7-Circle Roundabout Actually Works: https://youtu.be/6OGvj7GZSIo
Yes, old age – I’m just grateful that I retired early at 55 so that I’ve been able to get more out of my life in retirement, while I’m still fit and young enough to do so.ROFL - I had to show that video to my wife.
Retirement? What's that? Well, I guess I should know. I am retired Army, retired AF civil servant, once retired from my own company but had to go back. At 75, still chugging along.Wow. And my main daily routine these days is generally gardening and DIY done at a leisurely pace, especially in the summer months when I can take long beer breaks in the sun between the weeding and sewing and planting. Although I do make a point of keeping a routine whereby I'm working (keeping busy) from 9 to 5 to keep mind and body active.
It certainly had that impact on several of my friends and family who of course would never admit it. But it explains their visceral anger directed at a man who otherwise exemplified their Christian values and their support of a man who exemplified none of them.
I wrote this post as a reply to a comment about the election of Obama triggering the advent of the mega crowd. Now I can't even find the original post! I apologize if I just chase a rabbit down a hole.
What do you mean "triggering the advent of the mega crowd"
That was me. The culmination of the reaction to a black man becoming President in America set of a chain reaction of hate that led to the creation of MAGA.
An interesting little bit of analysis as Ukraine is about ready to launch their long-awaited counter-attack. Seems lik Russia, after 7 months of preparation, might not be ready.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/europe/u … index.htmlI have an interesting little thread to share regarding the Ukraine conflict as well. Enjoy.
https://twitter.com/TheThe1776/status/1 … 2606529539Ken, the stories that my Ukraininan friends tell me about Euromaidan are very different. All their stories start with the peoples desire to separate from the former USSR and the influence of Russia.
This was the spark. It is not really importantant how then the fire (revolution) developed and if there were any fire accelerators involved.
The tread you provide is nothing more than a biased politicial statement: "Don’t hate America, hate our Government! "
Don´t follow Russian propaganda narratives. Same for the Odessa incident.I don't follow Russian propaganda narratives.
Just like I don't follow American propaganda narratives.
I spent many years working for our government, I know exactly how it works.
What Ukraine had going on for the last 20+ years is at best a Civil War.
At worst, it was the systematic effort to eradicate those with Russian sympathies and ethnicities.
Crimea seceded, the West does not want to accept that.
The Ukraine government at the time Crimea seceded, had no real authority, it was not an elected government, it was a puppet government installed by Western influencers.
We are currently supporting a Ukrainian government that is as dictatorial and corrupt as Russia, if not moreso.
More than half the Ukrainian population has fled Ukraine, the only thing this conflict has brought Ukraine is hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians and millions misplaced.
Ukraine is not going to win this war, it was never going to win this war.
Only if America steps in and fights the war for them, with full military effort, could Russia be defeated. That would require WWIII.
Honestly, at this point, I would have no sympathy for the people of the EU if WWIII did break out, they have allowed their governments to support, fund, arm, and agitate this conflict.
Never forget, there was the Minsk Agreements.
https://press.un.org/en/2015/sc11785.doc.htm
https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacema … ent_en.pdf
Ukraine did not implement them.
When Zelensky was elected he not only spit on them, by 2021 he put into legislation that Ukraine would take back Crimea by force... nothing short of a declaration of War against Russia.
https://archive.kyivpost.com/ukraine-po … rimea.html
Crimea has been part of the Russian Republic since March 2014.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukra … YR20140320
This conflict could have been avoided, Zelensky, Biden, chose to pursue it, they will continue to do so it seems, no matter how many millions die or are displaced, no matter how much the economies of the EU suffer, no matter if it brings Nuclear War.
Don't follow Ukrainian propaganda narratives. Or not, ultimately you will be far more effected by an escalation into WWIII than we Americans."What Ukraine had going on for the last 20+ years is at best a Civil War." - PLEASE STOP issuing Russian propaganda disinformation.
As I have mentioned before, I also worked in the government in the defense department as a civilian and as an officer in the Army; I retired from both. I am fully aware of how our government works and it isn't what you claim.
Just so all readers will know
"At worst, it was the systematic effort to eradicate those with Russian sympathies and ethnicities. " - RUSSIAN propaganda
"Crimea seceded, the West does not want to accept that." - RUSSIAN propaganda.
"The Ukraine government at the time Crimea seceded, had no real authority, it was not an elected government" - RUSSIAN propaganda
"We are currently supporting a Ukrainian government that is as dictatorial and corrupt as Russia, if not more so."- HALF RUSSIAN propaganda (the part about Russia is true)
"Honestly, at this point, I would have no sympathy for the people of the EU if WWIII did break out" - THAT does not surprise me given your obvious pro-Russian orientation.
"When Zelensky was elected he not only spit on them" - THOUGHT YOU just said Zelenskyy was NOT elected.
"This conflict could have been avoided"- YES, THAT is what Putin said as well just before he pulled the trigger.What Ukrainian propaganda narratives to follow? I don´t understand.
I simply talk with the Ukrainians over here in G., in my city. Face to face, no media, no Ukraine state publications.
There are the middle school students from Chernihiv who continue remote learning with their teacher. Whenever there is an air raid alarm, the teacher takes shelter and lessons are interrupted.
There is the Chernobyl veteran from Rivne who was a Colonel in the Soviet army and served in the first waves of fire fighting in 1986.
There is the mining engineer from Luhansk who used to live in Charkiv and stayed in G. after the war started.
There is the dentist with his family from Kiev who fled in March with 4 children.
I could go on..
They all have relatives in Russia and Belarus. They want everything else but a war and destruction of their country. But they insist on their freedom to live without Russian oppression.
As the guy from Charkiv put it: "We all share the same Soviet heritage, a mafia structure ruled with strong corruption and suppressed by central Moscow. We can´t get rid of all oligarchs and corruption, but we can at least get rid of Moscow."
Everything else is Russian propaganda. Everything else is Russky Mir.
As a speaker of Russian, it was amazing for me to listen that all Ukrainians here in G. speak very clear Russian. There is no and was no suppression of Russian language in Ukraine. But that just is another false Russian narrative.That is the story of some Ukrainians that had to flee their country.
Yes, there is truth in that.
There is truth that Crimea had been part of the Russian Republic since 2014, and other than the ongoing battle in the Donbas, that should have ceased if Zelensky accepted the Minsk Agreement... there was peace.
The people of Crimea were getting along just fine.
The people of Ukraine, other than the Donbas, were getting along just fine.
And then Zelensky decided that Crimea had to be taken back... by force if necessary... making it Ukrainian law that they would do so in 2021.
That was a declaration of war against Russia.
And there is the TRUTH.
If Ukraine had accepted the Minsk Agreement, if they had tried for peace, rather than instigating for war with Russia, I would be supporting them.
But that's not what went down.
I am happy to continue to provide links here and elsewhere to the documented facts as to what really occurred. This war is a tragedy, to millions, it is a war we had no business supporting... but that is America, Ukraine is just one in a long line of nations we have destroyed lately.There you go again. Spreading your blatant lies about Ukraine.
I don't know what your connection is to Russia, but I am convinced you have one. One of the main reasons is you only provide Russian Propaganda in your responses. I look at your responses and tell myself that nobody could be this willfully ignorant.
"There is truth that Crimea had been part of the Russian Republic since 2014, and other than the ongoing battle in the Donbas, that should have ceased if Zelensky accepted the Minsk Agreement... there was peace."
NO, these territories were illegally annexed by Russia in 2014. This has been acknowledged by the United Nations. NO country just gets to go into another country and take what territory they want. In the civilized world, not the Russian world, this is unacceptable.
"The people of Crimea were getting along just fine.
The people of Ukraine, other than the Donbas, were getting along just fine."
This is another piece of Russian propaganda. The Ukrainian people in these areas were treated as second class citizens. They had their language and culture systematically removed. This is what Russia does when it conquers land. It is what they have always done. The Tartars of Crimea are treated especially harsh. If things are so great there you have to as yourself why there is so much sabotage occurring against the Russian military in Crimea?
"And then Zelensky decided that Crimea had to be taken back... by force if necessary... making it Ukrainian law that they would do so in 2021.
That was a declaration of war against Russia."
Yes, the president of a country who had its territory illegally annexed by another country is willing to fight to get it back. Invading another country is actually a deceleration of war.
Again, this is more of your Russian propaganda.
The United Nations supports Ukraine fighting to get its territory back.
Try telling the actual truth and not spewing forth Russian propaganda.That's your truth Mike.
Its not the world's truth.
It's not Russia's truth.
Ukraine has lost hundreds of thousands of lives.
Ukraine is not taking Crimea back unless America goes and fights that war.
That was always the case, it will always be the case, the escalation of this war is because we have insane warmongering idiots running America and Ukraine willing to destroy millions of lives.No, it is the world's truth. I am in agreement with Mike for a change (well not that last part). The only Truth about Russia is it is an aggressor nation who has no problems committing war crimes to get its way.
There is no "escalation" to the war other than by Russia. Since Ukraine has the right to take back all of its territory that was stolen by Putin, it is full on war. How they can execute it depends on how much the West is willing to support it.
Ukraine is a democratic nation that was invaded by an asshole. The West has a responsibility to support it.I think you would find the majority of the world, outside of the Western Nations (and perhaps a few of them as well), find that the only aggressor nation they are really concerned about right now is America.
America's reputation has taken a massive hit, the speed at which the Non-Western world is turning away from America right now is something I believe few ever thought possible.
Those that are more objective, those that are not tied into Neo-Con or NWO ideology, are able to see the growing divide in the world today.
And that stems from our 'Democracy building' efforts in Ukraine more than anything... well that and the effort to sanction Russia into oblivion.
Those efforts are unifying a considerable number of countries against America.UN condemns Russia over Ukraine war, calls for withdrawal
Some 141 members of the UN General Assembly back resolution, a year after Russia invaded its neighbour.
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution demanding Moscow withdraw its troops from Ukraine and end the fighting, a year after Russia launched its invasion.
The resolution (PDF) urged a “comprehensive, just and lasting peace” that it said “would constitute a significant contribution to strengthening international peace and security” and reaffirmed Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/2 … withdrawalI suspect Ken thinks the UN is part of the conspiracy to form a one-world government.
Does Ken subscribe to QAnon?
Besides allies of Russia like China and North Korea, name some. India doesn't think America is the aggressor even though they continue to support Putin's war effort. Syria and Iran probably fit your bill, but not many more.
BTW, what is wrong with Democracy Building? It leads to a friendlier world.
Do you have any non-conspiratorial support for your claim that the non-Western world who are not led by despots are turning away from America?
I will grant you they probably turned away from Trump, but when Biden was elected, they all breathed a sigh of relief.If your theory in your penultimate and ultimate paragraphs were true then the UK would be as despised as you say the USA is around the world e.g. apart from the USA, the UK has given Ukraine more weapons than any other country in the world; and the UK has provided the Ukrainian military, including fighter pilots and tank drivers, with more training than any other country in the world: And we are proud as a nation to be helping Ukraine fight for their freedom and democracy - According to opinion polls, over 60% of the British Public support's the UK Government's current role in the conflict in Ukraine.
A year ago, UK troops began to leave Ukraine, where they had been training Ukrainians since 2014, and we started to train Ukrainian troops in the UK instead. And now, a year later ten nations have joined forces to train Ukrainian recruits in the UK, providing them with skills to defend their homeland.
10 nations have joined forces to train Ukrainian recruits in the UK: https://youtu.be/Pd2-MZVOBcoI would also like to state the UK has also been very welcoming to Ukrainian refugees. Older people, women and children from Ukraine have been treated very good by the UK.
If your theory in your penultimate and ultimate paragraphs were true then the UK would be as despised as you say the USA is around the world e.g. apart from the USA, the UK has given Ukraine more weapons than any other country in the world; and the UK has provided the Ukrainian military, including fighter pilots and tank drivers, with more training than any other country in the world: And we are proud as a nation to be helping Ukraine fight for their freedom and democracy - According to opinion polls, over 60% of the British Public support's the UK Government's current role in the conflict in Ukraine.
A year ago, UK troops began to leave Ukraine, where they had been training Ukrainians since 2014, and started to train Ukrainian troops in the UK. And now, a year later and ten nations have joined forces to train Ukrainian recruits in the UK, providing them with skills to defend their homeland.
10 nations have joined forces to train Ukrainian recruits in the UK: https://youtu.be/Pd2-MZVOBco
Sorry, that is REALITY.
Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of lives and continues to lose hundreds daily.
Ukraine liberating Ukraine is an eventuality.
Again, I see things a bit more clearly because I don't buy into russian propaganda and I've been there. As I said before, I have friends and relatives in Ukraine. I've been to Crimea, I know people from Crimea who live in Ukraine. It was a popular tourist destination for Ukrainians before russia illegally annexed it. You wouldn't believe what russia has done to it.
The war could end tomorrow if russian soldiers left and went back to russia and gave up their conquest to conquer lands. All of these deaths are the responsibility of the invaders NOT those who defend their land.
russia is an evil empire.
"Try telling the actual truth and not spewing forth Russian propaganda"
Why are you so adamant about saying these things against his right of free speech? That is no different than the tactics used by the woke crowd to condemn anyone they claim is a fatphobe or a transphobe.
You can tell us your side of the story without calling him a Russian spy. You are aware of how the Democrats used that same tactic against Trump?Don't we have a free speech right to ask someone to stop lying and spreading disinformation/misinformation that is harmful and can ultimately get people killed?
i bet you have no clue what "woke" is. It is something all good people want to be.
The Democrats never called Trump a Russian spy. We did ask the question though because of his character and deep involvement with Putin whether it was possible that 1) they were trying to turn him into a spy and/or 2) Putin has something on Trump. I go with the latter
And why shouldn't people who discriminate or worse against fat or trans people be called to task and identified?
Isn't that the whole point of "woke" - to push against socially bad behavior?This comment was not directed at you but I did notice your personal attack against the same person earlier in this thread so am not surprised that you are trying to justify your abuse. You do have a right to comment wherever you want but do not need to make claims like that, and that "spreading disinformation" comment is another tactic the wokists are using to try and extinguish free speech.
I am not surprised that you support the leftist cancel culture. Woke used to be a phrase that meant awareness of social differences but it has now become people shoving their views down everyones throat and squashing free speech.
Calling someone who does not view obesity as unhealthy is not fatphobic. Those people are not afraid of fatphobic. Phobia is a fear, and people that point out that obesity is not healthy are not afraid of fat people. Maybe you could look at the source of the word?
Or you could just remain ignorant and try to cancel others who do not agree with you.Why is pointing out somebody is lying (and providing the evidence to back it up) considered an "attack" by you?
The left does not have a "cancel culture". It is the right that does with the leader being Ron DeSantis.
BTW, I don't make personal attacks. Show me one.
Why is telling the truth being "woke" to you?
"Woke used to be a phrase that meant awareness of social differences but it has now become people shoving their views down everyones throat and squashing free speech." - YES, THAT is the true definition of "woke" and one the left follows. It is people like DeSantis that have weaponized it and are trying to cancel the whole gay and black communities.
FYI, 1)Weight bias, sometimes also called fatphobia or weight stigma, describes the negative attitudes and stereotypes surrounding and attached to larger bodies. 2) Further, fatphobia is an abnormal and irrational fear of being fat or being around fat people.That comment about DeSantis is about as accurate as saying that Biden supports castrating little boys and chopping off the breasts of teen girls.
FYI, people that find obesity an unhealthy lifestyle that should not be promoted as a healthy alternative are not suffering from a phobia. You are very incorrect.Agree, so well put. Doc, I think you may have forgotten --- Liberals have turned all upside down. What was good is now bad; what was right is now wrong; what was factual is just not factual anymore.
I think we both know being overweight is unhealthy, and science tells us factually being overweight contributes to many very serious
health risks.
"Overweight and obesity
Overweight (defined as a body mass index (BMI) is 25 kg/m2 or higher, but under 30 kg/m2), obesity (BMI is 30 kg/m2 or higher, but under 40 kg/m2), or severe obesity (BMI is 40 kg/m2 or higher), can make you more likely to get very sick from COVID-19. The risk of severe illness from COVID-19 increases sharply with higher BMI." CDC
Overweight and obesity
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc … OVID%2D19.That is a fact.
I was in supreme shape when younger, triathlon, Army Ranger, in shape.
Then in my 40s and 50s I let myself slide, and eventually ballooned up to 268 pounds. Fatboy. With the high blood pressure, aches and pains, to go with it.
Then I changed my diet, eating habits, and lost 80 pounds.
I feel better at 55 than I did at 45. Physically, Mentally, Emotionally.
Obesity is a disease. Poor eating habits, poor sleeping habits, poor diet.
We now have a MSM that tells you fat is beautiful, that tells you there is something wrong with men who do not want to date transgenders, that tells you it is ok to mutilate children.
What do you think of a media and government that is pushing those things onto society?
What is being told to you is "don't treat fat people like conservatives treat gay people or black people or anybody that doesn't look or act like them"
Do any of you here, who approach all subject-matter from the left, see that this 14 year old child has been repeatedly let down by radical leftists, adults, who have conditioned her to think she is a mistake?!
Then, to add insult to injury, she begins to question and have doubts... and her Parent, the one person who should be in her corner, is stabbing her in the back!?!?
This reminds me so much of when we were so misled in '73 by radical leftists, adults, who pretended to know best, but were as clueless then as they are today! When it came to abortion, they didn't care, they still don't care the number of lives ended and the number of young lives permanently screwed up!!! Nowadays they are just into more morbid and horrific things.
And what really stuns me is how the leftist will freak out over the fact that a Christian or a Conservative walks among them, but not think twice about killing fully developed babies or mutilating the bodies of teenagers.
It sickens me.No. And even if true in THIS instance, where are the other 10,000 examples you need to begin to prove your point?
What sickens me is the conservative war on Democracy, Blacks, LGBTQ+, and so on and so on.
Give me even one instance where a viable fetus was aborted for no good reason. It also sickens me that people lie about such things.
Give me even on instance where a teenager had a sex change operation without their consent and a full, exhaustive medical and psychological evaluation. It also sickens me that people lie about such things.
I guess another thing you are proving is that conservatives don't think parents know what is best for their children.I knew they deserved LIFE and would have never taken that away from them and I would have never condoned or allowed experimental drugs and/or a mutilation of their bodies!!! IF that makes me the bad guy...in your eyes, so be it, I plead guilty!
This is sick stuff and I think, because you're human, deep down, you know that."I would have never condoned or allowed experimental drugs and/or a mutilation of their bodies!!! " - NOBODY ELSE does, so what's your point?
What's my point?
This was your response to me:
"I guess another thing you are proving is that conservatives don't think parents know what is best for their children."
My response in turn:
This Parent, this conservative, knows that what is "best", is for a Parent to first recognize LIFE -
then, it is to protect that LIFE from all evil and harm!
This era of using experimental drugs and mutilation on....oh let's just say a 14 year old....is as EVIL and as harmful as it comes and yes any so-called "Parent" condoning and participating in it, is equally, EVIL.I assume This Parent is you. What makes you think you know better than That Parent?
As to your manufactured example of experimental drugs, et all. Where is you evidence that this is done except by nut jobs. You have none, so why do you keep pushing such disinformation?
Why would I be wrong in saying that any person, let alone parent, who forces a child to live in misery because their gender identity, which is very real to them, is being forcibly denied to them by those who think they know better isn't EVIL?"What makes you think you know better than That Parent?"
You mean "That Parent" who is intentionally giving a dangerous, life-altering drug to their child, without the child knowing about it?
YES, I know better!!!
A 15 or 16 year old cannot even give consent, which is why they are not able to go out and buy alcohol or vote. You think it is okay that they "consent" to an elective medical procedure that will lead them to permanent changes?
Lets be more accurate, permanently mutilated for life, irreversibly.
"A 15 or 16 year old cannot even give consent, " - BUT THERE parents can - but I forgot, conservatives don't believe in Parental Rights.
And yes, I do think they can consent because at least in America, teens have minds that work. So long as there has been, and I will say it again so you won't miss it this time, extensive medical and psychological evaluations that affirm what the teen is feeling, they then in those few instances the medical procedures should be allowed regardless of whether it offends some strangers archaic beliefs.So if a 13 year old has an extensive discusion with a store owner you think it is okay to allow them to buy alcohol? Just because someone sits on a couch and tells a therapist that they feel like another gender that does not make it true, and certainly does not justify the use of those drugs on those people.
You might look into the drug used in children as "puberty blockers". It is the same medication used for chemical castration for sex offenders. THAT is not from FOX, not hyperbole, not nonsense, but of course those on the left support permanently castrating children.
Just wanted to let you know that even if you are on the lefts side on most issues it is still okay to accept reality from time to time and not parrot their position even when it is wrong.Since when did a "store owner" become a medical or psychological expert? Maybe in your world, but not mine.
Sitting on a couch - It doesn't make it UNTRUE either does it? So, we are to rely on just your unexpert, biased, religiously-based opinion. Is that the deal?
My diabetes drug also acts as a weight-loss drug. Your point, other than hyperbole and histrionics?A store owner can no more give a child the right to consent to purchase alcohol than a psychologist can give a child the right to consent to sexual genital manipulation. I realize that comparison might be a little difficult for you to understand but it is the same.
Maybe in your world a psychologist can tell a child that they are mature enough to make sexual decisions. In the real world that should not be possible.My, I just don't how to reply to such total nonsense. I guess all those years of experience and education they got studying such things (which have none of) was just a waste of time because they live in fantasy worlds.
I can't deal with nonsense, so I won't.I can understand that you cannot respond since so many leftists have come on talk shows and told us that children can consent to sexual mutilation.
Calling it nonsense does not mean it is not true. It means that it is indefensible and you are just avoiding the subject.Of course it is not true. Any thinking person can see that.
You have chose to align yourself to those in favor of child genital mutilation. That is the truth. You may not accept it but that is your personal choice.
And you have chose to align yourself with those who want to mentally torture teenagers. That is the truth. You may not accept it, but that is your personal choice.
BTW, you are as good as DeSantis in passing along dangerous disinformation such as this. He was more direct by saying ""But what it is, is they're literally chopping off the private parts of young kids, and that's wrong.""
He, and you, are just grandstanding because it doesn't happen. Let me repeat it doesn't happen. When the surgeries are performed - AND IT IS RARE - it is teenagers who want them, you know - 16 or 17.
I know you don't think people have a brain at that age, but almost every other person in the world does.
It is a shame you have a need to make people live to the way you see life.
That is why I like being a liberal. I believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as they don't hurt others or the environment. Your side, on the other hand, what to take away people's freedoms so that they will conform to you.
Such a broad, unsupported statement. What have liberals turned upside-down or made bad that was good?
So, you are saying DeSantis cancelling important Black history in schools isn't an example of cancel culture? Interesting.
No, I am saying you are inventing things based on the biased lies you are hearing from CNN. Having a grasp on reality and science is not something people in your tribe are now known for.
Not to mention that DeSantis/Florida did no such thing, just more hyperbolic nonsense by the leftwing MSM.
Yes, they blantanly lie when they post about that person. Amazingly enough they usually get away with it and people that like that poster swallow all of those lies.
I am sorry, but we are not Fox News or other right-wing propaganda outlets.
I noticed in the link above that you had to prove your argument by adding the CNN liars. Anyone that reports the truth does not write that sort of thing.
No. I need to correct you. It is Fox liars and CNN truth tellers. When are you going to give some examples of CNN lying like Fox has???
If you can't, they your words are so much hyperbole and nonsense.Since you seem unwilling to accept reality, here is another left wing media source pointing out over 50 instances of lies from CNN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies
It does seem that everytime anyone mentions how CNN lies you say "Well, FOX lies" as if that bogus argument has anything to do with what was pointed out.Its not fair to say CNN lies.
It would be fairer to say CNN is propaganda and messaging that the FBI, CIA and Corporations want the masses to be inundated with.Sigh, more conspiracy theories without a scintilla of factual evidence.
That could be. Maybe they think every piece of BS that the FBI tells them is true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zji49V8BIoYes, many believe the BS because they want to. I mean many have been part of perpetrating the same lies for some years now, so facts mean little to some. The facts only make them look foolish for going along with all the lies and spreading them. So much easier to keep spreading the lies.
Is that why a third of the nation listen to Fox and other right-wing media?
Here's a great example of the messaging... note how these various clips are NBC, FOX, CBS across all MSM channels.
They do this for ALL narratives they push, not just the harmless ones like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaAWhy did you have us watch an ad about tinnitus?
That said, it was helpful because it caused me look up whether tinnitus, which I have, really does shrink brain cells (it doesn't). But it can, if bad enough, distract and exhaust the brain.
You actually trying to prove something with that failed Durham report. The report that said the FBI should have opened up a preliminary investigation? The report that disagrees with the unbiased IG report? The investigation that was badly beat twice in court? The investigation that got a low-level FBI lawyer to plead guilty to making minor alterations to an email? The report that wasted untold millions of dollars and didn't prove a damn thing that wasn't already known (save for the lawyer).
That report? Come on, give me a break. Find something real.
So agree, I mean with all the many times facts show that they have guests that perpetrate pure lies, not to mention all we learned from the Durham investigation as well as the Horiwizt investigation they continue to present many of the same liars to spread more lies.
However, once they hear a lie they like --- they run with t, and will no matter if it is proven a lie, it is set in their brain for all time. I am proud I have kept a clear head in these past few years. I truely would not want to be part of this group that has adopted this strange mindset -- what is right is wrong; what is wrong is right.
But, CNN continues to tank in ratings so maybe some are sick of the propaganda.
"Primetime ratings for CNN have fallen 61% this month — the steepest dip in viewership among the big three cable news giants, according to the latest figures released by Nielsen."
https://nypost.com/2023/03/30/cnn-prime … lsen-data/"So agree, I mean with all the many times facts show that they have guests that perpetrate pure lies" - AND YET you still make unsubstantiated claims. You haven't even presented one (and I suspect you can probably find one or two, but not the hundreds that Fox is famous for.)
And you use the NY Post, also famous for passing on misinformation.
Did the Post report that CNN is changing its format and to have patience?Yes, they do have a new boss, and hopefully, he is on point with reporting all the news truthfully, and in its entirety. And perhaps get a few new talk jocks. As of late Adweek makes very little mention of CNN. Over all Fox is still number one. https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/category/ratings/
CNN has always reported all the news truthfully, and in its entirety.
Yes, Fox is the number 1 fabricator of mis/disinformation by their own admission.
I posted to Ken, I think, the latest ranking in trustworthiness. CNN was way down the list, but still well above ALL the right-wing outlets. Some of those had a negative ranking somehow.
Bottom line, right-wing media is not to be trusted and those who listen to it are being fed a bunch of BS.
Wikipedia is left-wing media? Now I have heard it all. It is an on-line encyclopedia where anybody can post, assuming they can verify what they are posting.
In any case, I am guessing you didn't even read your link. Nowhere in it does it say that CNN Lied or is Lying about anything. It actually proves my point that CNN strives to give an honest representation of reality.
Why do you refuse to admit that Fox lies - a lot?Did you read the link or are you just trying to spread more disinformation? Here is an example: WikiLeaks emails
"Further information: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak
During live coverage of the 2016 elections, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo said that downloading the hacked and stolen Podesta emails from the WikiLeaks website was a violation of law and that only the media could legally do so. The statement was proven to be false. The statement drew criticism to the network.[15][16][17]"
I never brought up Fox. It is just more of a leftist attempt to divert the conversation from the real subject?
Is that a fact? NOT. Read the Don't Say Gay law DeSantis signed.
Headline - DeSantis defends banning African American studies course as Black leaders call for action
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/2 … %20origin.
I find it highly ironic and disingenuous for you to criticize truth telling MSM while right-wing media keeps getting caught in lies.
You can hear him defending blocking such teaching here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCVmM5-tHag
DeSantis rightly claims that Florida schools are required to teach Black history. What he doesn't say is it is a Whitewashed version of that history. (Much like what Putin does in Russia about his history).
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/05/politics … index.htmlThat would be an impossibility, as DeSantis has never signed a Don't Say Gay law. No such thing exists. Just more hyperbolic Leftwing nonsense.
You are just playing a semantic game. And it is clear you didn't read the link.
What did I invent? Please be specific then I will send you the laws he signed to prove my well known point.
CNN is one of the most trusted news sources in the world.
As far as your last sentence goes, you are projecting what is true about conservatives on to everybody else.
Where you say "Don't we have a free speech right to ask someone to stop lying and spreading disinformation/misinformation that is harmful and can ultimately get people killed?" - In the UK we do, it comes under amongst other things the "hate speech" laws; something the American right-right wing detest (I wonder why?).
In the UK you don't have free speech.
Very thankful I don't live there, or in the EU. The idea that I could be arrested in the UK for voicing this opinion is... well.... for many Americans it would be worth going to war with our government over.
Just like those first Americans went to war against the UK to be free all those years ago. There is a reason why the 1st Amendment stated "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" without the ability to speak your opinion, you really have no freedom.
Its a shame our current government tries to make us less free and more like the UK with each passing day.BTW Ken, do you yell Fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire simply because you can?
I have a great clip here, a discussion between Judge Napolitano and Ray McGovern. Its a good piece because it explains the hows and whys of why we have this conflict, and as a former intelligence agent he approaches it with a non-political bias... he just states facts as he knows them. As do I.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQzRtyqyIUk
In the UK we do have free speech: I can express any opinion I like; it’s just a case of phrasing my words so as to not harm, or incite others to harm, those who would be vulnerable to attack or abuse e.g. “expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation” – To be able to attack such people, I think is despicable.
Plus also, the about to be made law "Online Safety Bill", targeted to protect children and the vulnerable from harm is a very admirable law. What gives people the right to say things on the Internet that can cause harm to children?
Online Safety Bill - Day 1 in the House of Lords (last month); the Bishop of Oxford gives his support to the Bill: https://youtu.be/wi2CE-HSRNsUnfortunately, in the UK, a person can be arrested for silently praying. No speaking words, just silently praying. I would say this pretty much qualifies as a lack of free speech, or a lack of freedom to silently pray.
"UK woman arrested a second time for 'offense' of silently praying outside abortion clinic: 'This isn’t 1984'
A pro-life activist arrested for the second time only weeks after the court cleared her of criminal charges for silently praying near an abortion facility.
A pro-life activist was arrested for the second time Tuesday for the "offense" of silently praying in her head near an abortion facility in a so-called censorship or "buffer zone" in Birmingham, England.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce's arrest comes only weeks after the court cleared her of criminal charges for breaking a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) which enforces a censorship zone around the abortion facility, according to an Alliance Defending Freedom UK press release.
Bail conditions for Vaughan-Spruce' prohibit her from entering the vicinity of the abortion facility which extends beyond the "buffer zone."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/uk-woman- … ion-clinicA good example of ‘fake news’:
If you Google Isabel Vaughan-Spruce you will find that her story is NOT reported in any news media that prides itself in ‘fact- checking’; and for good reason:-
It is not a crime in the UK to silently pray; the whole story by Fox News, the Mail, and others who are renowned for publishing ‘fake news’ is fabricated.
The offence that Isabel Vaughan-Spruce committed was to violate a PSPO (Public Space Protection Order): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sp … tion_order
The true facts surrounding this case can be found in a local newspaper; link below:-
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m … d-25794626
As you will see in the above link, a PSPO was granted by a court, at the request of the local government, following public consultation as part of their evidence to the court, to protect the area around Robert Clinic, to focus on ensuring people visiting and working there have clear access without fear of confrontation.
Any local government seeking to implement a PSPO must have robust evidence for the courts, for its introduction, which guides the conditions and location – this includes concerns and complaints received from the local community.
Therefore, when proposing a PSPO the local government published a map showing the area they intended to be included in the PSPO, which was used for the public consultation to seek the views and input from the local community - All contributions received from the public during the consultation period was included in the evidence given to the court, that informed the final scope and conditions.
During public consultation the local government received contributions from 2,105 people, in conjunction with a number of site events, public meetings and conversations with residents, local councillors and campaigners.
The evidence was collated and prepared by the local government’s legal department, to finalise the order’s conditions and area covered. The original area for toe PSPO proposed by the local government was reduced as none of the evidence submitted by the public supported the original wider map for enforcement; but overwhelming evidence from the local community supported the smaller area approved by the court.”Sorry, the Birmingham article you provided is from 12/20/22. Being arrested for silently praying occurred in March of 2023.
This is NOT fake news.
Here is an article from the UK Daily Mail with video footage to prove it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … linic.html
She clearly says in the video she is not protesting buy silently praying. In the US this would type of harassment from law enforcement against a person not causing any harm would not be permitted. People can stand anywhere they want and silently pray.
This is just one of many examples of how you don't have freedom of expression or religion in the UK. It's that attitude that drove so many people to leave Europe and come to the US.Your link supports what Nathan said - she was arrested for violating the PSPO. Are you suggesting religeous folk don't have to follow the law?
I noticed they didn't expand on why she wasn't found guilty for her first arrest. They just left it hanging?Show me where the PSPO states a person is not permitted to stand in one spot and silently pray. The video tells the entire story. She was simply standing there. She was not making a sound and praying silently to herself. She states and the officers agree, she was NOT protesting.
Again, where in the PSPO does it state a person can not do this.To me it is obvious, she was objecting to the clinic, but I'll let Nathan provide a much more cogent explanation.
Nathan, do they have loitering laws in England.
In America they state "Loitering is the act of remaining in a particular public place for a prolonged amount of time without any apparent purpose."Each PSPO comes with designated restrictions. There are some, for instance, that prevent people walking their dogs in certain areas. I have a friend who lives in Wales, and they have quite a few of them there that cause much disagreement among people.
"The Public Spaces Protection Order can be used to stop a group from using a public square as a skateboard park and at the same time discourage drunken anti-social behaviour in the same place by making it an offence not to hand over containers of alcohol when asked to do so. It can also be used to prevent dogs fouling a public park or being taken into a children’s play area within that park."
Again, I would like to see the restrictions of this particular PSPO and if it specifically states a person is not permitted to stand quietly, not make a sound, and pray quietly.
I wonder if there is a way to find this particular PSPO.
IF you know anybody in the UK, these PSPOs are a source of anger for many.
"Dover District Council created a PSPO in July requiring that dogs be kept on leads under threat of criminal prosecution. In Kensington and Chelsea, consultation is ongoing on an order that would make driving loud cars an offence, targeted at rich foreigners cruising the area in Maseratis and Lamborghinis. In Oxford, the council passed a PSPO that prohibits people under the age of 21 from entering a specific tower block, Foresters Tower. Bassetlaw District Council has created a PSPO that prohibits “under 16 year olds … gathering in groups of three or more”. Although PSPOs are often broad in spatial scope, they can be targeted directly at particular groups or activities."
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015 … s-freedoms
It's obvious the UK is not the freest of places to live. If the government tried this in the US, there would be HUGE push back. Can you imagine how the ACLU and other civil rights organizations would get involved? I bet people would take to the streets.In the UK loitering is only illegal if you are over the age of 18 and it’s for the purpose of prostitution.
Also, Jaywalking is NOT illegal in the UK.
PSPO - Public Space Protective Order. If the UK is similar to the US it means she cannot go within that space. Not to shout, not to scream, not to pray and not to stand quietly. Not for any reason can she visit that space.
"Not for any reason can she visit that space." - YOU DO realize don't you that that is a false statement. They can transit the space and they can go to whatever facility is being protected by that protective order. But, yes, they can't do those other things you list.
No I don't know. I did say IF it is similar to the US protection order, wherein a person cannot be near a home, business, etc. Is the UK law different? They are allowed to enter the business that has obtained a protective order against them? Or in this case a public space?
Yep, spot on, but obviously unless its for legitimate access, as pointed out by Scott in his subsequent post.
Duh - Same person, same location and same laws in March 2023, as in December 2022; Isabel Vaughan-Spruce using the same publicity ploy in her silent and lone protest against abortion.
It is ‘fake news’; the Daily Mail (like Fox News) thrive on ‘fake news’; which is why Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail being used as a reference source in its articles.
If you dissect and fact check the information with original sources in both links that you’ve provided about the same incident, originally to Fox News in your previous post and subsequently to the Daily Mail in this post, you will find that both articles point to ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom) as a source information for their news, and both news articles by Fox News and the Daily Mail try to give the illusion that the Public Order Act 2023 was in force (law) in March 2023: FYI the Public Order Act 2023 did not become law until 3rd May 2023.
If you follow the links from both the Fox News and Daily Mail back to ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom), ADF claim that silent prayer is an offence under clause 11 of the Public Order Act 2023; which is crap. Clause 11 of the Act is “Powers to stop and search without suspicion”. The Clause they should be referring to is Clause 9 “Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services”. And if you read Clause 9 (copied below in text and image), you will so no reference whatsoever to silent prayer being illegal.
FYI ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom), which both Fox News and the Daily Mail relied heavily on for their source information, is an American conservative Christian legal advocacy group that works to expand Christian practices within public schools and in government, to outlaw abortion and to curtail rights for LGBTQ people – Need I say more!
9 Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services
(1) It is an offence for a person who is within a safe access zone to do an act with the intent of, or reckless as to whether it has the effect of—
(a) influencing any person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic,
(b) obstructing or impeding any person accessing, providing, or facilitating the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic, or
(c) causing harassment, alarm or distress to any person in connection with a decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic, where the person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is within the safe access zone for the abortion clinic.
(2) A “safe access zone” means an area which is within a boundary which is 150 metres from any part of an abortion clinic or any access point to any building or site that contains an abortion clinic and is—
(a) on or adjacent to a public highway or public right of way,
(b) in an open space to which the public has access,
(c) within the curtilage of an abortion clinic, or building or site which contains an abortion clinic, or
(d) in any location that is visible from a public highway, public right of way, open space to which the public have access, or the curtilage of an abortion clinic.
(3) No offence is committed under subsection (1) by—
(a) a person inside a dwelling where the person affected is also in that or another dwelling, or
(b) a person inside a building or site used as a place of worship where the person affected is also in that building or site.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to—
(a) anything done in the course of providing, or facilitating the provision of, abortion services in an abortion clinic,
(b) anything done in the course of providing medical care within a regulated healthcare facility,
(c) any person or persons accompanying, with consent, a person or persons accessing, providing or facilitating the provision of, or attempting to access, provide or facilitate the provision of, abortion services, or
(d) the operation of a camera if its coverage of persons accessing or attempting to access an abortion clinic is incidental.
(6) In this section—
“abortion clinic” means—
(a) a place approved for the purposes of section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) of that section, or
(b) a hospital identified in a notification to the Chief Medical Officer under section 2(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 in the current or previous calendar year, and published identifying it as such, where “current” or “previous” are references to the time at which an alleged offence under subsection (1) of this section takes place;
“abortion services” means any treatment for the termination of pregnancy;
“dwelling” has the same meaning as in section 1 of this Act (offence of locking on).
You might want to rethink, or rephrase, your last sentence?
FYI: Last year –
• Net migration to the USA = 1.01 million
• Net migration to the UK = 0.61 million
Therefore, in spite of the fact that the USA’s population is 5 times greater than the UK, net migration in the USA was only 60% greater than the UK!
Net migration to the UK last year was more than double 2019, which is a great embarrassment to the UK Conservative Government who pledged to their hard-line supports in 2019 that Brexit would enable them to bring immigration down.Nathan - not to switch subjects, but you had commented quite awhile ago that Conservatives were going to get a drubbing in the next election. I read a little while ago that that actually happened just recently at the local levels.
Further, it looks like the Conservatives are imploding as I write this and Labour will return to power in a year or two
I don't know if I like that idea either because my "impression" is that Conservatives, while not as bad as MAGA, aren't that far away and that Labour is much like our most active Progressives like AOC.
Where is the happy medium like Biden? lol.
BTW - my wife and I are coming to England in August to take a cruise to places like Wales, Ireland, Scotland and the like. That will be my second time in England and her first.Yeah; as things are going, the Conservatives are heading towards a humiliating defeat at the next General Election in 18 months’ time.
It is most likely that Labour will win the next General Election, but with our ‘first past the past’ election system in a multiparty country there is no guarantee at this time that Labour will necessarily win an outright majority - it could be a hung Parliament, where Labour has to form a coalition Government with one or more other political parties e.g. the Liberal Democrats.
I had to look up MAGA & AOC on Wikipedia to fully understand your statement; and yes as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) told Anderson Cooper (American broadcast journalist) she favours policies that "most closely resemble what we see in the UK, in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden".
As a socialist I would fully welcome a Labour Government, it was a Labour Government in 1948 who launched the NHS (Free universal healthcare for all at the point of use), and the social welfare system that we enjoy to this day.
Labour also supports free education and affordable social housing (Council Houses) and Nationalisation of Public Utilities e.g. public transport, water, electricity, gas, coal, sewage etc. nationalisation being where the Utility is State Owned and State Controlled.
The handling of the Railways has turned out to be an embarrassment to the Conservatives:
• Labour nationalised the railways in 1948, and called it British Rail.
• Conservatives privatised the railways in 1992, splitting it into two business sectors –
(a) Management of the railway tracks, signals and train stations, and
(b) Operating the trains. The train services were divided, allowing private companies to bid for the franchises once every 3 years.
In 2002 the private business managing the rail tracks, signals and train stations went bankrupt, so Labour took that part of the business back into public ownership (nationalisation).
However, whereas before privatisation rail travel was cheap, since privatisation the cost of rail travel has got ever more expensive yearly, and services have deteriorated as private rail operators cream off the profits for their shareholders, and underfunded the train services.
In 2018 the situation got so bad that 64% of the British Public supported renationalising of the rail service. Consequently, the Conservative Government has since done an embarrassing U-turn and announced that the train services will be brought back under State Control (as each franchise expires) e.g. re-nationalisation – and the Conservatives have named the ‘new’ nationalised train service ‘Great British Railways’.
The National Grid (electricity supply) was nationalised by Labour in 1947 and privatised by the Conservatives in 1990. However, the current Conservative are currently in the process of re-nationalising the National Grid by 2024, specifically so that they can then better manage the Government’s own legal requirement to make the UK carbon net neutral by 2050!
If you want a “happy medium like Biden” then a coalition Government with Labour in power, but with the Liberal Democrats holding the ‘balance of power’ would be your happy medium e.g. Labour wouldn’t be able to anything without the consent of the Liberal Democrats.We never actually "nationalize" anything over here, although the Conservatives would like you to think so. The closest thing we might have to that is Amtrak, our national passenger railroad system.
What we have done in the past under both Republican and Democratic governments is "regulate" the hell out of critical infrastructure, mainly airlines, telecommunications, and energy distribution systems (I don't think we had the same type of regulations over oil and gas producers.)
Reagan did away with all that in the 1980s. The same thing happened here, service went to hell and prices rose. Service was one of the few aspects those businesses could compete on since prices, to a large degree, were regulated.
Personally, I am more for the Reaganesque model but with more regulation than we currently have. But the regulation would deal with safety, environment, unfair competition, predatory consumer activities, and price gouging, but not service (as terrible as that is) and prices, other than gouging.
I am hoping MAGA has created enough rope where they will hang hang themselves across the board in 2024. Unfortunately, because of gerrymandering (fixing the election through drawing boundaries) and self-selection, America has large swaths of distinctly Red and Blue areas with very few purple ones to balance things out.
What is different about 2024, is Conservatives have really, really pissed off a lot of women by taking their rights away from them. As a few states have already seen, that could really hurt them, even in rural areas. Of course, there is the fact that they will probably nominate (whether the majority wants to our not) a single term, twice impeached, convicted sexual offender (civil), currently under felony indictment failed former president who will probably be under three more felony indictments before the election.
That certainly tells you a lot about how far a third of Americans have fallen that they would ever consider putting a man like that back into power. But as other dictators and autocrats well know (and what our framers most feared) it is easy to pull the wool over some peoples eyes whose character matches that of their leader.Thanks for the summary of American politics; educational.
I guess that when it comes to the idea of nationalisation (State owned and State controlled) a fundamental difference between perception in the USA vs UK, is that in the UK we’ve “Been There, Done That”, so we know in the UK from personal experience that nationalisation is not the ogre to be feared!
Short of nationalisation, UK Governments will, as you describe for America, Regulate heavily where and when they see fit; but another tactic British Government employ is offer of self-regulation with the threat of Government Regulation if the Business Sector in question doesn’t self-regulate to the Government’s satisfaction.
For example, currently the UK Conservative Government is asking the Supermarkets (Food Stores) to ‘Self-Regulate’ price capping on ‘essential’ food items e.g. milk, eggs and bread etc. That request has gone down like a lead balloon with the Supermarkets, so it will be interesting to see if anything does come of it, and or whether the UK Government will take further action to enforce price capping on essential foods, or adopt a different strategy/policy?
Cost of living: Supermarkets encouraged to introduce voluntary price caps on some foods https://youtu.be/I27alsLuHFk
Yes it is easy to pull the wool over some people’s eyes; something Boris Johnson (our elected Prime Minister in 2019) played on to his advantage for a while, but his lies and deceit came back to bite him hard, causing him to be kicked out of Office by his own Party. At least in the UK we can get rid of Prime Ministers easier than you can get rid of Presidents in the USA e.g. we’re now on our third Prime Minister since the last General Election in 2019, and Liz Truss only lasted as Prime Minister for just six weeks.I presume the Labour Party is own board with "self-regulation" as well? I don't know what MAGA believes over here (I doubt they know either) but your Conservatives and our conservatives would part company on the second half of self-regulation. Ours are all for it, but without the hammer.
We call the supermarkets as well.
One difference between Johnson and Trump is that Boris paid the political price for his corruption. Our far-right gets even more excited and dedicated when Trump violates the law. (Fortunately, there are enough "not so" far-right who will not vote or vote against him that we will have a repeat of 2020 - which Trump is still whining about.)Yeah, the Labour Party is on-board with ‘self-regulation’. A flag-ship example of good and effective ‘self-regulation’ in the UK is the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority). The ASA, which operates independently of the advertising industry, but which is financed by the advertising industry, was created by the advertising industry itself in 1961.
The prime objective of the ASA is that ‘all’ adverts in newspapers, on-line and on TV & Radio etc. must be “Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful”, and the ASA has the power to ban any advert in the UK that doesn’t meet it’s ‘advertising standards’.
And although the ASA doesn’t have the power itself to prosecute because it’s only a private body, it works closely with Ofcom (Office of Communications) which as an independent Government body and thus does have the power to prosecute.
Advertising Standards Authority: Every UK ad a responsible ad https://youtu.be/0xjTJoLklvs
Labelling of food products in the UK by the food industry is another good example of where ‘self-regulation’ works e.g. food labelling. In the UK all packaged food must clearly provide full details of:
1. Contents, including the percentage of each ingredient, and list the ingredients in descending order by volume e.g. if water is listed as the first ingredient then you know that water is the main ingredient.
2. Full nutritional details, including the calories, fat (types of fats), sugars (types of sugars), salt, and the vitamins and minerals, giving the amount of each and the percentage of each in relation to the ‘Daily Recommended Intake’.
3. Clearly warn buyers if the food product is high in ‘fats, salts and sugar’; most food manufacturers prefer the ‘traffic light’ system e.g. if a product is high in saturated fat, moderate sugar and low in salt then ‘fat will be highlighted in ‘red’, sugar marked in ‘amber’ and salt marked in ‘green’.
Label reading - traffic light system https://youtu.be/7O-W6n7F75A
Yeah, I have noticed from a distance (across the pond) on how the far-right in the USA gets “more excited and dedicated when Trump violates the law”; that seems to highlight another subtle difference between British and American politics, in that in the UK there is still a certain level of honour in politics, and politicians will generally resign if they breach that honour e.g. the ‘Parliamentary code of conduct’ for MPs, and for Government Ministers, the ‘Ministerial code of conduct’.That is also true on the Democratic side of the aisle (and used to be on the Republican as well). But with the advent of Trump and MAGA, honor has no place in their Party.
Scott,
I hope you enjoy your cruise to the UK in August; is it just a cruise (ship) or will you be travelling inland by coach tour or private car hire?
If you’re hiring a private car to explore inland, Bristol (where I live) is just a 20 minutes’ drive from the Welsh border; and provided I’m not in Portsmouth at the time (I’m planning to nip to Portsmouth for a week early August to help a friend with his DIY projects) then you are most welcome to drop in for a cup of coffee/tea and a social chat with the family – and if you and your good wife wanted to stay overnight, you’re most welcome.
ArthurAND in Wales, they have one of the longest and fastest zip lines in the world. I tried it when I was there and it was quite an experience. If you want a real rush of Adrenaline, this will do it. I thought it was great.
I am disappointed, they don't have any excursions offered in Hollyhead
I do like zip lines though. The longest one I tried was in Costa Rica many years ago (we are still growing some coffee plants from seeds we were given there). I will have to look it up if we have any time in port.Here is a link to it.
I recommend it, especially if you like zip lines.
https://www.zipworld.co.uk/adventure/velocityIf I can get to it, I will do it. Thanks. It looks like it is about 30 - 60 minutes from Holyhead, where we dock for 9 hours. For some strange reason, Carnival doesn't have any excursions for that port.
Then you have to come to PR and check out Toro Verde Park.
Do long as there are no mountains I have to climb, lol. A friend and I tried one in Cabo San Lucus and I had to skip several of them because I simply ran out of steam. The guy with me is older, but had no problem, but then he was a mailman.
I did get to do repelling there and that was more fun than I thought it would be.Im afraid of heights, so not for me. LOL
But the park is great. There are different ziplines, and activities. Including the 2nd longest zipline in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiUdg4tcKqI
Jimmy Fallon almost dying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-A2Nv9fvaYI guess you won't join me in skydiving then, lol.
I'll cheer for you from the safety of the ground.
So did my wife, lol. I can't believe how out of shape I am. I use to skydive when I was in college 55 years ago. I talk about it every once in awhile so my wife got me a tandem jump two Christmases ago. I finally used it last Oct on (or near) my birthday.
I hadn't jumped higher than 4,000 feet before, but those had been solo. Here, they took me to 10,000 feet - it was beautiful up there. The jumpmaster hooked me up to him and out we went. There was a lady with a camera who went out before us to film.
Even though I wasn't doing much, I still got somewhat exhausted and when we landed and guy unbuckled me, I sort of sunk to the ground. But that wasn't the embarrassing part. When I tried to get up, I acted like a drunk sailor - but I was too tired to care, lol.
If you want (and I can find it) I'll send you the video.A drunk sailor LOL
That's a good wife!
Im sure it must be an incredible experience. One of my sister is dying to do it. She did bungee jumped once.I am actually afraid to bungee jump. I am really afraid of it pulling my legs off. Stupid, I know, but there it is. If it is in a harness attached to my shoulders, maybe I will give it a shot, lol.
Cool
- According to Google that's at Penrhyn Slate Quarry - is that the one you was thinking of?
We've been to several slate quarries on our holidays in Wales, but I don't thing we've been to that one.
We actually fly over to Heathrow and board a ship in Dover (white cliffs and all). From there we visit:
Hollyhead, Wales
Glasgow for two days
Belfast
Liverpool
Dublin
Cork
We haven't purchased any excursions yet, but that is how we will see the sights.
I appreciate the invite, for I would truly like to meet you, but time will be a premium, save maybe for Glasgow. We are planning on spending an extra day or so in Dover on the front end and in London on the back end.Cool
– Obviously “time will be a premium” on your visit – but my philosophy is “if you don’t ask, you don’t know”.
As you plan to spend a little time in Dover, I can recommend a visit to Samphire Hoe.
Samphire Hoe is a country park just 2 miles west of Dover; it was created in 1997 by dumping the spoil from the excavation of the Channel Tunnel to France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samphire_HoeSamphire Hoe it is, thanks. Do they have Uber or Lyft over there?
We don’t have Lyft in the UK. We do have Uber in the UK although it’s not as well established as in the USA because under UK Juridical law Uber drivers are employees of Uber (not self-employed) which means that Uber have to pay their drivers the legal minimum wage, give them six weeks paid leave per year, maternity leave and sick leave etc.
In the UK Taxi services are common place; and in London are exceptionally good (the famous London Black cab). In London, the taxi drivers are self-employed, but you can’t get a licence to operate in London as a taxi driver without passing ‘The Knowledge’ exams. The ‘Knowledge’ exams and the issuing of taxi driver licences in London are all done by the London local government.
To pass the ‘Knowledge’, in order to become a self-employed taxi driver in London (black cab) requires remembering off by heart over 25,000 London streets, and the shortest route between any two streets. It takes most people, studying 35 hours a week, between 2 and 4 years to acquire enough of the ‘Knowledge’ to be able to pass the tough exams set by the London local government. And only after they’ve passed the Knowledge can they get their licence and become black cab drivers in London.
The People Who Have to Remember 25,000 Streets | The Knowledge: The World's Toughest Taxi Test https://youtu.be/u7gp8KBP7ak
But like the yellow cabs in New York, generally, if you want a black cab in London, you just stick out your arm, and usually a black cab will pull-up next to you almost immediately.
As you intend to spend a few days in London, you need to be aware that you can’t use cash on ‘public transport’ in London; you need to use the Oyster Card, which can be used on ‘all’ public transport in London e.g. the tube (train underground), buses and even ferries.
However, notwithstanding my comments in recent posts about privatisation of public transport in the UK in the 1980s; for whatever reason, the public transport in London was never privatised – it’s all owned and controlled by ‘Transport for London’ (London local government). Thus, public transport in London is the cheapest, most efficient and most integrated public transport system in the UK.
Once you’ve bought an Oyster Card you can travel as often and as far as you like in London without worrying about racking up the costs in that your daily fairs are capped e.g. once you’ve reached the daily cap all subsequent travel on public transport is free.
This website gives all the latest details and prices on the Oyster card.
https://www.toptiplondon.com/transport/ … yster-card
How To Travel Around London and Buy an Oyster Card - Important Tips! https://youtu.be/LlZ_xDx2Zl0
Also, if you’re spending a few days in London you’re quite likely will want to use the tube (train underground), which is a quick and efficient way of getting around London e.g. trains run every 2 or 3 minutes to most destinations.
How to take The Tube in London https://youtu.be/EOVX4eUYJ-4Thanks for the tips. i hadn't really thought about getting around London while we were there.
A few years ago (2019) our Australian cousins did a three months tour of the UK, and en-route to the West Country they stayed over with us for a couple of days – so we were able to give them a guided tour of Bristol and give them a traditional ‘Full English Breakfast’.
Similar to your intent, at the tail end of their tour of the UK they spent the last week in London.
Prior to their tour of the UK they’d done a lot of research of where they wanted to go and what they wanted to see; and being Harry Potter fans, high on the list was to:-
• Take a ride on the Jacobite Steam Train in Scotland (84 miles round trip by steam train), the steam train railway line as featured as the ‘Hogwarts Express’ in the Harry Potter films, and
• To take selfie photos on Platform 9 ¾ at King’s Cross Station, London, which also featured in the Harry Potter films.
Links (and info) to both the above are:-
https://westcoastrailways.co.uk/jacobit … train-trip
https://freetoursbyfoot.com/harry-potter-kings-cross/
We could use a PSPO in the States given the violent nature of the anti-choice crowd.
Methinks Ken needs to go back an reread American history.
1. America started the revolution only as a very last resort because they wanted a voice in their fate. Beyond that, they were happy to be British citizens. But, as I like to say, the King screwed the pooch (although there is some analysis that is saying it wasn't really him.) In fact, the powers that be, save for a few firebrands like Samuel Adams) were still trying to find a way to not have a revolution even while preparations were being made to have one.
2. The original Constitution did not have the Bill of Rights attached. They were forced to be added by Conservatives before they would ratify the document.
2a. The speech part was in reaction to the British suppressing speech of the colinists.
2b. The assembly part was in reaction to the British preventing assembly to protest their unfair laws
2c. The religion part was because A. England had a state religion and we didn't want anyone telling us what religion to have (much like what social conservatives are trying to do today) and B. Because several states (Virginia included) imposed a state religion. It was the Framer's intent to have a secular nation free of the what some thought of as the malign influence of organized religion.
Well, Dr. Mark,
Thanks for you comment.
My relative and grandparents are from Ukraine and I've been there many times. I know Ukraine and I know how russians operate. I visited Ukraine when it was a member of the USSR.
The russian media and its government have a long and well documented history of spreading propaganda as part of their effort to control or influence other countries.
Ukraine and russia are engaged in an all-out war. The propaganda they are spreading about this is blatant and intentional.
If you had someone tell painfully obvious lies about your country by the nation it was at war with for purpose of changing the facts, history and the perception of reality, what would you do?
In my mind, these lies and mistruths must be addressed and revealed for what they are and that is propaganda. It is not a mistake, it is not an opinion, it is an intentional effort to misrepresent history as well as the present.
Yes, people have a right to free speech, I also have a right to free speech. We must not forget such a thing.
When you read russian propaganda talking points and mistruths that are repeated in a thread, I feel a need to correct it.
Where would the influence come from to spew forth russian propaganda?"In my mind, these lies and mistruths must be addressed and revealed for what they are and that is propaganda. " - IN SOME quarters, that is called making a personal attack, lol.
What state do you live in? What if Russia had invaded and annexed that state 9 years ago. Would you be saying?
If you don't follow them, why do you repeat them so often? Is it because you think Putin (like Trump) speaks only the truth and everybody else lies?
It is well known that Putin is a paranoid.
SOMEBODY attacked the Kremlin in early May, just before their May 9 "Victory Day" celebrations (for which they don't have enough military hardware to put on display). Who was it.
Putin says it was Ukraine trying to assassinate him even though he wasn't in the Kremlin.. Zelenskyy says they fight in their own territory and not Moscow. Besides, many doubt the drones they have can even reach Moscow.
Others say it is another Putin False Flag operation to justify doing something to Ukraine that they aren't already doing or have tried. That leaves going nuclear or biological. Maybe, but I don't think likely.
A couple of people suggest Russian partisans (which I didn't know they even had an organized group of them) trying to embarrass Putin. Among the three, I like this one the best.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/europe/k … index.html
One can hope it was a signal of the long-awaited counteroffensive by Ukraine.FINALLY, PUTIN'S WAR is being carried to the Motherland, not by Ukrainian soldiers but by Russian citizens who want to free Russia from Putin's rule.
I support their effort so long as they keep their attacks limited to military and government targets. They claim to have "liberated" a village inside of Russia. I doubt it, but it would be nice.
In any case, this will help the Russian people understand the terrible thing Putin has done.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ru … index.htmlPutin's own people know this is wrong. I've had more than one russian person come up to me and tell me how badly they feel about what their country is doing to Ukraine. In Ukraine, there really isn't a dislike for the russian people, but their government and military. Here is something interesting to know.
"Putin Defectors Say They've Seized Belgorod Towns, Vow to 'Liberate Russia'
Russian fighters serving in the Ukrainian Armed Forces say they have seized settlements in the Belgorod region, located near to the Ukrainian border.
The Freedom of Russia Legion—formed weeks after Russia's invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022—aims "to liberate Russia from Putinism," Ilya Ponomarev, an exiled Russian politician, who says he is political representative for the group of fighters, told Newsweek on Monday of the latest developments.
The Legion was declared a terrorist organization by Russia's Supreme Court in March. The group claimed on its social media channels on Monday that it had, alongside the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), "completely liberated" the settlement of Kozinka in Belgorod, and that its units had entered Graivoron.
Ponomarev, who was the only member of the Russian parliament to vote against Moscow's annexation of Crimea in 2014, told Newsweek that the legion and RVC had "liberated" both Kozinka and Graivoron.
Belgorod Regional Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov announced that "a sabotage and reconnaissance group of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" had entered the territory of Graivoron.
The events in the Belgorod region and other border areas are the result of a full-scale invasion and aggressive war of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's Russia against Ukraine. Yes, citizens of the Russian Federation, namely the forces of the [RVC] and the Legion took responsibility for these events," said Andriy Yusov, a spokesperson for Ukraine's military intelligence agency GUR.
"I think that we can only congratulate the decisive actions of the opposition-minded citizens of Russia, who are ready for an armed struggle against the criminal regime of Putin," he continued.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pu … &ei=11"Putin's own people know this is wrong. " - I WISH that were true, but from what I read, most of the Russian population is as brainwashed as MAGA is in America. They have been fed a line of consistent BS and there is no counter-view allowed.
In my mind, that makes MAGA worse because they have alternative news sources other than the right-wing propaganda they chose to listen to. The average Russian doesn't have a choice.
I wonder if there is much armed resistance in Russia beyond these Freedom Fighters.
What their incursions show, with armored vehicles no less, is that Russia has not manned its borders. Now they will have to pull troops off the front lines to protect the Motherland.
I get it Mike! I think the biggest gripe I've personally heard is the amount of money being sent to Ukraine by the U.S. Also, the fact that some in our Government, profit in times of war.
You have deep roots in Ukraine and I know that all of this death and destruction are tearing you apart.
I pray it ends soon!!The problem is, my points are not Russian propaganda.
That is why I link to the sites. proving what happened and why, repeatedly.
My sources are sound, if i say that the Ukrainian's are taking massive casualties, it is because it has come from more than one source that I trust that is informing me of this information.
I keep stressing, it doesn't matter what the West's perception of this war is.
This was is being fought on Russia's border. Just south of Moscow.
Crimea was accepted into the Russian Republic March 2014.
For Russia and all Russians... Crimea is Russia... period.
Trying to take Crimea is declaring war on Russia.
We DO NOT belong fighting this war. America, if it does, will pay a terrible price... the arrogant fools in DC are dooming us all with this idiocy."Crimea was accepted into the Russian Republic March 2014."
This is a blatant lie. It was illegally annexed by Russia during March of 2014. This is propaganda that russia has tried to spew forth since March 2014. I don't know how many times I have to prove you wrong on this. It's getting to be pretty routine.
"UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution Thursday affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity and calling the referendum that led to Russia’s annexation of its Crimean Peninsula illegal, sending a message to Moscow of surprisingly strong international opposition to its military takeover of the strategic Black Sea region.
The vote on the Ukraine-sponsored resolution was 100 countries in favor, 11 opposed and 58 abstentions."
https://nypost.com/2014/03/27/un-russia … s-illegal/
"Trying to take Crimea is declaring war on Russia."
Another statement right from the russian propaganda playbook. The truth is when russia illegally annexed Crimea that was a declaration of war. Trying to liberate territory from an invader is the right of every sovereign nation.
"This was is being fought on Russia's border. Just south of Moscow."
I'm going to believe your map reading skills have probably lessened since your time in the US Army. The war's front is more than 600 miles from Moscow.https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine … GF20140317
Crimea became part of Russia, the Russian Republic March 2014:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukra … YR20140320
Russia’s lower house of parliament overwhelmingly approved a treaty to annex Crimea from Ukraine.
It really doesn't matter if the UN or Ukraine or America doesn't like it, or doesn't want to accept it.
Its done.
Crimea no longer is part of Ukraine, its part of Russia.
The Russians believe this, they are willing to go to war over it.
Ukraine CAN NOT WIN a war against Russia.
Ukraine HAS NO CHANCE against Russia.
This is a military reality. Its fact.
Only America/NATO fighting this war can do that.
If WWIII breaks out... which is the goal of those running the Biden Administration and has been all along... they want to carve Russia up... they are warmongering lunatics, but that is their goal.
They will fail, Americans will pay a terrible price... the people of EU a far far worse price.
Crimea is part of the Russian Republic whether you or anyone else likes that or not. And only going to war against Russia and defeating the entire country can change that.
Fact.
Reality.
I don't say this because I care one bit either way. I say this because I am an American that has no interest in seeing WWIII break out.
So SOMEONE has to speak TRUTH.
Russia is NOT going to back down.
Russia is NOT going to give up Crimea.
Ukraine CANNOT defeat Russia.
So its time this REALITY starts being spoken so we can AVOID WWIII.You go ahead and keep believing that nonsense, that is certainly your right.
AB,
I have heard that gripe as well. When I hear it I like to point out that Ukraine has used the money it has received to significantly degrade the russian military. The russians are closing in on losing 200,000 soldiers. Those are numbers that haven't been seen in a war since WWII. They lost so many planes, tanks, armored personal carriers, etc. It is estimated it could take more than a decade for the russian army to recover from this.
The money given to Ukraine by the US has resulted in one of the biggest military threats to the US being significantly decreased. russia only has a small amount of the ability to wage war as it did before it invaded Ukraine. The money given to the Ukraine by the US has made the world safer for those in the US by providing the ability to destroy so much of the russian military.I have https://u24.gov.ua/ permanently up on my browser. Every once in a while I visit the site and donate more money to one of the three funds that are available.
I speak for myself and I'm sure many Ukrainians in thanking you for your contributions and support in the effort to liberate Ukraine.
As one former solder to another I thank you.
It is so nice to see the anti-Putin Russian's taking the war to Russia. That said, I do not like their choice of targets - maybe it is a Russian thing. They need to keep the targets military or, if they want to shake civilians, a demonstration in some field (meaning remove the top two feet of dirt with explosives)
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ru … index.htmlHEADLINE - "Ukrainian forces appear to be focusing on creating an asymmetrical attrition gradient that conserves Ukrainian manpower at the cost of a slower rate of territorial gains, while gradually wearing down Russian manpower and equipment."
Smart, as usual, and makes sense to me. Russia will need a lot more than 180,000 additional untrained and scared troops to feed the meat grinder called the Ukrainian armed forces.PUTIN'S WORST NIGHTMARE!!
"The Group of Seven (G7) Coalition and NATO signed agreements to offer Ukraine long-term security commitments during the NATO Summit in Vilnius on July 12. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that NATO has agreed on a three-part package that will give Ukraine a multi-year program of practical assistance, create a NATO-Ukrainian coordination council, and commits NATO to allow Ukraine to join the alliance without going through a Membership Action Plan (MAP).[i] G7 members Germany, Japan, France, Canada, Italy, Britain, and the United States signed a general framework document called the “Joint Declaration of Support for Ukraine” aimed at offering the Ukraine military, financial, and intelligence support and stated that each member of the G7 will enter into bilateral security negotiations with Ukraine regarding the document.[ii] The Group of Seven (G7) Coalition and NATO signed agreements to offer Ukraine long-term security commitments during the NATO Summit in Vilnius on July 12. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that NATO has agreed on a three-part package that will give Ukraine a multi-year program of practical assistance, create a NATO-Ukrainian coordination council, and commits NATO to allow Ukraine to join the alliance without going through a Membership Action Plan (MAP).[i] G7 members Germany, Japan, France, Canada, Italy, Britain, and the United States signed a general framework document called the “Joint Declaration of Support for Ukraine” aimed at offering the Ukraine military, financial, and intelligence support and stated that each member of the G7 will enter into bilateral security negotiations with Ukraine regarding the document.[ii] "
https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysi … 9482cb0210It seems MAGA has joined Putin in his war to crush Ukraine. SAD.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1579288/Your link is referring to --- Drug Testing in Oral Fluid.
Thank you. It should have been this https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/03/politics … 2Dstarter.
Ukraine and Israeli aid is tied to talking the Republicans into accepting money for border security.
In case you interested in useless information, that first link I provided was some research I was doing on if oral fluid drug testing test for THC or THC metabolites. CA and WA, starting the beginning of year, ban using the results from metabolite (urine) testing in hiring and firing decisions. Many of my company's clients in CA and WA use urine testing for non-DOT drug testing.I have been tracking Ukraine's progress using https://deepstatemap.live/en#11/47.4207/35.9435
It is easy to tell the impact of the Republican blockade of additional military aid to them. The Russians, sadly, are slowly gaining back the territory they lost during the Summer and Fall.It's evident that the House is firmly supporting the HR 2 proposal concerning border issues. The two sides advocate for contrasting solutions to immigration reform. One side aims to enhance efficiency, making it easier for individuals to enter the United States illegally and seek asylum. This approach seems to be an open invitation for illegal immigration. Conversely, the opposing side aims to reinstate stricter rules to discourage migrants from attempting the journey.
On May 11, 2023, the House approved the Secure the Border Act of 2023 (H.R. 2), a bill that proposes significant changes to federal immigration laws related to border security, asylum, and detention. It is crucial for more people to take the time to read the contents of HR2 before engaging in discussions about sensible solutions for our border situation. The bill is very common sense https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59151
The matter is not as straightforward as Republicans withholding support and leveraging aid to Ukraine and Israel. The consensus is that there is a need to address the influx of migrants into America, especially considering the challenges of managing court dates for asylum cases. Both major and border cities are grappling with the overwhelming number of migrants, leading to various associated problems.
While I align with the House's position, I believe it is essential not to make the border more attractive to migrants. There might be a need to temporarily close the border to asylum seekers until we can efficiently handle the millions awaiting their court dates. We truely need a solution to the problem at the border.
I prefer not to share my thoughts on aid to Israel and Ukraine.I can see why not to share your thoughts about Ukraine with Israel combined getting 450 billion aid from the US. When 20 billion would fix homeless and much of poverty at home. Only 1% Muslims or less 1% Russian are getting cross US boarder legally into the US. Must be they are happier at home, than other countries struggling with a world economy crisis. The new BRICS member will make up half of the world population and dominant all energy resources, where wars solves nothing. Only 10% of life is bad situation like in Iraq and Gaza, why because of wars? I'm lucky to be able to move to my house in Belize or Trinidad with greater pleasure. Rather than struggling with Governments and bankters having us coming and going.
I did prefer Trumps approach on how China and Mexico are killing us in economic growth. At least Mexican were moving back home where things are better. Mexican drug cartel only charge 10% tax, Where US drug cartel is one third of the economy, plus much higher tax. to keep them numb. Covid Vaccines for example and climate change are fake crisis for most part."I did prefer Trumps approach on how China and Mexico are killing us in economic growth." - Do you have data to back that up?? Mine shows that we are doing much better than China or Mexico.
Trump
“When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity,” Trump said as he announced his candidacy on June 16, 2015. “And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically. The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.”
The plandemic really ruin me and many small businesses. If Biden shows economy growth from his properganda machine, where it's all getting better. It would only be getting better from the worst times within our lifetime over covid Maddness. When they stopped vaccines and this Biden 100% covid vaccines approveal that it won't cause harm to anyone. Yet it was the worst economy and social collapse in our lifetime. That's to cover the fact that the US fiat US currency and Pedro dollars are collapsing and the BRICS will dominate most sources of energy in the world. Ask most of the US economic agents , 2024 will keep going down.
Many of the smaller countries and third world countries GDP growth are much faster than the USA. China GDP faster than USA although China may end separate into smaller countries because smaller countries are doing best. Just a chance.Not true. Biden's economy is doing better than before the pandemic.
Also:
China gdp per capita for 2022 was $12,720, a 0.81% increase from 2021. US 8.8% Biden, MX -3.2%
China gdp per capita for 2021 was $12,618, a 21.22% increase from 2020. US 10.5% Biden, MX 5.2%
China gdp per capita for 2020 was $10,409, a 2.61% increase from 2019. US -2.4% Trump, MX -9.4%
China gdp per capita for 2019 was $10,144, a 2.41% increase from 2018. US 3.7% Trump, MX -1.1%
Now do you claim US growth is worse the China or Mexico?Of course the economy is better since the stopage of the vaccines mandates and lockdowns that has crippled the world and billionair are laughing to the banks. They have plenty of more weapons of mass distractions to come, to no matter of left, right, left, right match they whitewash many to over obey.
The Chinese economy is on track to meet the government's 2023 growth target, reflecting a strong post-COVID recovery. Real GDP is projected to grow by 5.4 percent in 2023. The US GDP growth is 4.9 and enen that is very hard to believe. Mexico is lower now, yet they don't pay three to four times the taxes. The Mexican drug cartel keep the people from fearing their Government. The greatest complaint is in Canada and US is its very difficult to make financial ends meet. Trinidad or Belize is more financial and socially stable for me now. About half my family lives in Mexico. As we Canadain keep looking at the ground half the time. Wail my images of Mexican are alway smiling.Let's face it, you claimed our economy was worse than China's and Mexico's. It isn't, so you were wrong in your assessment.
The rest is just red herrings.I'm not saying the US doesn't have the wealthier economy in the world. Even though Asia has most billionaires over North America. I look at future potential more at countries with much greater GDP growth potential and the BRICS set up with half the world's population and dominant on all energy fronts. Certainly the west 100 trillion dollars to change the worlds temperature by 1 degree by 2050 is most important to them. Or men can have babies will not save the planet species, probably decease population.. Or US currency turning to toilet paper in the east, will bring anyone to a friendlier and kinder world.
Show me the money for the future?
"One side aims to enhance efficiency, making it easier for individuals to enter the United States illegally and seek asylum." - I HAVE offered multiple examples of policies that debunk that Republican myth. Shall I find and repeat them?
"This approach seems to be an open invitation for illegal immigration." - Please provide PROOF of the "open invitation". CAN YOU point to the specific policy(s) that do what you claim? I can (and have) shown you policies were the exact opposite is true.
H.R. 2 is very anti-American values.
One way to make our border less attractive to immigrants is for the Republicans to stop lying about it being open. It is no more "open" than under Trump (since the border policies are mostly identical - why is it you have never refuted that claim the many times I have said it?
The solution you seek is for the Republicans to get on board with a comprehensive immigration policy. (Of course, if they do that, then they lose political leverage.) You know, like the one the Senate had and the Republicans in the House killed in 2015 or 2016.
And while the Republicans are fighting against more money for border security, they are simultaneously throwing Ukraine under the bus and inviting mass slaughter of Ukrainian civilians.Nearly 6 million refugees fleeing Ukraine are recorded across Europe, while an estimated 8 million others had been displaced within the country by late May 2022 Imagine by now in 2024. Continues. Canada is flooded with Ukraine refugees living under bridges and on the streets. Wail housing has more than double in
cost since Trudeau communism. We built houses faster in 1970s than today and those cost have gone up 30 times. Give Ukraine 250 billion dollars and now they are sending Ukraine women and children because the men have been used up in the Russian meat grinder. With a decent economy to backed them up with the BRICS. It only cost 20 billion to fix homelessness or for many of us, may end up like Palestinians and Ukraineian at this rate.
US will fight the world like the Roman did Europe before their collapse. With only 4% of the world's population, yet with half of the world's war budget. At lease that makes more sense than to spend 100 trillion dollars to change the world's temperature by 1 degree by 2050. If that doesn't work, I'm sure they will have a environmental vaccine to cure that. Hope it's better than the success rate of 2.1 reported in US medical journals of how chemotherapy works wothin 5 years of cancer remission. Cancer thrive on sugar to fatten them up for the kill. It's why I'm my own best doctor, best self government and leader for my circle.
For those of you who still care about saving Democracy, I just took a peek at the battlelines since Russia re-invaded near Kharkiev. The Ukrainians stopped them in their tracks near the end of June when American aid started showing up and Biden let Zalinskii attack inside of Russia.
Europe’s Ahab Moment
Europe's geopolitical unraveling is accelerating. The sclerotic continent is decaying ever faster culturally, intellectually and morally—all while yelling "values" from the top of the Brussels asylum.
https://pascallottaz.substack.com/p/europes-ahab-moment
The West’s narrative dominance, which allowed it to gloss over atrocities in Congo, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Gaza, is also collapsing. Oberg and Proud, agreed that what once passed for diplomacy has become pure militarism in disguise. Foreign ministries no longer advocate peace—they merely parrot defense policy. The word “peace” itself has become taboo in politics, journalism, and academia alike.
https://youtu.be/3eAsfD2J53E?si=KtsS1CwbFyDSrkHpThat's a strong and provocative statement, but I think there's truth in it that’s worth acknowledging. Europe and the broader West—does seem to be grappling with a kind of identity crisis. There's a growing disconnect between the values often preached and the actions taken, especially on the global stage. It's fair to say we are experiencing a sense of moral fatigue and intellectual stagnation in our society. The shift from genuine diplomacy to what increasingly feels like militarized messaging is also troubling. Words like “peace” or “neutrality” have become suspicious in many Western forums, and that speaks volumes about how the global conversation has changed. It’s not that values no longer matter—but how they’re invoked often feels more performative than principled.
Interesting,
There has been no Yugoslavia since the 1980s.What I got from Ken's use of Yugoslavia was that the West no longer practices true diplomacy; it has replaced it with militarism, propaganda, and values-based double standards. Yugoslavia is just one of several cases where the West’s noble image doesn’t match its actions.
This is the context I drew.It was a snippet, a quote from the article linked.
I think it referred to our involvement in Bosnia/Serbia... You could easily replace it with Libya, Syria, or Rwanda if you like... How the West instigates massacres via military efforts, covert or overt, or chooses to ignore them.
And this is where we currently are on Ukraine with the blathering idiot in the White House...
TRUMP SENDS NEW MESSAGE TO ZELENSKY: “You don't start a war against somebody that is 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles."
LOL this fool should take his own advice in terms of the tariffs he's throwing around...
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1911818021045235960Trump hit the nail on the head common sense-wise.
While Trump’s 20-to-1 figure might not be numerically precise, Russia’s population is closer to 4 times Ukraine's. It doesn’t make the core of his message wrong. The point he’s getting at is rooted in a kind of blunt, street-level realism: it’s not strategic to provoke or enter into conflict with a much larger and better-equipped power unless you're confident in your self-reliance or have solid support lined up beforehand. That’s not a wild or controversial idea; that’s pretty standard military and geopolitical logic.
Whether people agree with his tone or not, Trump’s statement reflects a practical concern: relying on the hope that allies will endlessly supply aid in a high-stakes war isn’t a sustainable long-term strategy. Especially when those allies (like the U.S. or parts of Europe) have their own internal debates and fatigue over how much involvement they’re willing to maintain. In that sense, his comment taps into basic common sense: don't provoke a giant unless you have a solid plan and the resources to hold your ground.
So sure, the "20 times" thing might be exaggerated, but the broader message? It holds water when you strip the politics out of it.Ukraine didn't "start" the war. End of story. And when is he going to "solve it", like promised? With all the other chaos he's created in our country, people have kind of forgotten about this issue
I finished the book War and it makes it very clear that Biden personally, and his team, did everything short /of preemptively attacking Russia, to try to dissuade Putin from carrying out his plans of taking over Ukraine for himself. This war is 100% on Putin and nobody else.
It wasn't that Putin "played" Biden like he is Trump today, it is that he would play at all.
Today, Trump is looking very much like the fool that he is when he promised America and the world that he would end the Ukraine War BEFORE he became president. Well, yesterday, 5/19/2025, Trump learned why 1) Trump's self-proclaimed "deal making" prowess is so much hot air (not one tariff deal YET) and 2) President Biden and his team were unable to dissuade Putin from his goal of conquest - first Ukraine, next Eastern Europe - PUTIN WANTS WAR come hell or high water.
Here are a couple of today's headlines after yesterday's FAILED talks between Putin and Trump.
Peace in Ukraine looks further away after Trump’s call with Putin
Putin just showed Trump how little he needs him
And even worse, Trump is now threatening the world by tucking his tail between his legs and leave Ukraine and Europe to its own fate and Russian aggression. WHAT A GUY! WHAT A COWARD with a so-called bone spur!.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/europe/a … latam-intl
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/20/politics … fire-talksWilliam Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson until 1915, said something to the effect that the U.S. should avoid being drawn into a European war for moral and strategic reasons. prior to our entry into WW I; and a lot of America agreed with him. Imagine what the world would be like had we skipped WW I
Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., Ambassador to the UK, Expressed strong isolationist views, believing Britain would fall to Germany and that U.S. involvement would be futile. prior to WW II; a lot of Americans agreed. Just imagine a world had Hitler succeeded in WW II.
J.D. Vance, Vice President, said yesterday that "it is not our war" speaking of Ukraine and Trump, in full retreat from his bold promises to end the conflict, is now saying things implying Ukraine is a European problem, not ours; some Americans agree.
I maintain that like with WW I and WW II, I don't want to imagine a world where Putin is victor over Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and NATO. Do you?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/europe/a … latam-intlKeep it up Ukraine? Show Putin and Trump you are not afraid of them.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/01/europe/u … bases-intl"Russian aerial bomb kills at least 23 civilians in rural Ukrainian village, government says"
When is that toothless imbecile Trump who only knows how to make empty threats toward his friends the fellow dictators, going to do what he keeps promising??!!
Isn't he aware of how WEAK he looks in the face of the much more POWERFUL Putin?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/09/europe/r … arova-intlEnding the war in Ukraine was simply a talking point. Just another empty promise to get elected. All bluster no bite. Just like all the other promises he made to an unwitting base.
She warned us...
https://x.com/LePapillonBlu2/status/1965588018942877698America would be doing so much better today had MAUGA decided not to take America down.
Well ReadMikeNow, it looks like your hero Trump stabbed you in the back big time. How do you defend him on this?
Trump is giving Russia almost everything it wants with his Ukraine peace plan
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/21/europe/u … lysis-intl
I wonder if MAUGA Donald "the felon" Trump just sold them out for virtuallyt taking on Russia as an ally.
I wouldn't be surprised if NATO doesn't kick our butts out for what amounts to TREASON.Trump gave Zelinskii a week to cut his own throat regarding the 28-point Ukrainian surrender plan.
I hope that Ukraine and its real friends EU, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and other responsible nations sit down and have some serious talks and come out united in politely telling Trump to stuff his plan you know where. Zelinskii can also rip up that precious metals agreement.
At some point the grown-ups in the room have to draw a bright line and say: Ukraine’s future is decided in Kyiv, not at Mar-a-Lago. If Trump wants to campaign on surrendering our values, that’s his business, but he doesn’t get to dictate someone else’s capitulation as a party favor to Putin.Donald 'the dictator" Trump's schizophrenia is showing - he is all over the map as you can see from this list of headlines.
"US Secretary of State Rubio does not answer CNN when asked whether US might turn its back on Kyiv if it rejects Trump’s plan"
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … s-11-23-25
"Trump’s signals to Zelensky and Europe: Accept this plan or you’re on your own"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/23/europe/z … -plan-intl
“No, not my final offer.” — Trump, when asked if the 28-point Ukraine proposal was his final offer.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/uk … hatgpt.com
“My patience with Putin is running out… running out fast.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/tr … hatgpt.com
THEN we have these head-spinners from "the self-proclaimed genius"
“I’ll end it in 24 hours” TO “I was being a bit sarcastic.”
* Campaign/town-hall line (repeated many times): “I’ll have that done — I’ll have that done in 24 hours.”
The Wall Street Journal
+2
PBS
+2
* Later as president: “I was being a bit sarcastic” about the 24-hour promise.
AP News
+1
Ukraine must give up land TO Ukraine can win territory back.
* Earlier stance: peace would require land swaps/territorial concessions.
Reuters
* Later UN-week remark: Ukraine could reclaim areas Russia occupies/annexed.
PBS
Freeze/condition aid TO “We’re negotiating an end” and warning Zelensky.
* Early presidency: halted/paused U.S. military aid while “reevaluating” foreign assistance.
U.S. Department of State
+1
* Soon after: claims “we are successfully negotiating an end to the war” and tells Zelensky to “move fast or he is not going to have a country left.”
AP News
Hard-line toward Putin vs. conciliatory framing.
* Public warning of “severe consequences” if Putin blocks peace; casts plan as leverage on Moscow.
Reuters
* Elsewhere, pitch centers on U.S. pressure for both sides to negotiate quickly, portraying Putin as ready for talks.
Reuters
No wonder hundreds of mental health professionals think he is nuts (my term, they are more polite in saying the same thing.)Trump's "peace" initiative for Ukraine is in very uncertain waters
"US official says Ukraine agrees to peace proposal as Zelensky says ‘much work’ ahead" and Putin says "don't twist" HIS original plan.
Well, we already know the Putin 28-point peace plan has already been "twisted", a lot apparently.
Also, while Marco Rubio made a lot of progress trying to get the administration on the same page, that may be unravelling as well.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/rus … p-11-25-25I can’t understand why Trump and his great negotiating team expect the Ukraine to just capitulate to virtually all of Putin’s demands. Europe, itself is questioning Trump’s plan. If that is the best we could do, we could have avoided almost 4 years of war by simply giving Putin what he wanted at the outset.
There are those in these forums who think that is exactly what we should have done - capitulated to Russia.
"There are those in these forums who think that is exactly what we should have done - capitulated to Russia." ECO
Really who? Did I miss something?Apparently you did. But I won't name names but he is always bad-mouthing America.
Cred. It’s true appears to be true that many European leaders have expressed skepticism about the U.S.-backed peace plan for Ukraine, especially if it requires Ukraine to make major concessions to Russia. Key concerns include protecting Ukrainian sovereignty, maintaining its ability to defend itself, and ensuring that European security is not compromised. Many European officials also stress that any peace deal should involve meaningful European participation, since Europe bears much of the burden of supporting Ukraine.
At the same time, these concerns don’t seem insurmountable. The fact that the plan is currently seen as a draft means that negotiations can address these issues and make the deal fairer. Adjustments could ensure Ukraine isn’t forced into excessive concessions, strengthen European involvement in oversight, and provide stronger security guarantees. If handled carefully, these talks could produce a settlement that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty while addressing broader European security interests, which seems to be the goal of the Trump-led negotiating effort.
Europe’s pushback doesn’t necessarily reject the plan; it highlights areas that need careful negotiation to create a fair and lasting peace. I am just praying for peace, so many dying----I hear that Trump had to backpedal on his initial peace plan as neither the Ukraine nor European allies are in support. Putin is going to have to concede considerable more and the United States is going to offer more rigid iron clad security guarantees. That would be in contradiction to Putin’s desire to eliminate Western presence in the region, as he insists that Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO. I don’t see that the United States deserves to partner in the Ukraine’s mineral wealth unless it does a great deal better. Why can’t Putin settle for the territories he already occupy without having to take Ukrainian territory that he does not occupy? Putin wants Ukraine as a Russian vassal state vulnerable to anything Moscow wishes to do. There can be no compromise under such terms and this thing has hardly been resolved.
I say that this matter is far from over and that Trump will end up “throwing up his hands” in frustration over being in a spot between a rock and a hard place. Trump’s “adjustments” are yet to be seen. As to acceptable concessions for all sides, I will acknowledge it when I see it. Right now, it is a bad start.
Capitulation in the face of an adversary can never be interpreted as a lasting peace.I appreciate your breakdown of the situation, and I don’t disagree that this is far from resolved. I actually read through the full 28-point plan myself, and from my perspective, it really does feel lopsided in Russia’s favor at this stage. I’m not sure how anyone could expect Ukraine or our European allies to embrace something that seems to grant Moscow most of what it already wants.
I also agree that lasting peace isn’t achieved through simple capitulation. The idea that Ukraine should just accept whatever territories Russia already occupies, and potentially more, while giving up future security guarantees, doesn’t add up for me. If anything, that kind of imbalance invites more instability, not less.
If Trump is making adjustments, then they’ll need to address the biggest concerns: Ukraine’s sovereignty, Europe’s security, and the fact that Putin clearly wants Ukraine in a position where Moscow can keep it vulnerable. Until those issues are honestly dealt with, it’s hard to see this as anything more than a rough draft.
So yes, I think this isn’t over, and the plan, as it stands, is a bad starting point. If it’s going to work, it has to be fair, enforceable, and not something that leaves one side with all the leverage.
Didn't take a lot to see where things would go.
There were always only two directions...
Escalate until America enters the war and we see what comes after WWIII...
Or Ukraine loses...millions die...trillions are wasted.
There was never anything other than those two outcomes... Certainly not after Russia adjusted and got global support after year one.Ken, I agree with you. From early on it really did feel like the path was narrowing to exactly those two outcomes, either a massive escalation that risked dragging us into something unthinkable, or Ukraine eventually being forced into a losing position after years of bloodshed and spending. And the sad part is, once Russia regrouped and built up broader global backing, you could almost see the writing on the wall. Ken, you know my feelings on that war—it became a designated killing ground, a way to keep the conflict contained in Ukraine instead of spilling into the EU. And honestly, so much of this could have been handled long before Russia ever marched into Ukraine. That’s what frustrates me the most. Many of the issues everyone is finally talking about now could have been addressed early, sparing millions of lives and trillions in losses. It’s hard not to look back and wonder how different things might have turned out if realism had guided decisions instead of politics.
I try to simplify it and be honest about the motivations...
Ukraine, parts of it, Crimea in particular, are considered of VITAL NATIONAL SECURITY to Russia.
Crimea and the Donbas are filled with Russians, people who speak and identify as Russian.
Russia has expressed its concerns for decades... long before the 2014 government overthrow in Ukraine... long before Crimea seceded and joined the Russian Republic officially (regardless of whether America and its allies recognize it or not).
The UK and US decided, with Biden (those in his administration) chomping at the bit for conflict with Russia, to say all the right things to help escalate Russia's sense of urgency... they violated the Minsk Agreement... they had Zelensky doing a world tour demanding Crimea back, by force if necessary.
The UK and US took their shot to topple Russia... to be able to banana republic Russia into a bunch of rump states that they could control.
How close they actually came to succeeding I doubt we will ever know in this lifetime... how close was Putin to an internal overthrow... how could it have gone if the world had sided with America and not with Russia in this struggle?
But Putin survived and became stronger than ever... the world (India, China, Iran, the UAE, etc.) sided with Russia and ignored America's efforts to Sanction (Economic) Russia to death.
For Russia it is a fight for their very survival... for America, it is just one of many nonsensical wars we have gotten tied into, one the current Administration would be happy to get out of regardless of what were to become of Ukraine.
It was an idiotic war to allow to happen... but the Biden Administration was nothing if not idiotic and detrimental to American interests.So you are not saying it was absolutely unavoidable, but suggesting that Western missteps made the situation far worse, and that Russia’s strategic position made war very likely regardless.
Thanks for taking the time to lay all that out. I really appreciate the depth and context you provide. I have to admit, a lot of it is above my head, but it gives me a lot to think about. I can see how you’re looking at it from the perspective of history and national security, and I respect that. Even as a layperson, it makes me wonder how much of this complexity gets lost in the headlines and how different the situation might feel depending on whose viewpoint you consider.
I am listening, Ken, but as I commented to Sharlee earlier, do we have to give Putin everything he wants?
Cred,
We might want to take into consideration that russia has lost over a million people during this war. The low estimates is 1.5 million. There are other estimates of over 2 million people. russia has lost far more than Ukraine as russia had much more to lose
"He warned that Putin will have to confront the consequences of massive wartime losses. "The conservative estimates are 1.1 to 1.5 million people…"I dunno, Mike, is it plain stubbornest for a super power to be brought to the mat by a neighboring small country? Maybe, Putin is bluffing as I can’t imagine the amount of casualties he is willing to accept to gain control of this country and behind the scenes I believe that his situation is not as advantageous as we all are led to believe. Yet, Putin and Russia continue to present themselves as holding all of the cards. He is vulnerable somewhere, it is going to take a little more effort to determine just where that is.
Cred,
I wonder if we could focus on russia's wartime losses. The hit to their economy is in the billions. Their infrastructure is crushed. The military personnel losses are estimated to be up to 1.5 million people. Some estimates put it over 2 million people. Experts agree their military is severely degraded. They have paid a big price for their conquest to capture a sovereign nation. The fourth largest military in the world was unable to defeat Ukraine.
He warned that Putin will have to confront the consequences of massive wartime losses. "The conservative estimates are 1.1 to 1.5 million people…
https://www.foxnews.com/world/germany-w … ents-mountThose are the same experts that said the war would be over in less than a year.
Those are the same experts that said Russia would collapse economically by 2024 if the war did not end before then.
Those experts are as right now... as they were then.
If you shift a nation... its entire economy... its way of thinking... to a war-time stance... your industry, your education, your media... all refocused on winning a war against a great foreign power determined to destroy your Nation, your people...to enslave you and take what wealth your nation has.
That shift does not weaken a nation for war... it strengthens it... its like being an athlete that was sitting on the couch eating food delivery every day... out of shape... but now that athlete has spent the last 3 years working out, training, eating properly... that athlete... that nation... is in much better shape today than it was 3 years ago.
Yes.
Putin asked for the secession of Crimea, to be accepted by the world, its acceptance into the Russian Republic be acknowledged.
The UK, America, Ukraine, etc. said F-Off with that... we are going to force Russia to cede Crimea back to Ukraine.
Well... here we are... long after Biden and his merry band of misfits have been thrown out of the Executive Office... Ukraine, as well as America, much the worse for it.
So...now that Russia has spent hundreds of billions on this war... now that it has spent however many hundreds of thousands of lives...
You think Russia is going to accept anything less than every inch of ground they currently control?
How F'n idiotic does that sound to you?
If I am bashing your face in with a tire iron... and you have no way of stopping me that doesn't also ensure your own death and destruction... how exactly does that put you in a position to demand anything?
Because that is what is going on... Ukraine is having its collective faces smashed in... its country is becoming a worthless hot mess looking and acting more and more like Somalia every damned day... so how are we exactly in a position to demand anything from Russia?It does.
Do you have a viable counter to accepting that reality?
Clearly, the BS we were told for years was woefully incorrect.
The war would be over in less than a year.
Putin would be overthrown.
Putin was dying and terminally ill.
The Russian economy is going to collapse before 2024.
Never realistic, never likely to occur... delusions of the Biden Administration that was completely disconnected from reality.Credence ask you "do we have to give Putin everything he wants?"
You answered Yes - meaning you think we have to give Putin everything he wants.So you're good with continuing to waste hundreds of billions of dollars and costing Ukraine hundreds of thousands of lives, and ruining that entire nation.
And possibly... ending civilization in a nuclear war.
OK... good to know where you stand.Ken, when the staggering number of Ukrainian deaths doesn’t even register with some people, it reveals a lot about the current mindset. The scale of the loss is unbelievable. yet, where are the protests for them? Where is the outrage? You certainly don’t hear it on left-leaning media. Trump brings it up constantly, but beyond that, it’s as if those lives don’t count.
Common sense tells me that Russia can - and will - drag this war out until there’s nothing left of the Ukrainian people. Ukraine has almost no leverage left, and no one seems willing to face that reality.
And then I think about the massive outcry we saw over what protesters called “genocide” in Gaza. A population raised in perpetual conflict receives worldwide sympathy, while a modern, peaceful, thriving nation like Ukraine, truly caught in a war they didn’t seek, is barely mentioned. That kind of selective outrage exposes just how warped things have become.
The same people now turn criminals, drug-runners, and unvetted migrants into victims or even heroes. Everything feels upside down, bad is good, and good is bad. It’s a sickness in the mindset, and it’s getting harder to ignore.
I’m not sure there are words strong enough to capture my level of disdain for what the Democrats and the left have become.So you have joined the surrender at all costs club. That is sad. Do you think the killing will stop just because Putin takes over Ukraine? Think again - Putin, like Trump, has a revenge list. Instead of indicting them like Trump does, Putin will simply murder them.
So long as Ukraine is will to fight and die for their country, then America is duty, morally, and ethically bound to help them.
Tell me, if Putin wants to take back Alaska and he threatens nuclear war to do it, would you and Ken give it to him? Don't think that hasn't crossed Putin's mind - he already thinks America stole Alaska from Russia.I’m not sure why you assume I’ve changed my view on this war. I haven’t. My position has been the same since the day Russia walked into Ukraine. I expected exactly what we’re seeing now: Russian aggression and a willingness to fight until the last man standing, unless their demands are met.
I don’t believe America has an open-ended moral obligation here. We’ve helped, significantly, and that doesn’t mean we’re bound to bankroll this war forever. And frankly, the so-called “empathetic” Left has shown a blatantly unkind attitude toward the Ukrainian people. Their endless rah-rah cheerleading from thousands of miles away is not compassion; it’s disgusting. There is nothing moral about watching a nation’s citizens be killed with no end in sight. At some point, basic humanity demands that we push for an end to the war and stop the slaughter. It’s easy to cheer from afar. It’s another thing entirely to be the one living in a killing field.
That analogy regarding Alaska is downright silly — it’s the kind of exaggerated, fear-driven leap the Left loves to make when they have no real argument—total mishmash.
As I said years ago... This was going to lead to WWIII.
With a grapefruit like Biden and his Admin of misfits is it any surprise it went as poorly as it did?
I am surprised it didn't get worse... You have to give Putin and Russia credit for being wise enough not to escalate to a nuclear war as American and British made missiles struck Moscow.
It's the only reason civilization is still here... If the idiots calling the shots for Biden had their way, the world would be apocalyptic right now.
It's the real reason why we have the largest assembly of assets since the 90s in the gulf of America right now...
The Russians in Cuba are the real threat ... Not Venezuela.
Trump was given a losing hand by the treasonous Biden Administration... Russia knows they have the war won and that it benefits them and their allies to keep it going.
The world saw how weak and pathetic Biden and those in his Administration were... Walking that level of incompetence and self-destruction back is not easy.Ken, I agree with you completely. You called this years ago, and unfortunately, almost everything you warned about has played out. From the moment Russia stepped into Ukraine, it was obvious where this was headed: escalation, global instability, and the very real risk of a wider war. And yes, Biden’s weak, confused leadership only made a bad situation worse.
You’re absolutely right that if Russia hadn’t shown restraint, especially after U.S. and British weapons hit Moscow, we’d be talking about an apocalyptic scenario right now. The fact that we’re even seeing Russian assets in Cuba again shows just how much geopolitical ground has been lost.
Trump was handed a disaster, and the world saw how incompetent and reckless Biden’s team truly was. Walking that level of weakness back isn’t easy — and we’re living with the consequences of exactly what you predicted.The work being done by the Trump Administration today is to try and save America the nation... First and foremost.
This video at the 7:30 mark speaks well to that:
https://youtu.be/RnULfeil5AA?si=1y0k9Go4CN6vFEcS
One good example of it anyway...
Second they are re-establishing our control over the Americas... There is a lot going on in Mexico which you might be aware of ...but most won't be because our 'news' doesn't cover it.
During Biden we allowed China to essentially move in to all nations south of the border... Reversing that trend and keeping tabs on Russia is a task... The Biden Administration did everything it could to hand the world to China on a silver platter.
Ukraine and Europe are the least of our problems... They are nothing but a money pit and not worth worrying about ...sadly, for the European people, choosing war with Russia rather than negotiating and accepting that Crimea was again part of Russia, has done far more harm to the EU and it's access to cheap energy (now diverted to China and India) and raw materials than anything else.
We need to save our own nation from the enemies within and those now just outside our borders... from the cartels to China the Democrats in 4 years did their best to give it all away.I’m right there with you. In my view, what we’re seeing right now is the Trump administration stepping in to save the nation before we lose even more ground. I’ve said it a hundred times, if we don’t get our own borders, security, and sovereignty under control, nothing else we argue about even matters. So it’s honestly refreshing to hear someone else acknowledge that bigger picture.
And you’re absolutely right about what’s been going on in Mexico and across the Americas. I spent a lot of time in Mexico myself, so I’m more familiar with this stuff than most people. A lot of Americans genuinely have no clue how deeply China moved in during the Biden years, mostly because our media acted like it wasn’t happening.
I’ve seen it firsthand—
China is buying up large swaths of land, Chinese factories are popping up right near the U.S. border, and even Chinese-linked networks are working hand-in-hand with cartels. The cartels own Mexico, their money owns Mexico, and its people.
People would be shocked by how much influence China has tried to build down there. And what’s interesting is that the Mexican government has quietly started shifting away from China and back toward cooperating with the U.S.—something the Trump team is absolutely taking advantage of. Add to that the intelligence operations going on behind the scenes against cartel leadership, and it becomes clear this isn’t just random policy… there’s a whole strategy unfolding.
I agree with you on Ukraine and Europe too. It’s become a bottomless money pit with no real plan, and meanwhile European people are suffering because their leaders chose confrontation over negotiation—especially pretending Crimea wasn’t already lost. All that really did was push cheap energy and resources straight to China and India. But again, the media doesn’t touch that part.
But honestly, the point you closed with is the one I feel the strongest about: we can’t save the world if we lose our own nation. The threats inside our borders and the ones sitting right outside—from cartels to foreign influence—grew massively under Democratic leadership. Four years of that did real damage, and now we’re trying to reverse it before it becomes irreversible.
So yes, I appreciate your comment. It’s about time more people start connecting the dots instead of acting like these issues exist in isolation. This really is about saving America first—because if we lose America, nothing else stands.I figured you had good insight into what was going on in Mexico based on the time you spend living there.
As I say all the time... there has been no Presidency worse for Americans and America than the Biden Administration... not in anyone's lifetime.
British and American intelligence agencies have a lot to do with what happened in Ukraine... not to mention Iraq, Libya, Syria, Georgia the past 20+ years...
What do those nations have in common?
The China factor is another aspect, the infamous meeting between Xi and Putin back in 2022 (?) where they said the world has not seen such a change in over 100 years... BRICS... OPEC... the shift away from America/SWIFT/The West by half the globe.
China's military parade this past summer, which Putin attended.
China's presence in Mexico, all of the America's south of the border really...
All this was set in effect because of the people who controlled the decision making during the Biden Administration's term.
If it were up to me, they would all be rounded up and charged with treason, from funding the influx of over 12 million migrants and putting them on some form of government support, to allowing China to spread its influence throughout the Americas, to getting in a war with Russia over Crimea (rather than sticking to the Minsk Agreement or accepting that Crimea seceded and was now part of the Russian Republic).
The list of harm they did at home and abroad could only be done by those trying to destroy the Nation from within. Biden was the perfect puppet to present to the public while they did their work... a dementia patient that didn't know what day it was.
The Biden Administration was the worst thing to happen to America in our lifetimes, and IT is the reason for the Ukraine war even more than Putin. Doubly so when we know they sabotaged any/all negotiation efforts when there was chance to do so before millions were displaced and millions more were killed or crippled.As I say again, and CAN PROVE (which you can't) that there has been no Presidency worse for Americans and America than Trump, the felon, liar, sexual predator, con artist, and his Administration... not in anyone's lifetime.
Here IS a Bait question which I know you will ignore because you have no good answer.
WHY do you want a FELON as president? A CON ARTIST as president? A SEXUAL PREDATOR as president? A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR as president? A MENTALLY UNSTABLE person as president?When the Leftists working to destroy America do everything imaginable to destroy the reputation and life of someone, as they have Trump, there is no greater recommendation that can be given that he is the person to support.
Non-BAIT questions:
What ground have we lost prior to Trump?
Why did Hegseth, following Trump's orders, go soft yesterday on China at the Reagan library while talking about our National Strategy?
But more notably, the speech appeared to offer a softer stance on China’s military and all but ignored Russia.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5637 … ity-china/In my VIEW, we didn’t just lose ground on the border under Biden, we lost ground across the board. We saw millions of migrant encounters in just a few years, historic surges, and policies rolled back that once acted as real deterrents. On top of that, a huge number of those who crossed were released into the country rather than removed, which only deepened the sense that we were losing control of our own sovereignty. But the decline wasn’t limited to immigration. Many Americans felt the economy slipping in the wrong direction, higher prices, weaker purchasing power, rising debt, and a growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else. Crime and social instability were also real concerns for people, with many feeling like our communities became less safe and more fractured. And on the world stage, a lot of us felt the U.S. lost influence and leverage, with adversaries becoming bolder and our leadership appearing weaker. Even in long-term areas like education, infrastructure, and national competitiveness, people saw stagnation instead of progress. So when I say we “lost ground,” I’m talking about a broad picture, immigration chaos combined with economic strain, weakened global standing, and growing social division. It all added up to a country that felt less secure, less stable, and less prosperous than it should be.
I actually listened to Hegseth’s speech at the Reagan Library, and I came away with a very different impression. I found it fresh, logical, and truly grounded in what’s best for our nation right now. He laid out a strategy that focuses on protecting our own hemisphere first, strengthening our position here at home, and approaching China with a mix of realism, deterrence, and open communication. To me, that isn’t “going soft”, it’s being smart. It’s also obvious that Trump has worked hard to extend a hand to nations around the world, through meetings at the White House and his travels to global summits, promoting a world peace agenda and fair global prosperity. This approach fits perfectly with what Trump has always been about: building global cooperation where it’s possible, creating stability through strength, and giving the world a firm foundation to work from if we want any chance at a peaceful future. That’s not weakness, that’s strategic leadership. I don't think I have witnessed another president who has made his global agenda clearer. It is much ignored by the media. But those who follow the president have not lost sight of his good work, in my view.
Given the large number of incoming trips and the data showing substantial leaders' White House visits during Trump’s presidency (especially in the Middle East and other regions), it’s plausible he ranks among the most active presidents when it comes to meeting and hosting foreign leaders."felt"... you are being to kind, too neutral. "was significantly" in place of it would be far more appropriate.
Giving any credence to the idea that these things were done by mistake, that allowing China free reign across the hemisphere... that starting a war with Russia and cutting the EU's access to the cheap energy and resources Russia provided... that flying in hundreds of thousands of migrants (without proper ID or vetting) and allowing well over ten million more to cross the border... allowing the cartels to set up shop... the alienation of allies that formerly supported the Dollar-Reserve/SWIFT system that now no longer trade in the Dollar... not to mention the domestic insanity like Trans being made a protected minority, DEI enforced idiocy, etc.
No one bats one thousand, unless they are trying really, really hard to do so.
When everything the Biden Administration did harmed America the Nation, its society, and its people... it can't be by mistake.
Let the Left back in there and see how bad it gets next time.ECO asked a straightforward question--- "What ground have we lost prior to Trump?" I answered it with my view and kept it simple.
I thought my comment highlighted some of the real consequences we’ve suffered under the Biden administration. I could have listed much more, but I felt it wouldn’t be accepted, and a waste of energy. I don't think my context shared the idea that these things were done by mistake. I think the very opposite.
I don’t blame Biden for the mistakes that occurred under his watch—this was a cabal running a weak puppet. All responsibility lies with those who made the failing decisions. Biden simply ended up with the pie on his face.
Please have a second look at my comment--- "In my VIEW, we didn’t just lose ground on the border under Biden, we lost ground across the board. We saw millions of migrant encounters in just a few years, historic surges, and policies rolled back that once acted as real deterrents. On top of that, a huge number of those who crossed were released into the country rather than removed, which only deepened the sense that we were losing control of our own sovereignty. But the decline wasn’t limited to immigration. Many Americans felt the economy slipping in the wrong direction, higher prices, weaker purchasing power, rising debt, and a growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else. Crime and social instability were also real concerns for people, with many feeling like our communities became less safe and more fractured. And on the world stage, a lot of us felt the U.S. lost influence and leverage, with adversaries becoming bolder and our leadership appearing weaker. Even in long-term areas like education, infrastructure, and national competitiveness, people saw stagnation instead of progress. So when I say we “lost ground,” I’m talking about a broad picture, immigration chaos combined with economic strain, weakened global standing, and growing social division. It all added up to a country that felt less secure, less stable, and less prosperous than it should be."
I thought it was relevant, and I hope I left no doubt about where the fault lies.I understood, I thought it was a good sound statement/post...
But then the "It all added up to a country that felt less secure".
It was less secure... criminally so... treasonously so.
It wasn't a feeling... it was fact.
Saying it "felt" is like saying it wasn't really all those things.
In truth, it was far worse than it appeared because much of the News media ignored or covered for the criminal and negligent acts of that Administration.
State the facts with certainty. The Biden Administration did more harm to America than any foreign enemy.
There is no reason to sugar coat it or soften the message.
The work being done by Trump has nothing to do with saving America and everything to do with him getting a Nobel Peace Prize. To achieve that, he is willing to let Putin conquer a fellow democracy, Ukraine. At the same time, he is will to risk WW III by setting the stage for Putin to invade Europe.
It is as simple as that, no complex conspiracy theories needed.
And you as well - willing to bend to Putin.
I don't share your fear of nuclear war.
Here is the thing, it is our DUTY to protect other democracies from takeover's by dictatorships like Putin's - assuming they ask for the help. End of Story.
Your way guarantees Putin's conquest of the old USSR and of Europe for good measure. When he tries that, then you will get your nuclear war. Until then, being a coward in front ot a bully is unacceptable.
As Ronald Regan said The Soviet Union (Russia) is the evil empire.
Germany warns Russia could attack NATO by 2029 as intelligence threat assessments mount
Ex-NATO Supreme Commander says 'there is a lot of truth in what the foreign minister is saying'
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul warned Tuesday that new intelligence assessments show Moscow is preparing for the option of a future attack against a NATO member, marking it the third time this month that senior German officials have raised alarms about a potential confrontation with Russia in the next 4 years.
"Putin eyes the EU and NATO. Our intelligence services are issuing urgent warnings: at the very least, Russia is creating the option for itself to wage war against NATO by 2029. We have to deter further Russian aggression, together with our partners and allies," the official German foreign ministry X account stated.
"These divisions, without a doubt, have their sights set on us, on the European Union, on NATO. The threat to our country from Russia is no longer a distant concern; it is already a reality," he said.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, retired Gen. Philip Breedlove, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said he agreed with the severity of the German assessments. "I believe there is a lot of truth in what the foreign minister is saying. Russia's intent for Eastern Europe is very clear."
Breedlove noted that many observers have forgotten Russia’s early signals before the full-scale invasion. "At the beginning of this large-scale invasion phase, Russia gave us two documents. They call them treaties. We never acknowledged them. We continued to call them documents… Essentially, Mr. Putin said, ‘Sign these or there will be other means…’ And we did not sign them. And we learned what ‘or else’ meant. And he came crashing into Ukraine for the third time. First was in Crimea. Second was in the Donbas, and now the third time in multiple axes."
Breedlove said Putin’s ambitions extend far beyond Ukraine. "If you read those two documents, if you actually read them and I did multiple times, his intention is for all of Eastern Europe… he’s going to rearrange the security architecture of Eastern Europe back to a Cold War status where he controls all those buffer countries and has this buffer between him and NATO."
Asked whether Russia could be ready to attempt such a move within five years, Breedlove said that depends on how quickly Moscow can rebuild its degraded forces. "Ukraine has smashed his army, his army west of the Urals is deeply damaged… Is he able to rebuild this army? Is he able to hold the loyalty of the Russian people who are soon going to learn that their sons and husbands are not coming home?"
He warned that Putin will have to confront the consequences of massive wartime losses. "The conservative estimates are 1.1 to 1.5 million people… During the first part of this war more than 11 years ago, when people didn't come home, the moms of Moscow stood up. And I think that Mr. Putin is going to have to face that yet."
The German foreign minister’s warning follows separate comments from Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that a war between Russia and NATO "could begin in 2029," and that some analysts believe it could happen as early as 2028. The remarks were reported by Meduza.
Top military commanders have delivered similar assessments. Lt. Gen. Alexander Sollfrank, head of Germany’s joint operations command, told Reuters that Russia could launch on NATO territory "at any time." He added that a larger assault could become possible by 2029 if rearmament continues.
The warnings come as the United States pushes forward with a proposed Russia-Ukraine peace deal. President Donald Trump said Tuesday he will not meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin or Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy until the agreement is complete or in its final stage.
In a Truth Social post, Trump said "tremendous progress" had been made and that only "a few remaining points of disagreement" remain in the updated peace plan. A U.S. official told Fox News Digital that Ukraine has agreed to the revised framework, while Moscow is reviewing the latest changes.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/germany-w … ents-mountPutin won't take peace with Ukraine without restoring empire, former Defense Secretary Gates says
Russian President Vladimir Putin believes it's his destiny to recreate the Russian empire and won't back down in Ukraine, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in an interview with "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan."
Gates said Putin's aims can be unclear, even in one-on-one meetings.
"I'm not sure even in a face to face that you can judge Putin's intention," said Gates, who served as defense secretary under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. "My own view, having dealt with him and having spent most of my life working on Russia and the Soviet Union, is Putin feels that he has a destiny to recreate the Russian Empire. And as my old mentor, Zbigniew Brzezinski once said, without Ukraine, there can be no Russian Empire."
While campaigning for a return to the White House, President Trump promised a swift end to the war that began three years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine. Now more than 100 days into Mr. Trump's second term, talks to end the conflict have been inconsistent, with little sign an end to fighting is in sight.
"I think the president is — based on what I read — is getting the sense that, as he put it, that Putin is 'tapping' him along and … Putin hasn't given up on any of his original goals in Ukraine," Gates said, referring to an April 26 social media post.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-ukra … ert-gates/Have you admitted yet that Trump stabbed you in the back regarding Ukraine?
Mike, people cite Gates’ views on the current war, whether they’re talking about Ukraine, the Middle East, or the broader geopolitical climate, because his perspective usually comes down to a few consistent themes: long-term strategic competition, the erosion of U.S. deterrence, and his belief that adversaries test American weakness. A lot of commentators echo that line because it fits the narrative that today’s global instability is the product of poor U.S. leadership, unclear red lines, and inconsistent foreign policy.
But I don’t believe we’re living in “typical” times at all, so relying on a familiar framework may miss the larger picture. We’re facing a moment when multiple regional powers are acting simultaneously, with each conflict feeding into the next. Technology, drones, cyber tools, and disinformation networks has lowered the cost of aggression and made wars easier to start and harder to contain. Meanwhile great-power competition isn’t just military anymore; it’s economic, digital, demographic, and psychological. The old playbooks don’t reflect how fast incentives can change or how quickly conflicts can spill into new domains. That’s why the usual talking points, even when they sound reasonable, often feel detached from the reality in front of us.
So Mike, with all of that in mind, I’m curious about your view: do you feel this war is actually going to end, or are we looking at something that drags on far longer than anyone wants to admit?
How do you view Trump’s attempts to move the war toward a resolution?You and I and everyone taking the time to read this have experienced two "times".
When the world was split in TWO between the U.S.S.R and the U.S.A -NATO - UN
Then
The U.S.S.R. collapsed and China was allowed into the WTO.
After which came a free-trade and exploitation of much of the world that had been off limits... from China to East Europe to Russia itself...
An economic boom for all... for a while... as America went from 50% of the world's trade/GDP to about 20% today.
And now we are in a new tumultuous time.
America is having to deal with it NOT being the biggest kid on the block...
America is having to adjust to NOT being incalculably wealthy and NOT having cutting edge technology that no-one else can compete with.
China... Russia... the rest of the world is catching up... or is surpassing America. China now accounts for more of the global trade/GDP than America does. Russia and the Middle East are now supplying the raw materials and energy resources to Asian markets over the EU and USA.
One could even take a much broader look at this... for hundreds of years the world has been impressed upon by the West... from Spanish Conquistadors to the French fur trade to the hundreds of thousands of convicts shipped from the UK to Australia for safekeeping.
The worm has very much turned, and it is the West being assailed by the rest of the world today.
And then all that just complicates the juxtaposition we are currently in, the confluences of time periods and clashes of cultures.Ken, I appreciate the historical perspective you’re laying out, but I think you’re interpreting my point far more broadly than I intended.
Yes, the geopolitical landscape has shifted dramatically since the Cold War, and yes, America is no longer operating in a world where its dominance is unquestioned. I don’t disagree with that. But my point wasn’t about relitigating centuries of global power trends or arguing whether “the West” is rising or falling.
I was speaking to the *current* moment, how technology, information warfare, and rapid shifts in global influence have created a kind of instability that doesn’t really fit neatly into past frameworks. We aren’t just dealing with traditional great-power competition anymore; we’re dealing with cyber aggression, AI-driven propaganda, demographic pressures, failing institutions, and ideological clashes inside and across nations.
Those dynamics make today’s environment feel fundamentally different from earlier eras, even if some broad historical patterns repeat.
So while I understand the long arc you’re describing, my point was simply that relying too heavily on old models, whether Cold War or post-Cold War, may blind us to the very real, very modern forces shaping this turbulent period.
SharYou are correct, technology is changing things, compounding the problems.
America as the Super Power transitioning back to being one of many... one that will no longer be calling all the shots, as we have gotten used to these past few decades... is another of the problems.
That we do not have the edge on technology today... is another component of the technology problem.
My point to the "times"... pretty much everyone alive today has lived through INCREDIBLE times... America was the most powerful nation... the most advanced nation... the most capable nation... the freest nation, as far as we could tell.
The world was our oyster... if you wanted a good education... if you wanted a good job... if you wanted to build a business... for decades... through the 80s, the 90s, the 00s... there were bad things, like 9/11, that happened... but in general the future always looked bright, the ability to achieve your goals seemed always possible.
That might not have been the truth for people living in China or Zimbabwe or Chile ... but for Americans life seemed to be getting better for anyone with the ability and drive to try.
That started to change significantly in the late 00s... due in large part to political/national choices made in the 90s... and prior to that, when we opened up to China going back to the late 70s...
What I guess I am saying is it is a new world... one where being an American doesn't guarantee, or even offer, the future it once did to us when we were young and coming of age.
Biden for sure, and those pulling the strings in his administration... were clueless about today's world... about the dynamic power change ongoing in foreign affairs... and clueless as well about changing technology and the impact that was having on war, on trade, on the world.
They were dinosaurs dealing with the world as if we were still in an era that existed in the mid-90s. Ukraine, the EU, the Western World is paying the price for such a) ignorant or b) treasonous people running the Biden Admin.
Did you know that in 1960 the US had 25% of the world GDP, in 1990 the US had 25% of the world GDP. And today it is - 24% - 25%. Not sure where the 50% comes in.
I think if you look, you will find:
U.S. ≈ 24–25% of world GDP (nominal) and China ≈ 17–18%
Did you know that because of the Ukraine war and U.S and EU sanctions, Russia has had reroute most of its production to China and India at discounted prices? Also, while the gulf producers have diversified some of their sales to Asia, they haven't stopped selling to Europe/US?
How about the US being a huge producer/seller of LNG and oil.
The US is still one of the richest countries on Earth by GDP per capita among large nations, and the richest big economy.
On tech, the U.S. still leads in:
AI (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, etc.)
Advanced semiconductors (design and key tools, even though manufacturing is partly in Taiwan/ROK)
Cloud, software, biotech, aerospace
China is very competitive, and in some niches ahead, but the idea that America no longer has cutting-edge tech is just rhetoric and not fact.
It appears to me that your "worm has turned" claim is way too premature.Appreciate the civil reply.
To the first half, interesting, I will keep that in the back of my mind when I am again reading something about America's GDP and percentages over the last 75 years.
To the second, I disagree, I do not see us having an ADVANCED edge in technology. I think China and Russia is right there with us... I think Russia is showing us in Ukraine their weaponry is just as advanced as what we can produce.
As even you note, it is SK and Taiwan producing the most advanced chips and technologies today... even if that is by extension what you want to consider our production, it really is not, we are working to rebuild the ability to create the advanced chips/technology here in America... and not be reliant on outside nations.
latest from ISW Publication - "• Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that Russia does not recognize the US-proposed peace plan as a serious agreement and indicated that Russia is not interested in ending the war on the Trump administration’s desired rapid timeline."
Looks like Putin has slapped Trump in the face again and yet Trump does nothing about it. No wonder he is so red in the face."Zelensky says Ukraine will refuse to concede territory to Russia as peace talks press on"
GOOD!!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/07/europe/z … a-war-intl"Zelensky says Ukraine will refuse to concede territory to Russia as peace talks press on"
GOOD!!!!" ECO
You don’t seem to take into account the lives being lost or the reality that Americans are beginning to see there’s no end in sight to this war — and that support for it will not continue indefinitely. It feels overly simplistic to ignore those facts. Trump’s agenda has been to reduce U.S. troop presence around the world, avoid unnecessary wars, and keep America out of new conflicts.
I support that approach. Peace is always better than war. It’s easy for some people to cheer from the sidelines when they’re not the ones living in a killing zone. That attitude doesn’t just disappoint me anymore — it genuinely sickens me.Shar,
You and people who think like you don't know russia's history. This is how they built their empire. They would invade a country, get to a standstill, get some land and move onto the next country to invade.
Read about the russian Finnish war.
russia CANNOT be given any land. They INVADED a sovereign country. THEY committed countless war crimes against a sovereign nation.
They CANNOT get any benefit from this action. If they do, it will happen again and again and again.
If the world was right, putin would be put on trial for all the atrocities committed by his military against Ukraine.
Giving into russia now will only lead to a increasingly dangerous russia in the future. You do not reward the aggressor. In WWII they tried to give hitler land to apease him. He didn't stop and neither will putin.
Remember the saying "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."I am fully aware of Russia's long history of aggression—history clearly demonstrates this. However, we are many. I would certainly welcome a successful negotiation that ends this war without ceding any Ukrainian territory to Russia. I am looking at the situation realistically, guided by common sense, and I offer these thoughts as a concerned layperson.
Everything you stated contains truth and practical reasoning. But have you considered the other “what-ifs”? You seem to have focused on what happens if Russia continues unchecked. But what about the other possibilities?
First, if the war drags on, how many more lives will be lost, and what will remain of Ukraine’s infrastructure? What happens to a nation that can no longer support its people or rebuild its cities?
Second, have we truly considered the possibility that Russia might resort to nuclear weapons if it perceives defeat?
Third, do we really think Europe and the UK will offer endless support? Not to mention that the U.S. has already set limits, stopping short of committing beyond weapons sales.
Fourth, would Europe, the UK, or the U.S. even risk a world war over Ukraine? These nations are largely war-averse and face their own domestic crises. In Europe, leadership tends toward liberal ideals—strong, decisive leadership is in short supply. Facing these realities is difficult but necessary.
The time for a united NATO stand has long passed. That opportunity existed when Russia began massing troops at Ukraine’s border. They failed then, and their resolve seems no stronger now. Reflecting on history, particularly World War II, makes the stakes even clearer. Those nations that experienced a world war still carry long memories of the tremendous costs—lives lost, infrastructure destroyed, and economies devastated. It’s not simply a lesson to quote; it’s a lived history that makes leaders cautious about entering another global conflict. No rich nation would willingly return to that level of sacrifice, especially in the nuclear age, where wars could destroy and poison the Earth.
Most nations around the world are dealing with their own unique problems, so expecting everyone to be “neighborly” just isn’t realistic. In my view, America has been on a collision course for decades, and we simply can’t afford to fail. Our deficit is huge; we can't afford to support the world any longer. We have finally hit a wall on that count. As America goes, so goes much of the world, and in many cases, our direction sets the tone for global stability.
What we need are leaders who are strong, intelligent, and committed to resolving conflicts through negotiation rather than force. This includes enforcing heavy sanctions, cutting off financial flows to Russia, and reducing dependency on Russian energy. Yet, the EU continues to rely somewhat on Russian gas. Will they shift to buying energy from the U.S. and finally disengage from a warring nation? At present, it does not appear sufficient to cripple Russia’s war machine.Not America's problem. We have our own Country to save and our own Hemisphere to control.
Russia has 6,000 nukes as well as subs, ballistic missiles, etc.
Russia will never give back Crimea and now.... will never give back the territory it took.
The ONLY way that happens is WWIII and the TOTAL destruction of civilization as we know it. THAT is the reality... whether anyone likes it or not.
The lunatics in our own government (see Biden Administration) and the UK took their shot to topple Russia, take out Putin, they failed miserably, time to admit it and deal with that reality.
There is NO winning against Russia ON Russia's borders trying to take what Russia asserts is part of the Russian Republic ... America is NOT going to win that war... but it MIGHT start a nuclear war with the attempt.
Stop living in fantasy land "russia CANNOT be given any land. They INVADED a sovereign country. THEY committed countless war crimes against a sovereign nation."
So the F did we! Its what we did to Mexico... its what we did to Iraq... we have demolished Syria, Libya, Iraq and how much better off are those people living in those nations for it?
How much better off are WE for it?
40 TRILLION dollars in debt... a failing economy... and being over-run by cartels and tens of millions of migrants.I agree Ken. We’re sitting on $40 trillion in debt, facing a failing economy, and being overwhelmed by cartels and tens of millions of migrants. To me, that says everything. I know people have grown accustomed to hearing “we’re going broke” and then going on with their day, but the truth is that we are broke — and we can’t keep pretending otherwise. We simply can’t afford to support the entire world while our own foundation is crumbling.
We have a president willing to look straight at the problems and give it all to attempt to get us on a comeback path. It is so unfortunate that some can't appreciate his work and support his efforts.
If the United States doesn't deal with russia now, they WILL have to deal with russia in a big way later. Dealing with Hitler was an eventuality and it is the same with putin.
How can anyone consider rewarding such a country?
This is not the time for Republicans to take the Neville Chamberlain approach to russia. History has already taught us how that one turns out.
UN Assembly tells Russia to return 'captive' Ukrainian kids
Immediate, unconditional return of 20,000 Ukrainian children sought
The UN General Assembly on Wednesday called for the immediate and unconditional return of Ukrainian children "forcibly transferred" to Russia — a delicate issue as Kyiv and Moscow try to negotiate an end to the fighting.
The assembly adopted the non-binding resolution by a vote of 91-12, with 57 abstentions.
Russia was among the states rejecting the measure.
The resolution "demands that the Russian Federation ensure the immediate, safe and unconditional return of all Ukrainian children who have been forcibly transferred or deported."
20,000 children
It also calls on Moscow to "cease, without delay, any further practice of forcible transfer, deportation, separation from families and legal guardians, change of personal status, including through citizenship, adoption or placement in foster families, and indoctrination of Ukrainian children."
Ukraine has accused Russia of abducting at least 20,000 Ukrainian children since the start of the conflict in February 2022.
Mariana Betsa, Ukraine's deputy foreign minister, said Russia was responsible for "the largest state abduction operation in history."
So far, more than 1,850 children have been found and returned home.
"There will be no just peace in Ukraine without the immediate unconditional return of our children back home," Betsa said from the podium before the vote.
https://gulfnews.com/world/europe/un-as … .500368524
russia further puts their evil on display.
Russia Sent Abducted Ukrainian Children To North Korea
New testimony presented to the U.S. Senate has revealed that Russia has transferred abducted Ukrainian children not only into its own territory but as far as North Korea. The finding adds a new layer to one of the most thoroughly documented crimes of the war and illustrates how deeply Moscow’s alliances now shape its treatment of occupied populations.
According to reporting by the Kyiv Independent, Kateryna Rashevska of Ukraine’s Regional Center for Human Rights told a congressional subcommittee that at least two abducted Ukrainian children were moved to the Songdowon camp in North Korea. She said that 12-old Misha from occupied Donetsk and 16-year-old Liza from occupied Simferopol were taken almost nine thousand kilometers from their homes.
Reeducation And Forced Assimilation
The testimony opened a hearing of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee focused on Russia’s program of mass abductions. Since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022, Russia has removed Ukrainian children from occupied territories and placed them in a network of facilities intended to erase Ukrainian identity and, in many cases, prepare the children for life inside the Russian state.
Some are adopted by Russian families. Others are held in militarization and re-education camps. Ukraine’s national Children of War database records at least 19,546 abducted children. Independent experts estimate that the true total may be far higher. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has also introduced a bipartisan resolution calling on Russia to return all kidnapped Ukrainian children before any peace agreement is finalized.
The breadth of the abduction system has been mapped in considerable detail. The Yale School of Public Health’s Humanitarian Research Lab has identified at least 210 facilities inside Russia or Russian-held territory that receive Ukrainian children.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkiric … rth-korea/Mike, I don’t disagree that what Russia has done to Ukrainian children is horrific; there’s no excuse for it. But the assumption that the United States must bear the full burden of stopping Russia is where I part ways. From the very beginning, when Russia was massing troops on Ukraine’s border, it was clear to me that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia alone. NATO’s failure to project overwhelming military strength beforehand is a missed opportunity, and that window is now closed.
I think it’s important to be realistic: Europe is wealthy, capable, and directly threatened. If they fear Russian aggression, it’s Europe that should be prepared to put boots on the ground, not the United States stepping into a full-scale modern war thousands of miles from home. Comparing Putin to Hitler oversimplifies the situation, because we aren’t in 1938 or 1941—the stakes, geography, and weapons have changed dramatically. The U.S. response to a true threat today would be entirely different, likely focused on deterrence with modern technology rather than repeating WWII-style campaigns.
As for the UN, the resolutions are morally sound, but they’re mostly symbolic. They have been ineffective for many decades. They cannot force Russia to return children or change its behavior. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care, but expecting the UN to deliver results in this context is unrealistic.
In my view, ultimately, the only way to end the war is through negotiations. If returning abducted children means conceding some land to Russia, then the painful reality is that giving up territory might be necessary to save lives. Without compromise, I see only continued loss and suffering. Europe must step up, and hope must rest on diplomacy, not on America bearing the entire burden or on the UN magically enforcing justice.The UN is WORSE than Russia... the UN not only united with the WEF back in 2019, but it is complicit in some of the biggest human trafficking crimes to occur in our lifetmes.
THEY KEPT GIRLS IN CAGES AS S*X SLAVES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4-2iw5zjIs
UN WHISTLEBLOWER SHARES ALL [THE EMMA REILLY INTERVIEW]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5tjQl8MFM0
“It’s a Pipeline”: Experts Reveal How Taxpayer-Funded NGOs Facilitated Human Trafficking, Profited from Biden-Harris Border Crisis
https://homeland.house.gov/2025/07/17/i … er-crisis/
I really wish all the GOOD meaning people would wake up and stop believing the constant lies CNN and MSNBC pump out daily.
It is a true tragedy that so many Americans are totally clueless to the horrors their own government (Biden Administration) and international agencies like the UN have supported for years now.
As if supporting things like child sex changes and "furries" and "trans" wasn't the biggest of red-flags to how sick and twisted "the Left" and everything they support truly is under the veneer.
The world was an ugly place in a lot of places decades ago, when I was traveling it on behalf of what I thought was the "good" Nation known as America.
What is going on now... pretty damned openly to those of us who are willing to open our eyes and see it... is as bad as anything the Barbary Pirates or the Viking Slavers ever visited on humanity.
It is ignored or buried and covered up by our own media. BTW what ever happened to those 80,000 child migrants the Biden Administration lost track of?Shar,
I call your attitude the Neville Champerlain method of dealing with russia.
If he gets everything he wants in Ukraine, he will not stop. This situation with Ukraine will continue on to another country. Then what?
putin is churning out war materials at a record pace. He is constantly threatening NATO. He WILL attack eventually.
It's time to realize that putin is the Adolph Hitler of our time.
The United States may save money in the short term but is going to lose in the long run if putin isn't stopped now.It's not bud.
But out of curiosity how do you win against Russia without allowing for the invasion of Russia with American supplied weapons and support?
I put myself in Russia's shoes, there is no way I let America set up shop in Ukraine and give away Crimea and those naval ports...none.
If we decide it's in OUR national best interest to go into Mexico and wipe out the cartels and eradicate China's influence... does that give Russia and China the right to do as you say we should do to Russia for protecting its national interests?I don’t think the Neville Chamberlain comparison reflects the reality we’re dealing with today. Too many people reach back into history and try to force modern events into old narratives, comparing apples to oranges without acknowledging how dramatically the world has changed. Those historical analogies sound dramatic, but they ignore the factual differences that make them moot. Chamberlain faced a rapidly rising industrial superpower driven by a clear ideology of continental conquest, with almost no alliances, no deterrence structure, and a Europe that was essentially unprepared. None of that describes Russia in 2025. Russia is a declining nation with a weakened military, a shrinking economy, and severe demographic problems. Unlike the 1930s, we now have NATO—the strongest military alliance in world history—and Russia knows that triggering Article 5 would be suicidal. Modern deterrence, intelligence-sharing, sanctions capability, and nuclear balance simply didn’t exist in Chamberlain’s time. Ukraine today is armed and supported, unlike Czechoslovakia, which was abandoned without any real backing. Putin is dangerous, but he is not Hitler, and his ambitions are regional, not global. So when I advocate for diplomacy or strategic realism, it isn’t appeasement, it’s acknowledging the factual picture of 2025 rather than relying on blurred, emotionally charged logic from a very different era.
The US is capable of protecting our soil, and if our soil is threatened by Russia, I think we all know that we are equipped to handle the fight. Time for Europe to make the decisions on the war that threatend thier soil. They have the money, the weapons, and the men to do so...
Mike, I understand the instinct to compare today’s aggressors to the 1930s, but framing every geopolitical challenge through a Hitler–Chamberlain lens can lead us to oversimplify a far more complicated reality. Putin is dangerous, no question. But that doesn’t automatically mean that every act of restraint or strategic recalibration is “appeasement,” or that any president who questions an open-ended Ukraine commitment is channeling Neville Chamberlain.
Putin’s ambitions are largely regional, not global. He’s brutal, calculating, and authoritarian, but he doesn’t have Hitler’s ideology, industrial reach, or blueprint for continental domination. The idea that he will march across Europe if he gets a frozen conflict in Ukraine is a worst-case scenario, not a certainty. Russia’s military has been exposed as far weaker than once believed. They’ve suffered staggering manpower and equipment losses, and their economy is strained. That is not the posture of a nation preparing to steamroll NATO.
The assertion that “he WILL attack NATO eventually” ignores the one line Putin has avoided crossing for over two decades: directly triggering Article 5. He knows a war with NATO would be catastrophic for Russia and the regime itself. Even China, his most important partner, has no desire to see him drag the world into a great-power conflict.
A more grounded approach recognizes that the U.S. must balance deterrence with realism. We can support Ukraine, but we cannot ignore the strain on our own stockpiles, national security priorities, and military readiness. Endless escalation is not a strategy; it’s emotion. Asking what the endgame is, and how long the American taxpayer is expected to underwrite it, is not appeasement. It’s responsible leadership.
Labeling anyone who questions perpetual intervention as an “appeaser” shuts down the very debate democracies are meant to have: how to deter Russia effectively while protecting American interests and steering toward a stable resolution instead of an open-ended conflict.
And this leads to a larger point: Europe must finally stand up and protect its own continent. They have the money, the industry, and the manpower. It has been roughly 80 years since World War II ended, and the expectation that the United States should forever function as Europe’s security blanket simply isn’t sustainable. This is 2025. The world has changed, and Europe is more than capable of carrying a far greater share of its own defense burden.
Just last week, the Trump administration released a 29-page “America First” strategic plan that proposes reducing U.S. troop presence in Europe and elsewhere, with the aim of bringing our military resources closer to home and strengthening American security directly. That raises a fair and honest question:
Do you really believe the EU and the UK, with their combined economies, militaries, and technology, are incapable of protecting their own nations effectively?
At some point, Europe has to trust in its own strength and stop assuming the American taxpayer will shoulder the responsibility forever.
At this point, I think Ukraine will eventually have to weigh the value of negotiating to save lives rather than continuing to fight over territory. Without a realistic path to victory, the war risks dragging on for years with devastating losses, and Ukraine stands to bear the greatest cost. Trump’s point that Ukraine is running out of leverage reflects that harsh reality. It’s a tragic conflict, and NATO’s earlier hesitation, show of weakness, and mixed signals shape the situation we’re seeing now. NATO made faulty decisions, and now it time they pick up the pieces of what they caused.
Shar,
Good posts... Agree with much of it.
I think the perspective that Russia has been greatly weakened is off, without any way of knowing for sure...
There are plenty of analysis that say Russia has been strengthened by this, that formerly a weak and corrupt military has been reformed, upgraded, and is now combat hardened and experienced.
Shifting to a wartime/survival mindset has also improved its economy according to some. There are benefits to such a shift.
Russia has adjusted, the loss of the EU as a primary economic reliance, replaced by deepening ties and trade to India, China and others.
The cost to America on the other hand...is all negative.
We now have Russia very present in Cuba for instance, a threat that formerly did not exist because for 20 something years Russia had no interest in making itself such a direct threat.
That changes when we bring war to its doorstep and allow American supplied weapons to rain down on Moscow.
As for the demographics, they are meaningless in the short term, they have no impact on this particular conflict... A generation from now perhaps, but not today.. I think the perspective that Russia has been greatly weakened is off, without any way of knowing for sure. There are plenty of analyses that say Russia has actually been strengthened by this conflict, that a formerly weak and corrupt military has been reformed, upgraded, and is now combat-hardened and experienced. Shifting to a wartime, survival mindset has also improved its economy, according to some, and there are benefits to such a shift.
One key element often overlooked is Russia’s push for self-sufficiency in defense and technology. Sanctions and the pressures of war have forced them to ramp up domestic production, particularly in areas like drones, artillery shells, and other munitions. Factories like the Yelabuga drone plant are now producing drones domestically, including their own warheads and modified airframes, while overall drone output has reportedly reached record levels. Russia is also investing in AI, robotics, and autonomous systems to modernize its military rather than just replicate old Soviet-era equipment. Even artillery production has scaled massively, with estimates suggesting Russia produced millions of shells in 2024 alone, showing a war-focused industrial capacity that didn’t exist before.
Of course, self-sufficiency is not total; critical areas like advanced electronics and precision machine tools remain dependent on imports, often from China. But for high-volume, lower-complexity weapons, Russia has proven it can adapt, reorganize, and sustain production under pressure. Meanwhile, Russia has replaced its reliance on the EU with deepening economic and trade ties to India, China, and others.
With just a bit of reading, I found ---The cost to America, on the other hand, has been largely negative. Russia is now very present in places like Cuba, and all of this has occurred under Biden’s administration. Since 2022, Russia has deepened its economic and military ties with Cuba, supplying large volumes of oil, modernizing infrastructure, resuming direct flights, and even bringing warships, including submarines and missile-capable vessels, into Cuban ports. Most recently, in 2025, Russia signed a formal military cooperation agreement with Cuba, cementing a renewed alliance that directly projects power into the Western Hemisphere, something that didn’t exist before. That changes the strategic picture when we bring war to Russia’s doorstep and allow American-supplied weapons to rain down on Moscow. As for demographics, as you said, they are meaningless in the short term for this conflict; perhaps they matter a generation from now, but not today.AI agreeing?
Well... I was always pro-Ukranian...
If I had been making the decisions and not that group of misfits in the Biden Administration...
There would be some 2 million Ukrainian citizens that wouldn't have been crippled or killed...
There would be hundreds of billions less US debt (and growing) from supporting this war.
In other words... By Negotiating Ukraine would have won...it was the only win they could get.
Like Iraq, Libya, etc Ukraine is being used by the US ...and when we are done with it, all that will be left for Ukraine is a ruined nation that has decades of rebuilding ahead of it and millions of lives lost or ruined.Your hypothesis that Russia hasn’t been weakened but has actually grown stronger was interesting – so I researched it.
The facts are that Russia is militarily much weaker than it was on the day it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In fact:
U.S. and allied estimates put Russian military casualties at ~790,000+ killed and wounded by spring 2025, with some assessments going even higher.
Congress.gov
+1
A U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimate cited in a “Russia–Ukraine War Report Card” says Russia has lost at least 10,000 ground combat vehicles, including 3,000+ tanks, plus nearly 250 aircraft and helicopters and more than 10 naval vessels.
Russia Matters
+1
Putin has had to do enormous damage to his domestic economy to replace those losses and rebuild the tanks and GCVs, mostly using less capable Soviet-era equipment. They have not fully replaced their aircraft, precision munitions, or naval forces.
Think tanks like Chatham House and RAND argue that, in overall terms, Russia’s military is weaker than it was before the 2022 invasion, even though Moscow has rebuilt much of its headcount and equipment on paper. The war has chewed through a large share of Russia’s best-trained professional soldiers and junior officers, and many of their replacements are less well trained and less experienced, which lowers average unit quality. At the same time, Russian tactics have clearly improved – especially in the use of drones, artillery, and defenses – but even with those adaptations they’ve taken massive losses for relatively small territorial gains against a smaller, resource-strained opponent.
Chatham House
+2
RAND
+2
Russia’s new tactics turn their offensives into meat grinders. And the longer this goes on, the less capable their forces become, even if they manage to scrape out a bit more territory.First, you divert --- my comment was not about loss of military.
I’ve looked at some of the same numbers you’re citing, and I still don’t think they tell the whole story. Yes, Russia has taken massive losses, nobody disputes that, but losses alone don’t automatically mean a country is “weaker” in a strategic sense. What I’m looking at is how Russia has adapted, industrialized, and hardened its entire system because of this war.
Their defense industry is producing weapons at a pace that outstrips Western output in several key areas. They’ve shifted to a full wartime economy, expanded conscription, and built layered fortifications that have proven incredibly hard for Ukraine (even with Western backing) to break. Russia also came into this war with years of rot and corruption in its military structure, and ironically, the war forced them to expose those weaknesses and rebuild.
So while their losses are high, the institution itself has been reorganized and pressured into becoming more functional than it was in 2022. You can call their tactics a “meat grinder,” but they’ve actually turned drones, glide bombs, and electronic warfare into a system that’s giving them real leverage on the battlefield. My point from the start wasn’t that Russia hasn’t paid a price, it’s that sustained conflict has pushed them into becoming a more efficient, combat-tested, and strategically focused military force than the hollowed-out version they started with.
So in a broader sense, no, I don’t buy the claim that Russia is simply “weaker.” I see a country that absorbed the initial shock, adapted to survive, and now operates with a level of discipline and wartime mobilization that it absolutely did not have before the invasion. Please reread my comment, it goes into depth on why I feel Ruusis has not become weaker as a nation, but stronger.Adaptation and resilience: Some analysts argue the Russian economy has adapted to sanctions and wartime pressures better than expected, with internal consumption and “fortress economy” dynamics helping cushion some impacts.
Russia’s economy is in a challenged and weaker state, as is most of the world's, count in our own, compared with pre-war levels. Growth is slow, key sectors are under pressure, and energy revenues have only slightly dropped ( the EU is purchasing gas from Russia). I would call Russias ecconomy economic strained. It’s not in a collapse, as is the Ukrainian economy. Most independent analysts and official sources agree that the economy is not strong or thriving right now, but is surviving better than was expected.
In my view, there’s no longer room for sentiment about what Ukraine might lose; the priority now has to be saving lives and preserving what remains of the nation.Eso's post reflects the thinking of the Biden Administration and warmongers like Lindsey Graham.
It is interesting how some can consider a disaster of a defeat a win.
As you point out, Russia's military is far more capable today than in 2021.
Russia's economic treaties/alliances are far more diverse than in 2021.
Russia's ties to China, North Korea, India, and others are stronger today than they were in 2021.
Russia has more of Crimea under its control, more territory now accepted into the Russian Republic officially, than it did in 2021.Ken, what I’m seeing is that a lot of liberals are taking a stand and voicing opinions that just aren’t realistic, or even factual in some cases. I’ve done a tremendous amount of reading on where Russia actually stands after this prolonged war with Ukraine, and I’m simply calling it the way I see it. It’s not always pleasant, and it’s definitely not the “rah-rah” narrative some people want to hear, but the reality is that Russia appears to be withstanding this war far better than Ukraine.
Ukraine is being propped up with cash and weaponry from multiple nations, yet they still haven’t been able to dent Russia’s resolve or push them back in any meaningful way. Trust me, I would have loved for my research to point me in a different direction, but my mindset is rooted in common sense and realism, and I can’t pretend not to see what’s right in front of me.You and Ken and Trump don't have an issue in turning your backs on allies and fellow democracies when the going gets rough. Hell, things don't even have to get rough for Trump to turn his back on former allies, just look at his national security strategy, he doesn't even identify Russia and China as our adversaries for Gods sake - the first time in American history.
People like me and Biden and even Lindsey Graham simply can't do that.I don't agree with what you’re assuming about me here, because it feels like you’re assigning motives that simply aren’t mine. I’m not “turning my back” on allies, and I’m certainly not indifferent to the fate of democratic partners. What I am doing is looking at the situation with clear eyes. We’re watching a nation’s people die before our eyes, and the toll is enormous. In my view, Ukraine is losing, and losing badly, and the cost is becoming unsustainable. They have nothing meaningful to negotiate with at this point, which only multiplies the human suffering. At some stage, both they and we, as Americans, have to think about people rather than abstract geopolitical ideals.
That’s why I take issue with the idea that reassessing our approach is equivalent to “abandoning” anyone. There’s a big difference between walking away and acknowledging that endlessly cheering them on from a continent away, while families are shattered and cities are reduced to rubble, isn’t moral or strategic leadership. Some people are very comfortable offering lofty, almost haughty commentary from a safe distance. I’m not. I refuse to pretend this war is going well for Ukraine just so I can feel virtuous in the conversation.
As for strategic documents or how adversaries are labeled, I don’t believe foreign policy should be judged on whether it adheres to the language of past decades. Not naming Russia or China in a particular paper doesn’t mean someone is blind to reality; it can mean they recognize that framing the world as a set of permanent enemies traps us in commitments we can’t realistically fulfill. To me, being realistic and humane means recognizing limits, focusing on achievable goals, and not making promises that condemn others to endless war.
So no, I’m not of the “rah-rah-rah” mindset. I’m trying to look at this conflict honestly, not emotionally, and with concern for the human beings caught in the middle. That’s not turning my back on allies; that’s refusing to sacrifice an entire nation to satisfy the egos of politicians, pundits, or think tanks who will never pay the price themselves.What I am doing is reading your words and drawing reasonable conclusions from them.
I would hope you would understand that if we do what Trump wants (not the Ukrainian people) and have them surrender to the Russians, the killing won't stop and we will be really be preparing for the WW III that Ken is so afraid of.
Putin, like Trump, has huge scores to settle and he won't stop until he does. Unlike Trump, however, he won't use weaponization of DOIJ to do his dirty work, he will use real bullets and torture.
Personally, I would rather listen to what the majority of Ukrainians want.
* 91% of Ukrainians oppose the U.S. and Russia negotiating over their heads (peace talks without Ukraine at the table).
* 54% “categorically against any territorial concessions” to Russia, even for peace.
* And Zelensky himself has been saying that any real territorial concessions would have to be approved by the Ukrainian people, via elections or a referendum, not just decided by foreign powers.That's fine if that's what they want.
We have Cartels invading America (thanks Biden)... we have China taking over half the hemisphere (thanks Biden) ... we have 40 Trillion in debt.
Time to save America... not escalate a war with Russia that should have never been started.
Zelensky enacts strategy for de-occupation and reintegration of Crimea
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polyti … rimea.html
Good for them... the non-elected Zelensky dictatorship can continue to fight that war... without American support.I so agree... I mean, why even consider being involved in such a losing battle? I feel very sad saying that, but realistically, I think Trump more than realizes what the end of this war will eventually look like if negotiations fail. I really give him credit for being honest and upfront about the situation.
Trump - honest? ROFL. He is the least honest president in American history.
And more than that the DEATHS and SUFFERING caused by a war that never had to be fought.
Negotiate a peace deal back in 2020-2021 (stick with the Minsk Agreement) acknowledge that Crimea is now officially part of the Russia Republic.
Ukraine would be doing great right now... we would be hundreds of billions less in debt (at the minimum) and not in the middle of a global war that is separating the globe into regional super powers (which the EU will NOT be one of... the EU has less GDP and less influence than China... and is continuing to become less relevant every day).
Millions are dead, wars are raging, China/BRICS is quickly becoming the dominant influence on the global stage.
As I always say, no Administration has been worse for our Nation than Biden and his misfits.I don't live in a fantasy world that believes Putin didn't purposefully attack Ukraine. To believe otherwise is naive to the extreme.
As I always say, no Administration has been worse for our Nation than Trump I.0 and his cronies other than Trump 2.0 and his gang of crooks.
It is still necessary to present the TRUTH to counter the FALSE
"Negotiate a peace deal back in 2020-2021 (stick with the Minsk Agreement) acknowledge that Crimea is now officially part of the Russia Republic." - YET you failed to add "and accept that it is now acceptable foreign policy to let one nation violently conquer another nation.
"Ukraine would be doing great right now..." is obvious BS and leaves me ROFL. The TRUTH is they WERE AT A STALEMATE until Putin decided he wanted Ukraine for himself.
"China/BRICS is quickly becoming the dominant influence on the global stage. " - FALSE
TRUTH - BRICS/China are growing and more assertive, but they’re nowhere near dominant on the global stage and will never be.I can see why you were such a fan of the completely incompetent and dementia ridden Biden.
As of late 2025, the core full members are 11 countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (original), plus Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, United Arab Emirates (joined 2024), Indonesia (joined early 2025), and Saudi Arabia (status varying in reports).
BRICS+ (akin to OPEC+) which includes full members plus partner countries (e.g., Nigeria, Vietnam, Belarus, Bolivia, and others added in 2025), totaling around 20 entities.
The core BRICS (10–11 full members) represent approximately 45% of the world's population.
BRICS+ (including partners) represents 56%.
Purchasing Power Parity (PPP): Adjusts for cost of living differences; commonly used for BRICS comparisons as it highlights emerging economies' weight.
Recent IMF data (2025 reports) show core BRICS at 40% (2024) rising to 41% (2025 projection) in PPP terms. Increasing rapidly, while others, like the EU, are rapidly losing PPP/GDP.
These percentages reflect the bloc's growing influence, often compared to the G7 (around 28–30% PPP/GDP share). However, the two are going in opposite directions BRICS is growing, G7 is shrinking.
These are the real facts, not the delusional desires of people whose perceptions are stuck in the past.Ken, I agree with your thoughts. The population and PPP figures matter because they reflect real economic weight, not just nominal GDP measured through a Western lens. In my view, many G7 nations have adopted increasingly nonsensical ideologies that prioritize social and political experimentation over productivity, energy security, and industrial competitiveness, and this has contributed directly to their stagnation. When nearly half the world’s population sits inside the core BRICS countries, and over half when partners are included, it’s no longer a fringe bloc or a symbolic alliance. Using PPP is appropriate here because it captures domestic production, consumption power, and resilience, which is exactly where emerging economies are gaining ground while much of the G7 faces stagnation, debt saturation, and aging populations.
What’s also pertinent to add is that BRICS’ growth isn’t just theoretical; it’s being reinforced structurally. We’re seeing expanded bilateral trade in local currencies, increased energy and commodities coordination, and the slow erosion of dollar exclusivity in global trade settlements. That doesn’t mean BRICS is a perfectly unified bloc - it isn’t - but influence doesn’t require ideological purity, only mass, resources, and alternatives. The West dismissing this shift because it doesn’t fit a post–Cold War framework is precisely the kind of complacency that led to losing manufacturing, energy leverage, and now economic gravity. Ignoring these trends doesn’t stop them; it just ensures being unprepared for them.
Trump’s foreign policy does not formally align the U.S. with BRICS, but it clearly diverges from the current G7 consensus. His approach is transactional, bilateral, and nation-first, focused on leverage, reciprocity, and cost-benefit outcomes rather than ideology or permanent multilateral commitments. This mirrors how most BRICS countries actually operate in practice, even though Trump fundamentally opposes BRICS’ strategic objective of weakening U.S. influence and the dollar’s role. The tension is not that Trump favors BRICS, but that he rejects a G7 model in which the U.S. absorbs disproportionate costs to sustain global order. In that sense, his agenda challenges the G7’s ideological framework while seeking to restore American dominance, not replace it with a multipolar alternative.Exactly Trump is a businessman, not an ideologue... who puts America's interests first, not the Global/International NWO.
Trump is trying to detach from a sinking ship... and that is exactly what the UK and EU are... sinking ships... the G7, losing ground every day.
Even Poland and Hungary are trying to detach from the EU nonsense and protect their Nations, and because of their actions they are doing much better than Germany or France, that put ideological international idiocy ahead of National interests.
The experiment of a Global NWO had barely even begun, and it is clear that it is a true failure for the people of every nation whose leadership bought into things like Open Borders and "Green Energy" which included dumping Nuclear and Natural Gas.
America's best hope is distancing itself from former allies like the UK, France, Germany... sticking with them is like sticking with a crack addict that refuses to admit there is a problem, your life is going to be ruined right along with theirs if you allow it.Trump’s approach has always been practical and transactional, he looks at what benefits America first, not some abstract global ideology. We’ve seen multiple examples of this in action. For instance, his renegotiation of trade deals like USMCA replaced unfair agreements with ones that actually protect American workers and industries, rather than just toeing the line for global appearances. Recently, the U.S. has also been selling weapons to EU nations, which they are then supplying to Ukraine, allowing America to support its allies while shifting the financial burden to them. His push to withdraw from or recalibrate U.S. involvement in multilateral agreements, like the Paris Climate Accords or endless NATO spending commitments, was clearly aimed at cutting costs for America and avoiding being dragged into international failures that wouldn’t serve us.
Looking at Europe, we can see why his caution makes sense. Germany’s overreliance on Russian energy before 2022 left it vulnerable when sanctions and supply disruptions hit. France’s aggressive green energy policies have driven up costs and strained industry. Even within the EU, nations like Poland and Hungary have resisted some of the centralization and ideological overreach, and as a result, they’ve maintained stronger economic stability and national control. Trump seems to recognize this pattern and is trying to ensure the U.S. doesn’t follow the same path.
America’s best position is to prioritize its sovereignty, economy, and security, and Trump’s strategies reflect that in real, tangible ways. Sticking blindly with allies who consistently put ideology over results, like the UK, Germany, or France, would risk dragging us into failures we don’t need. Trump sees this, and that’s why his foreign agenda is rooted in national interest, not globalist theory.
He fights an uphill battle and ignores all the BS being tossed at him. It seems the Dems are running out of crazy issues to toss his way, but I hope they keep it up. They appear so very foolish.As luck would have it, the first video I watched today speaks on this very topic:
Victor Davis Hanson: Europe Is Angry Trump Told It the Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BFAje8jpkQ
Spot on and spoken more eloquently than I ever could.
The EU is apoplectic right now that we dare suggest they be 50/50 equal partners in their (NATO) defense costs.
As well as his position that if they want to continue to support the war against Russia, they can front the cost, otherwise, get to the negotiation table and take what you can get.
I am sure it sucks for the EU... because I am sure it was the Biden Administration over there promising them the world if they went along with the idiocy the U.S. and U.K. were cooking up in Ukraine.
Oh well, sucks to be them. Glad we have a President now that says "not our problem"... we have plenty of our own problems exacerbated substantially by a Biden Administration that was as traitorous to the American Citizens as Benedict Arnold.
As for Ukraine: John Mearsheimer: Ukraine is Doomed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ug4vmbaowcIsn't it interesting that about EVERYBODY said America would lose the Revolution. It is a good thing the French didn't listen to pundits like you back then
I hope the Democrats keep it up to, based on the polls, it is working to their favor.
Biden the corrupt traitor who funneled payoff money through his son and other family members from China and Ukraine... according to you had the "most successful first term of any President since 1940" (quoted from a few posts above this one).
While the guy that owns buildings all over the globe, earned billions before becoming President... then became President, not once, but twice, despite the corrupt cronies in DC doing everything they could think of to destroy him, is a "FAILED businessman".
In your eyes Biden is the greatest President in 85 years... and Trump is a failed businessman... that pretty much says it all, not much more needed from me.In reality, we paid Joe’s salary, covered his job benefits like healthcare, and even footed the bill for his monthly pension. For most of his working life, he relied on taxpayer support.
He graduated from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968, passed the Delaware bar, and practiced law only briefly. By 1970, he was already launching his political career, elected to the New Castle County Council. It didn’t take long for him to start living off taxpayers. In 1972, he moved on to Congress, continuing a career funded by the public.
And I can see why you were such a fan of the completely incompetent and dementia ridden Trump. Biden, on the other hand had the most successful first term of any President since 1940.
So, if you don't mind, let me poke holes in what you just claimed.
1. You’ve inflated BRICS membership.
The “core” BRICS countries are the original five (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) plus a small set of recent additions. After the 2023 expansion, the invite list was: Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and (originally) Argentina. Argentina later backed out. Indonesia was discussed, but as of the last solid data I’ve seen, it had not actually joined. So we’re talking about 10 members at most, not “11 including Indonesia,” and Saudi’s status was fuzzy enough that even official lists didn’t always count it. Saying “11 core full members including Indonesia” is just wrong.
2. BRICS+ with 20 members and 56% of the world’s population” is hand-wavy.
There is no single, formal, universally agreed “BRICS+” roster with Nigeria, Vietnam, Belarus, Bolivia and “others” as full economic partners. Those countries get mentioned in discussions of possible future expansion, or in various “Global South” wish lists, but they are not a treaty-based bloc with a defined membership list. If your membership changes depending on who’s giving the speech, your “56% of world population” isn’t a hard “fact”; it’s a talking point built on a shifting guest list.
3. Your PPP share numbers overshoot what the IMF actually shows.
Using IMF PPP data, the original five BRICS countries come out to low-30s percent of world GDP (PPP) – driven mostly by China and India – not 40%. Even after you add the new members like Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, you’re still in the mid-30s range, not “40% in 2024 rising to 41% in 2025.” To get to 40%+ you have to (a) include extra “partners” that aren’t formal members and (b) treat projections or optimistic scenarios as done deals. That’s not “real facts”; that’s creative grouping.
4. G7 vs BRICS isn’t “surging vs collapsing.”
Yes, over twenty-plus years, you can see a gradual shift in PPP share: China and India rising, rich aging economies growing more slowly. But it’s a slow drift, not a cliff. G7 PPP share is roughly around 30% and edging down; BRICS is in the low-to-mid 30s depending on who you include. Both trends change only a little year-to-year. Saying BRICS is “increasing rapidly” while the EU is “rapidly losing” PPP/GDP is spin, not a fair description of the data.Semantics again... you are essentially saying that I was right, once more.
No, I am saying your were passing on disinformation.
I believe that to be the surest sign that it is accurate, when you label anything I post as disinformation.
Here is a nice bit on Ukraine, and how we got here... this is America, people like me, and the creator of this video, will continue to tell the truth for others to hear/see, unlike in the UK and EU where you no longer have the freedom to speak truth or facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fH6QkjMHXs
KEEPING THEM HONEST
1. “Cartels invading America (thanks Biden)…”
Cartels have been smuggling into the U.S. for decades under every president including Trump 1.0 and 2.0. Fentanyl and synthetic drugs ramped up well before Biden; the Sinaloa and CJNG empires were built under Bush/Obama/Trump.
Border “encounters” did spike in 2021–23, but that’s migrants, not cartel commando units. Even CBP data frames this as encounters and apprehensions, not an “invasion.”
Most fentanyl seizures happen at ports of entry, carried by vehicles and people legally crossing, not by foot traffic between ports. That’s smuggling through the cracks of normal commerce, not some Red Dawn-style cartel army.
To Summarize:
“Cartels didn’t magically appear in 2021. They’ve been smuggling into the U.S. under Republicans and Democrats alike, and most fentanyl is caught at legal ports, hidden in trucks driven by U.S. citizens or visa-holders. Calling that an ‘invasion’ ‘thanks Biden’ is just marketing, not analysis.”
2. “China taking over half the hemisphere (thanks Biden)…”
China’s trade with Latin America has grown a lot: in the first two decades of this century, - read that as Bush - Obama - Trump 1.0 - it jumped 26-fold to about $315 billion.
That’s serious economic influence, but it’s nowhere near the hyperbolic “taking over half the hemisphere”:
The U.S. is still the dominant military and security power in the Americas.
The U.S. still does more total trade with the region than China; Beijing is catching up in some countries and sectors, not planting a flag on “half the hemisphere.”
Part of China's gains in Latin America is because Trump 2.0 is pushing our neighbors to the south into China's arms.
And again, this long trend started well before Biden. Chinese loans, port deals, and 5G pushes across Latin America were ramping up in the 2000s and 2010s. If you’re going to blame one president, you’d have to blame at least four.
To Summarize:
“China has been expanding its trade and investment footprint in Latin America for twenty years, under Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. Saying ‘China’s taking over half the hemisphere thanks Biden’ skips the fact that this is a long-term structural shift, not a single-president screw-up—and even now, the U.S. is still the main security power in the region.”
3. “We have 40 trillion in debt.”
This one is just factually wrong on the number — and the timing.
As of early December 2025, gross U.S. debt is about $38.4 trillion, according to the Joint Economic Committee and Treasury data.
Nonpartisan projections say we’ll hit $39T in 2026 and $40T around 2027 if current trends continue.
So:
“No, we’re not at $40 trillion yet; we’re at about $38.4 trillion and projected to hit $40T around 2027 if Congress keeps doing what both parties have been doing—cutting taxes, raising spending, and charging it all to the national credit card.”
That said, with the help of Trump's Big Ugly Bill, we might get to $40 trillion sooner than 2027.
And of course, Trump 1.0 added almost $8 trillion in four years; the debt problem is bipartisan.Semantics and selective avoidance of facts.
AI, I fact-checked your stats
Here’s what the data actually shows — and what’s factual vs. what’s not:
✅ There are real polls about Ukrainian public opinion on peace talks and territorial concessions, but the exact numbers you quoted aren’t fully accurate as stated:
• “91% oppose peace talks without Ukraine at the table”
A poll circulated online claims that 91% of Ukrainians oppose peace negotiations between the U.S. and Russia that exclude Ukraine’s participation. That specific figure comes from a reddit repost of a Ukrainian polling firm Rating survey — it may be real, but it isn’t directly from an official news source I can verify right now. So treat “91%” as possible but not confirmed by a major news outlet.
Reddit
• Opposition to territorial concessions
Polls from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS)—a widely cited source on Ukrainian public opinion—show that:
A majority of Ukrainians oppose making territorial concessions to Russia to achieve peace, but the exact share varies by poll and timing. For example:
In late 2024/early 2025, about 51–58% of Ukrainians opposed any territorial concessions in exchange for peace.
Pravda
In another KIIS poll in 2025 specifically, about 54% were “categorically against any territorial concessions”.
Interfax-Ukraine
Meanwhile, a substantial minority — around 32–38% — say they would consider territorial concessions in exchange for peace, depending on the question wording and timing.
Pravda
So:
✅ It is true that a majority of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions.
❌ The exact “54%” figure is proper but not paired with the 91% figure in the same poll. The “91% oppose talks without Ukraine” stat might be real, but it hasn’t been widely reported in mainstream outlets, I can confirm right now.
It seems the people of Ukraine may also need to consider that the EU and NATO could eventually become overburdened by the financial and military cost of this war. The U.S. has already stepped back from directly funding it and is now selling weapons to European partners, who then supply them to Ukraine. At some point, it’s reasonable to assume that even those allies might have to scale back their support.
✅ There has been a policy shift in how the U.S. is supporting Ukraine under the Trump administration.
• Trump has publicly said that instead of free weapons and money going directly from the U.S. government to Ukraine — like under the Biden era — the U.S. would sell weapons to NATO allies, and then those allies supply Ukraine. This has been reported and repeated in interviews and media coverage.
TASS
✔️ NATO allies are buying U.S. weapons that are intended to go to Ukraine.
• Reports show European NATO members buying American-made Patriot air defenses, missiles, and other systems that would then be supplied to Kyiv, replacing the direct aid model.
euronews
✔️ This is different from the U.S. just giving free weapons directly to Ukraine.
• The U.S. administration’s framing (and Trump’s wording) emphasizes sales rather than direct aid, and says European allies are footing the bill and then transferring the equipmentYou’ve got this backward on both the polling and the “aid shift.”
1. The 91% number is from mainstream sources, not “just Reddit.”
The Reddit post is just linking to Ukrainian and Western outlets that reported a real Rating Group poll. For example:
Kyiv Independent: “91% of Ukrainians surveyed oppose peace negotiations between the U.S. and Russia without Ukraine’s participation,” based on a Rating poll conducted Feb 20–21, 2025.
Ukrainska Pravda (in English): “A total of 91% of Ukrainians firmly reject the idea of US-Russian negotiations to end the war without Ukraine’s participation.”
Euromaidan Press: “91% disapprove of US–Russia negotiations without Ukraine.”
Babel (another Ukrainian outlet) also summarizes the same poll: 91% against U.S.–Russia talks without Ukraine.
So no, this isn’t some sketchy Reddit-only stat. It’s a widely reported result from a major Ukrainian pollster.
2. The 54% figure on territorial concessions is exactly what I said it was.
I never claimed it came from the same poll as the 91%. It’s from a different survey by KIIS in Sept–Oct 2025, and it’s reported in multiple places:
KIIS itself: “54% of Ukrainians are categorically against any territorial concessions (52% in early summer 2025). Ready to accept certain territorial losses – 38%.”
So the two claims stand exactly as stated:
~91% oppose U.S.–Russia peace talks over their heads.
54% are “categorically” against any territorial concessions, with another ~⅓ only reluctantly open to them.
You can quibble about wording, but the direction is crystal clear: most Ukrainians do not want Washington and Moscow cutting a deal behind their backs, and a majority reject giving Russia their land in exchange for “peace.”
3. On Trump’s “smart shift” in Ukraine aid, you’re leaving out the part where he cut aid first.
Yes, there has been a policy shift, but it’s not as benign as you make it sound:
In March 2025, the U.S. suspended all military aid to Ukraine – “ammunition, vehicles and other equipment including weapons in transit” – after the Trump–Zelensky blow-up.
Only later did the administration roll out the “we sell to NATO, NATO passes it on” model (PURL), where European allies buy U.S. Patriots and other systems from U.S. stockpiles and send them to Ukraine.
European think tanks and even CSIS describe this as a “dramatic suspension” of U.S. support that forces Europe to step up to avoid a collapse in Ukraine’s defenses, not just a clever accounting tweak.
So yes: Trump is selling more U.S. weapons because he first yanked direct U.S. aid and told Europe “you pay for it.” That’s not proof that “the U.S. has already responsibly stepped back,” it’s proof that Ukraine’s allies have had to scramble to plug a hole Washington created.
Put those pieces together and the story is pretty simple:
Ukrainians themselves overwhelmingly reject being cut out of negotiations and oppose handing territory to Russia.
Trump unilaterally paused U.S. military aid, then pivoted to a sales-through-NATO scheme that shifts the financial burden to Europe while still relying on U.S. stockpiles.
If you want to argue that we should ignore Ukrainian public opinion and force them into a deal anyway, just own that. But don’t pretend the polls don’t say what they say, or that Trump’s aid “reform” is anything other than a big cut dressed up as burden-sharing.Contrary to the TRUMP MYTH of Europe providing little aid to Ukraine and the US providing almost all of it, the REAL FACTS are that Europe, pre-Trump 2.0 was providing roughly 50% of the aid.
Now that Trump as decided that America must free-load off of Ukraine's suffering and European money, Europe and Canada are footing almost all the expense. The missing money goes toward helping Russia conquer Ukraine,
Given that vital US National Security interests are tied up in having a free and democratic Ukraine, is it any surprise that the world thinks 1) Trump is a puppet of Putin and 2) Americans are assholes by proxy.https://www.statista.com/statistics/130 … o-ukraine/
The U.S. donated the largest amount of bilateral military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Double as much as all the other countries combined as of 2025. Prior to 2025's contributions it was nearly three times as much.Here’s the most up-to-date picture (as of mid-December 2025) of what the United States is offering Ukraine and whether the U.S. has stopped supplying weapons directly and is now just selling to the EU to supply Kyiv.
AI
As of late 2025, the United States has not completely stopped supplying Ukraine, but the way support is delivered has changed.
The U.S. is no longer the primary country directly gifting large volumes of weapons to Ukraine the way it did in 2022–2024. Instead, the U.S. role has shifted toward:
Providing limited direct military assistance
Selling U.S.-made weapons to NATO and EU countries
Approving and coordinating the transfer of those weapons from Europe to Ukraine
In other words, Ukraine is still receiving U.S. weapons, but many are now paid for by European allies, not by U.S. taxpayers.
The current U.S. contribution includes:
Ongoing security assistance funding approved by Congress (smaller and more controlled than earlier years)
Intelligence sharing, training, logistics, and maintenance support
Air defense coordination and limited ammunition support
Participation in diplomatic efforts and ceasefire or settlement discussions
What has changed most is the funding model.
Under the current approach:
European countries (Germany, Poland, the UK, and others) buy weapons from U.S. defense manufacturers
These purchases are approved by the U.S. government
The weapons are then sent by Europe to Ukraine
This allows the U.S. to reduce direct spending while keeping weapons flowing
This arrangement is often described as:
“The U.S. sells the weapons, Europe pays for them, and Ukraine receives them.”
There was a temporary pause earlier in 2025 while the U.S. reviewed stockpiles and policy, but direct U.S. deliveries did not end permanently. Some limited direct shipments resumed, especially for ammunition and air-defense-related needs.
So, to be precise:
It is not true that the U.S. has completely stopped supplying Ukraine
It is true that the U.S. has shifted much of the burden to Europe
It is true that many U.S. weapons now reach Ukraine through European purchases and transfers
The U.S. role is now more supportive, indirect, and conditional than before
Bottom line:
The U.S. is still involved, still influential, and still supplying weapons — but Europe is now carrying much more of the financial and delivery responsibility, while the U.S. focuses on sales, coordination, and strategic oversight.
You mean AI got it backwards... I offered not one word of my own in that comment. So have it out with AI ---
Not sure "liberals" is the problem here.
The warmongers like Lindsey Graham are anything but liberal...
These think tanks, neocons, and the like....
Said Russia would not last two years in this conflict.
They predicted that Russia's economy would collapse by 2024.
They predicted Putin would be overthrown.
These 'experts' & 'think tanks' were basing their predictions on delusions or wishful thinking. They are no more correct in their analysis today than they were when this began ...
Anyone that believes Ukraine can win today... that they will force back Russia and take back Crimea is in denial of reality, lacking in intelligence and facts, or wantonly spreading false propaganda.
Trump has put forth the right plan for our foreign affairs... This is not 1955... This is not 1995... This is 2025 and the American Hegemony is over... The ability to dictate to regions of the world outside our own hemisphere is quickly evaporating."Said Russia would not last two years in this conflict." - ROFL. When did they EVER say that about Russia?
In a fantasy world, you might be right, but not in this one.
That’s a fun little story, but it’s mostly built on cherry-picking. A few non-expert pundits really did predict a ‘Russian economic meltdown’ or even Putin’s overthrow but they weren't serious people. The major forecasts from places like the IMF and CSIS talked about recession and long-term strain, not Russia literally collapsing by 2024. The war is now in its fourth year; Russia hasn’t collapsed, but it also hasn’t ‘won’ cheaply — it’s stuck with a war economy, high deficits, and a shrinking labor force.
So yes, some non-expert commentators overshot. But turning a handful of overexcited op-eds into ‘all think tanks and neocons said X, and they were all totally wrong’ is just propaganda in a different direction.”
Trump is clearly destroying America and MAWA - Making America Worse Again (like he did the first time.)putin said this in 2014. He was very wrong.
Putin Boasts of Being Able to Take Kiev in 2 Weeks
Reports emerged Tuesday that Russian President Vladimir Putin said he could take control of Ukraine’s capital city in as little as two weeks, a remark that escalated already pitched tensions between Russia and the West in the lead-up to NATO’s summit in Wales.
Putin made the incendiary comment in a phone conversation with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, according to Barroso’s account, published by Italy’s La Repubblica on Monday.
Barroso said he asked Putin if Russian troops had crossed into eastern Ukraine, La Repubblica reports. “That is not the question,” Putin reportedly said. “But if I wanted to, I could take Kiev in two weeks.”
The Kremlin did not deny that Putin made the statement, but insisted it was taken out of context.
https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast-kiev-2-weeks/If he had tried in 2014 Putin would have been able to do just that.
From 2014 to 2021 the UK and US ... Built up Ukraine's army with the intent of being able to stop such an attack... They spent 8 years building up Ukraine to do so.
I’m completely with you on this. I’ve been struck by how confidently these same “experts” and think-tank voices kept predicting outcomes in Ukraine that never came close to happening. They kept insisting Russia was on the verge of collapse, yet the opposite occurred, Russia adapted, expanded industrial capacity, and built deeper alliances outside the Western sphere. To me, that reality alone shows how outdated our foreign-policy class has become. They’re still operating from a Cold War mindset, assuming U.S. dominance is a permanent condition rather than something that has clearly shifted.
What you said about American hegemony fading is exactly right. We’re watching a world where regional powers, Russia, China, even countries like India, Türkiye, and Iran, are carving out their own spheres without asking for U.S. permission. And the more Washington tries to assert control through pressure or proxy conflicts, the more it exposes how limited that influence has actually become. I think that’s why Trump’s approach resonates with me. It recognizes that we can’t keep throwing money, weapons, and rhetoric at situations we can’t realistically shape anymore. The foreign-policy establishment hates that idea because it threatens their relevance, not because it’s wrong.
One thing you might find interesting: several recent intelligence assessments and academic analyses quietly acknowledge, though they don’t say this loudly in the media, that Russia is now producing more artillery shells and armored vehicles than the entire NATO alliance combined, and at a fraction of the cost. That alone makes the idea of Ukraine reconquering Crimea physically impossible, no matter how many speeches politicians give. When you step back and look at the hard numbers, the war has already moved into a phase that the talking heads simply refuse to admit.
For me, the sooner we accept the world as it actually is, not as these think tanks fantasize it to be, the sooner we can form a realistic foreign policy that protects our interests instead of draining our resources. Trump seems to be the only major political figure willing to say that out loud.Great post/perspective and I agree, we have to be realistic and accept the world as it is, not as we want it to be... Especially when dealing with the world's biggest nuclear super power that is capable of ending civilization.
Ken, I appreciate your take, and I agree, realism matters more now than ever. When we ignore reality, we risk ending up in the same position as parts of Europe today: exposed, underprepared, and relying on others to shoulder the burden of their own security. I’m not convinced many European countries are ready for a major conflict on their own, and that should be a warning to us. If we don’t stay grounded and clear-eyed, we could find ourselves in a similar situation.
"As you point out, Russia's military is far more capable today than in 2021." - A Lie. I didn't point that out, I claimed the opposite.
"Russia's ties to China, North Korea, India, and others are stronger today than they were in 2021." - True
"Russia has more of Crimea under its control, more territory now accepted into the Russian Republic officially, than it did in 2021." - FALSE! Russia has ALL of Crimea, not some. Also, I will believe RAND before i would believe you - and they say the Russian military is nowhere near as capable now as they were in 2021. And, as Ukraine proved, the Russian military was in pretty poor shaped.
And I appreciate the complement regarding the most successful first-term president in modern America.
"First, you divert --- my comment was not about loss of military" - Really!
Then what is this really about? "I think the perspective that Russia has been greatly weakened is off, without any way of knowing for sure. There are plenty of analyses that say Russia has actually been strengthened by this conflict, that a formerly weak and corrupt military has been reformed, upgraded, and is now combat-hardened and experienced. "
Putin’s brain is back in the USSR
“You have to look at Putin and Russia as an expansionist power,” Retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, President Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, recently acknowledged. “He wants to re-establish the Russian Empire — just look at history.”
What Putin is aiming for is the restoration of Russia as an imperial power. He said as much in his comments to Russian entrepreneurs at the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum in June 2022. He sees himself as a modern-day Peter the Great – only Ukraine thwarted his plans.
The acquisition of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova is the initial phase of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plan to reunite the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. His assumption was that the three non-NATO and non-European Union countries could be brought back under Soviet rule in short order without any interference from the West.
He was wrong.
After three-and-a-half years of war in Ukraine, Russia has suffered 1.1 million casualties, faces economic collapse and has been reduced to a dependent state reliant upon external sources. Putin’s Russia now relies on support from China, North Korea, Iran, and Chechnya to sustain its war effort, and its Collective Security Treaty Organization has fractured.
Nevertheless, Putin continues his current course of action. Considerations such as casualties and the welfare of Russian citizens, particularly those outside Moscow or Saint Petersburg, do not appear to be a primary focus in his strategic calculations. His central objective remains the full capitulation and subjugation of Ukraine, a goal that has yet to be realized.
Despite the setbacks, Putin continuously looks for ways to project strength. He has turned now to calling upon the ghosts of Russia’s past — beginning with the renaming of the city of Volgograd back to “Stalingrad.” The change, which Putin deceitfully insists is purely a local matter, is intended to conjure up memories of when Russia was once feared and respected — a world power.
The nickname name “Stalin” — “man of steel,” adopted by Soviet dictator Joseb Dzhugashvili — evokes strength and fear. Russians remember Stalin’s political purges of the late 1930s and the purges that continued after World War II up till his death in 1953. Historian William D. Rubinstein estimated in his book “Genocide” that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of at least 7 million people, or about 4.2 percent of the USSR’s total population.
Russians remember the secret police, the gulags, and Stalin’s iron-fisted rule. Only after his death, when Nikita Khrushchev came into power, would Russian citizens feel safe again in their own country.
Putin acknowledges the Stalin affect — both internally and externally. Emphasizing rather that “It is wrong to forget Stalin’s role in the victory in the Great Patriotic War.” It is a message to Russian citizens as well — the state above all else — and a message that Ukrainians know all too well.
Putin’s trip down memory lane to the Stalin era, however, may have finally hit a roadblock. Trump, in a highly welcomed move, posted on Truth Social that Ukraine is winning and that, with the European Union’s help alongside purchases of U.S. weapon systems, Ukraine is capable of retaking all of its territory. This is the first time he has said anything like this.
Now that Trump is calling out Putin, the dictator known on Telegram channels as “grandpa in his bunker” is looking more like Khrushchev than Peter the Great. Like Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Putin appears to be misjudging an American president’s red lines.
Putin is facing the same dilemma economically. As Trump pointed out in his Truth Social post, Russia’s economy is imploding, especially its oil and energy sector. As we observed recently, Russia may be losing as much as 1 million barrels of oil a day due to Ukrainian deep-precision strikes against Russian oil and energy infrastructure, including hits on 16 of Russia’s 38 oil refineries since the beginning of August.
For Putin, this may be turning into his Mikhail Gorbachev moment in time. When the costs of Soviet military losses in Afghanistan came due under Gorbachev, the people of Russia, including its military, had had enough — particularly the mothers. Gorbachev survived the coup attempt that followed, but only as the weakened leader of a union in collapse.
Putin, in the face of his current setbacks, needs to create a distraction in Eastern Europe — especially in Poland, Finland or the Baltic States. He needs a NATO miscalculation — a threat to the Russian regime — to justify a full mobilization to the Russian people.
This may explain the recent Russian drone attacks in Poland, and the three MiG-31 aircraft that overflew Estonian airspace for 12 minutes last week while equipped with missiles. Conversely, Putin might have simply misread Trump and felt he would cause NATO support for Ukraine to collapse.
Either way, Putin miscalculated. NATO has responded by establishing Eastern Sentry air patrols to protect its Eastern flank — an active air defense to counter Russian drone and fighter jet incursions. Poland and Ukraine are in active discussions to establish a no-fly zone in Western Ukraine – something we have long called for.
A defeated Russia in Ukraine would solve many problems. Last week we argued that Putin was winning World War III. This week, to his great credit, Trump has said, “Not so fast!”
Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as a military intelligence officer and led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012 to 2014. Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy.
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-se … -the-ussr/An opinion...of one person.... No better than yours or mine. It has as much credibility and weight as you give it.
International public
opinion on the
Ukraine peace
process
Snap polling across Britain, the USA, Germany,
France and Poland
28 November - 2 December 2025
● Support for Ukraine remains steadfast across all five countries polled: Majorities in Britain, Germany, Poland, the United States and France sympathise with Ukraine, see Russia as the aggressor and believe Ukraine’s defence is important to their own countries.
With the exception of Poland, these views have stayed remarkably stable since March 2025.
● International rejection of the US-backed peace deal: While there is strong desire across Europe and the United States to see an end to the war, few want a rushed peace that rewards Russia or leaves Ukraine vulnerable. Across all five countries, people tend to
reject key elements of the US-backed deal, including territorial concessions and reductions in Ukraine’s armed forces. Britons and Poles in particular think these conditions would be unacceptable.
● Wider concern about the US President’s role: Apart from Poland, the other European countries polled tend to believe President Trump has hindered rather than helped the peace process. In the United States, many remain unsure which side he is on, with fewer
than a quarter saying he sympathises with Ukraine over Russia.
● Most think that the stakes extend far beyond Ukraine: Across all five nations, people believe that if Russia is rewarded with territory, it will embolden further invasions of other European countries. More than two-thirds in every country worry about the prospect of a wider war in Europe in the coming years.
● Strong desire on both sides of the Atlantic for Europe to become self-reliant on defence: For many Europeans and Americans, the conflict has strengthened the desire for Europe to become more independent on defence. Clear majorities across the five countries
want Europe to invest more in the continent’s security, and most want Europe eventually to become self-reliant from NATO.
https://www.moreincommon.com/media/4gxl … olling.pdfMore BS opinion.
What some people may want... and what is achievable, are two different realities.
I understand why you want to refuse to see it. But what I said 4 years ago is as relevant today as it was then... Ukraine was never going to win... the best thing they could have done is arrange a peace and accept that Crimea was part of Russia.
Until they accept that, they will continue to die and have their country destroyed. The scumbags in DC that gleefully pushed for this war are no friends to Ukraine... they get rich while Ukrainians die.
There is nothing else but more death and destruction for Ukraine... there is no victory... there is no taking Crimea from Russia.
NEVER believe all the russian propaganda that is in the US media.
‘Reality speaks for itself’ — From war-torn Kupiansk, Zelensky praises troops after reports of successful Ukrainian counterattack
President Volodymyr Zelensky on Dec. 12 recorded a video from Kupiansk, one of the hottest parts of the frontline, in which he praised Ukrainian troops fighting in the city.
The front line visit comes as Ukraine’s National Guard said its 2nd Khartiia Corps carried out a successful counterattack north of Kupiansk, a development that flatly contradicts Russia's recent claims of capturing the city.
"The Russians kept going on about Kupyansk – the reality speaks for itself. I visited our troops and congratulated them. Thank you to each and every warrior! I am proud of you! And I thank all of our Land Forces – today is your day!" Zelensky said in a message posted to X accompanying the video, in which he stands in front of the bullet riddled sign marking the entrance to the city, surrounded by anti-drone nets.
Today, I am in the Kupyansk sector, with our warriors who are getting the job done for Ukraine here.
The Russians kept going on about Kupyansk – the reality speaks for itself. I visited our troops and congratulated them. Thank you to each and every warrior! I am proud of you!
He added that Ukraine’s diplomatic leverage depends on holding strong positions on the battlefield.
"Today, it's extremely important to achieve results on the front so that Ukraine can achieve results in diplomacy. That's how it works: all our strong positions within the country - strong positions in the conversation about ending the war. Thank you to every soldier. I'm proud of you. Thank you to all our Land Forces - today is exclusively your day. Thank you, guys," he said.
On Nov. 20, Russia’s chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, said Russia had captured Kupiansk, a claim that Ukraine’s Armed Forces refuted.
From Sept. 22 to Dec. 12, the corps said it killed 1,027 Russian servicemen, wounded 291 and took 13 prisoners.
https://kyivindependent.com/zelenskyy-v … -position/Ukraine strikes Russian submarine with ‘Sub Sea Baby’ drone
On December 15th, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) reported that it had struck an Improved Kilo-class submarine at the Russian naval base at Novorossiysk. The attack was reportedly a joint operation between the 13th Main Directorate of Military Counterintelligence of the SBU and the Ukrainian Naval Forces and made use of a “Sub Sea Baby” drone.
The SBU also released a video of the attack showing how the drone struck the stern of an Improved Kilo-class submarine moored at the far end of the submarine pen inside the naval base. So far there is no independent verification if the submarine was sunk in port. Available images of the attack shows a massive explosion at the stern of the submarine, likely resulting in significant damage to the hull, propulsion as well as the aft vertical and horizontal dive planes. Even if the submarine doesn’t sink, the possible damage suffered will be extensive enough to render the submarine inoperable for a serious period of time.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 … aby-drone/Too bad they can't carry out more strikes like that.
Do other NATO nations have Tomahawk-type missiles with the same range?
We just had two GREAT examples of BDS - Biden Derangement Syndrome with childish attacks on his good character.
What I saw was the usual false assertions and no evidence, so let’s separate opinion from facts.
1. “Biden the corrupt traitor who funneled payoff money…”
If thier is proof that Joe Biden personally took bribes or changed U.S. policy in exchange for foreign money, show it.
We’ve just had:
* Years of Republican-run investigations, - They found nothing, the same with their multiple Clinton probes
* An impeachment inquiry, - They found nothing
* Subpoenas for bank records and witnesses, - which produced NOTHING actionable (I find it disingenuous to declare Trump innocent until proven guilty, even though the public evidence is very, very damning while declaring Biden guilty until proven innocent. That says a whole lot about the people making such accusations.
…and what all that has not produced is the one thing the sentence needs: hard evidence that Joe Biden received illegal payments or sold policy to China or Ukraine. Lots of smoke-machine rhetoric, no actual gun.
* Hunter Biden doing sleazy business deals = bad optics.
* Money flowing among Biden family members = fair to question even though nothing was found.
* None of that automatically equals “Biden the traitor funneled payoff money” unless it can be shown that (a) a clear payment trail to Joe and (b) a policy decision bought and paid for. They haven’t.
So right now what is being stated as “reality” what even friendly investigators haven’t been able to prove. To me, that means the writer is living in their own fantasy world.
2. “He lived off taxpayers” – that’s literally what public service is
That is being said it as if it’s a scandal:
“We paid Joe’s salary… he relied on taxpayer support… a career funded by the public.”
Yes. That’s called being a public servant. Members of Congress, senators, presidents, governors, mayors, teachers, cops, firefighters—every one of them “lives off taxpayers” in exactly that sense. That’s not some gotcha; it’s how representative government works.
And unlike Trump, Biden has:
* Released decades of tax returns,
* Shown where his money comes from (book deals, speeches, pension, salary),
* Submitted to the normal ethics and disclosure rules of public office.
If the standard is “anyone who draws a public paycheck is suspect,” then that is not just attacking Biden; but it is attacking the basic idea of a professional civil service. That is an an attack on Credence and I?
I have to wonder what it says about a person's own credibility and veracity that they find it more appealing to put a felon, sexual predator, and con man into the office of the Presidency than to work as a civil servant. I just boggles the mind, doesn't it?
3. “Trump the brilliant billionaire businessman”
It was said that “The guy that owns buildings all over the globe, earned billions… is a ‘FAILED businessman’.”
Owning high-profile buildings and being on TV is not the same as having a good business record.
A few inconvenient facts:
* Trump inherited a fortune, then ran at least half a dozen major businesses into Chapter 11 (casinos, hotels, airline, etc.). A normal entrepreneur with that bankruptcy record would not be sold as some flawless business genius.
* Independent analyses have found he would likely have done better just putting his inheritance into a basic index fund instead of the empire he actually built.
* He’s already been found liable in multiple civil fraud cases (Trump University, the New York civil fraud judgment, the charity case) for misleading investors, students, and donors. That’s not “they hated his success”; that’s courts saying he lied.
* So yes: if one grades him like any other businessman is graded—on returns, bankruptcies, and honesty—“failed” or at least “overrated” is a fair verdict. The myth of the flawless business titan is mostly branding.
* Winning elections twice doesn’t erase that; it just proves he’s good at politics and self-marketing.
4. Opinions vs facts
People are absolutely entitled to Their opinion that Biden is terrible and Trump is great. What they are not entitled to is:
* Turning unproven accusations (“funneled payoff money,” “traitor”) into settled fact,
* Treating a normal public-sector career as suspicious per se,
* And inflating Trump’s business mythology while ignoring his very public trail of failures.
If people want to argue that Biden’s policies are bad or that Trump’s policies were better, we can have that discussion. But right now using inflammatory caricatures like “corrupt traitor” and “traitor” are emotional labels, not as descriptions backed by evidence.
That pretty much says it all—about the argument, not about the two men.2. “He lived off taxpayers” – that’s literally what public service is
That is being said it as if it’s a scandal:
“We paid Joe’s salary… he relied on taxpayer support… a career funded by the public.”
Yes. That’s called being a public servant. Members of Congress, senators, presidents, governors, mayors, teachers, cops, firefighters—every one of them “lives off taxpayers” in exactly that sense. That’s not some gotcha; it’s how representative government works." ECO
I believe this is another instance where context has been misunderstood, which has led to inaccurate claims about what I said. I don’t enjoy having to repeatedly clarify this, but it’s important that comments are read and understood in their full context before drawing conclusions or making accusations.
As anyone can see by reading my comment, I made no insulting or disparaging references to Biden in any way. I stated factual information—nothing more and nothing less. For clarity, I will repost my original comment so readers can judge it for themselves and avoid any misinterpretation or misrepresentation of my words. It is very clear you attempted to skew mt words to suit your narrative.
Ken wrote ---- Ken Burgess wrote:
"Biden the corrupt traitor who funneled payoff money through his son and other family members from China and Ukraine... according to you had the "most successful first term of any President since 1940" (quoted from a few posts above this one).
While the guy that owns buildings all over the globe, earned billions before becoming President... then became President, not once, but twice, despite the corrupt cronies in DC doing everything they could think of to destroy him, is a "FAILED businessman".
In your eyes Biden is the greatest President in 85 years... and Trump is a failed businessman... that pretty much says it all, not much more needed from me." Ken
I replied --- To carry and very simply added a comparison to further the conversation regarding Biden's lifetime work record. As you see it in no way comes close to Trump's, which you feel was and is a failed businessman. That is when it is very much ridiculous.
My reply ----- "In reality, we paid Joe’s salary, covered his job benefits like healthcare, and even footed the bill for his monthly pension. For most of his working life, he relied on taxpayer support.
He graduated from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968, passed the Delaware bar, and practiced law only briefly. By 1970, he was already launching his political career, elected to the New Castle County Council. It didn’t take long for him to start living off taxpayers. In 1972, he moved on to Congress, continuing a career funded by the public." Shar
Very clean comment, all factual. NOW I ask why did you quote me as saying this ---- 2. “He lived off taxpayers” – that’s literally what public service is. ECO
Please point out those words or apologize for misquoting me. I find your way of communicating unfortunate, and I have asked that you read my comment before replying to it... Once again very clear you did not read my comment, just commented without knowledge of my context. I have said this before, I believe you do this to bait, for a reason unknown, but as I have said, and you can quote me, --- makes me feel very creepy.
To address -- "1. “Biden the corrupt traitor who funneled payoff money…”" ECO
I can only share my view on this issue. From what I have seen and read, I am 100% sure he was guilty of funneling money... I think him a corrupt crook. NOTE my context --- I can only share my view on this issue.
Putin’s Ukraine war machine is running out of cash – and his soldiers aren’t getting paid
Russia’s Ukraine war economy is hitting a breaking point. A Financial Times–cited study shows arms plants have tripled since 2022, driving unemployment to record lows—but cash might be running out.
-The Yaroslavl Shipbuilding Plant hasn’t paid its 850 workers since September as the defense ministry's progress payments stalled.
-Regional governments, not Moscow, fund huge enlistment bonuses, and those treasuries are collapsing under the strain.
-Yakutia has stopped all war bonuses and injury/death compensation after funds were depleted, while other regions have slashed or canceled payouts.
-With regional deficits soaring and incentives vanishing, Russia’s ability to recruit, pay, and sustain its war effort is now in real doubt.
Russia’s Economy in Crisis Thanks to the Ukraine War
A Saturday, December 6 report details that Russian President Vladimir Putin may be facing mounting economic problems as his defense sector apparatus "appears to be faltering."
The report states that factories and regional administrations are struggling to pay both workers and soldiers due to dwindling funds.
Laborers in military enterprises and soldiers in the field are not being paid as regional governments and factories simply run out of money.
The Kremlin has been pouring billions into its defense sector to surge production of weapons systems amid extremely high combat losses. Still, the funding for all this largesse is beginning to run out.
A study conducted by the London Financial Times compiled last year revealed that the number of Russian arms-producing enterprises tripled from approximately 2,000 pre-war to around 6,000 today. Due to the expansion in the defense sector, many Russians have ended up in jobs supporting the war effort.
But in recent months, the Russian defense-industrial sector has been facing escalating production demands coupled with an employment crisis. Experts who spoke to media outlets explain that these enterprises are failing to cope with severe labor shortages, critical cash flow issues, and a shortage of imported essential components in weapons, which must be supplied through various supply chains.
No Pay For Months
One of the Russian enterprises that has received extensive publicity along these lines is the Yaroslavl Shipbuilding Plant, which manufactures amphibious landing craft and patrol vessels. The plant has been unable to pay its 850 employees since September, as the Russian Ministry of Defense has ceased making progress payments for the contracts the plant is fulfilling. The shipyard has been under sanctions since 2019, further complicating its ability to obtain financing.
At the same time, Putin's military machine has also been relying on a steady stream of replacement soldiers from Russia's regions.
They are the only solution to maintaining pressure on the Ukrainian front lines due to extremely high combat casualty rates.
What has attracted many of these recruits from impoverished regions made up of provincial towns and villages is the prospect of a military paycheque.
They are thousands of miles removed from the country's large cosmopolitan cities, and in their part of the country, a soldier's pay is far better than in any other line of work.
At the same time, the Kremlin has been offering attractive enlistment bonuses and other financial inducements to lure young men into signing on for military service contracts.
But the payments for these bonuses are not drawn from the Russian federal budget or some Defense Ministry line item.
Regional Budget Crisis
Instead, they must be paid from the different regional government treasuries. But they face their own budgetary shortfalls.
A constant call from Moscow for them to mobilise more recruits, but without providing any funding to pay those bonuses, it is bankrupting these far-off municipalities.
At the same time, the drive to provide more able-bodied personnel for the army and more factory workers for military enterprises is depleting the civilian labor market. Other reports further state that this decline in capable workers is exacerbated by the emigration of those who oppose the war effort and by the lack of viable means to replace them with imported labor.
The region of Yakutia has now stopped paying any military bonuses after its funding mechanisms were depleted. This news marks the first publicly acknowledged budget collapse directly attributable to the costs of military mobilization.
Russian Finance Minister Ivan Alexeyev stated, "Unfortunately, this is indeed our situation." This region previously served as one of the primary sources of new military recruiting for contract soldiers following the February 2022 invasion. Bonuses paid before the funding sources ran dry had reached $29,000 for signing a contract to serve in the military.
Russian officials also admit they cannot calculate how much they currently owe military personnel. Compensation payments of $8,300 for injuries and $11,000 to next of kin in the event of death have also been suspended.
Yakutia's fiscal troubles are only the tip of a financial turmoil iceberg that is being seen across numerous provinces of Russia. As of the end of September, Russian regions were carrying a combined deficit of 724.8 billion rubles or £7 billion sterling.
In October, the regional governments in Tatarstan, Chuvashia, Mari El, and Belgorod announced reduced enlistment payouts, while other regions have eliminated additional bonuses.
Without the prospect of receiving these bonuses, there will be little to no incentive for Russians to enlist in the military.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/war-and-confl … ngNewsSerpNo way of knowing if that is more BS propaganda or the facts...
They were saying Russia was going bankrupt three years ago.
You cannot trust "main stream media" news for anything other than the weather.What I have been reading, economists say Russia’s economy has been more resilient than expected under sanctions and global pressure, managing to avoid collapse and even showing modest growth in recent years. However, this resilience does seem to mask deeper weaknesses: growth has slowed, inflation and high interest rates are evident, as in much of the world, and much of the reported stability comes from defense-related spending rather than broad economic strength.
Yes, I know what our sources are saying, if you go back 3 years ago various "western" reports and predictions were even more dire for Russia than they are today.
When you consider that Russia considers this an imminent threat to their existence, I highly doubt that they consider walking away or giving up unless Moscow itself is under siege.
America (the West) perceives this war very differently than Russia does.
Russia is not going to go 'bankrupt' ... their standard of living may go down, they may declare martial law or "collapse" into a military controlled 'government'... but I see 0% chance of Crimea being released from the Russian Republic.
And now you can add the Donbas regions that have been incorporated into Russia as well.
The longer this goes on, the more Ukrainians die, the more territory Ukraine will lose, the greater the chance that this goes nuclear.
There is no situation where Russia packs up and goes home giving back what they have incorporated into their Republic.... it has to be forced upon them, not economically, but by force, Ukraine cannot accomplish that without our support.I agree with your core point: from Russia’s perspective, this is existential, and states do not surrender territory they’ve formally incorporated unless they are defeated militarily or their government collapses. Western narratives that assume Russia will “just give up” ignore how Russian strategic culture works; they believe territorial retreat invites internal instability and, historically, regime failure.
But here’s an important factor he didn’t mention: Ukraine can’t simply “freeze” and survive politically either. Zelensky, or any Ukrainian leader, cannot accept the permanent loss of Crimea, Donbas, or future occupied regions without risking internal political revolt and national fragmentation. Ukraine sees this war as existential for them, too. It isn’t just Russia facing existential stakes.
That means both sides view defeat as a national death sentence. When two nuclear‑armed blocs back opposing sides in a war framed as existential on both ends, you don’t just get a stalemate, you get escalation pressure baked in.
Russia views this as an existential fight and is extremely unlikely to give up Crimea or the Donbas without a direct military defeat. Western perspectives often underestimate just how far Russia is willing to go to protect what it sees as core territory.
One thing worth emphasizing that often gets overlooked is the human cost for the Ukrainian people. The longer this war drags on, the more civilians suffer from bombardment, displacement, and loss of life. Their resilience is remarkable, but the toll on ordinary Ukrainians is devastating, and it adds another layer of urgency to the conflict that isn’t captured by geopolitical analysis alone. Could they at somepoint choose some other path to end this war?You said " this is existential, and states do not surrender territory they’ve formally incorporated" - Is it your position that one country can steal land from another and then "declare" it theirs, and that makes it alright? That they can now consider it Russian rather than Ukrainian territory?
Why don't you look to the Ukrainian people to see if they want to stop trying to prevent Putin from taking over? What right does anybody else have to speak for them?
This is what Grok found (I hit a search limit with ChatGPT and need to stop asking for new web searches until it resets at some point in the future.)
Polls from reputable sources like the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), Gallup, and others consistently highlight this nuance:Desire for Peace vs. Concessions: Around 69% of Ukrainians favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, up from lower figures earlier in the conflict, reflecting exhaustion from ongoing Russian attacks, economic strain, and mobilization.
news.gallup.com
However, this shifts dramatically when concessions are involved: 76% reject Russia's proposed "peace plan," which includes troop withdrawals from Donbas and recognition of annexed territories.
facebook.com
Similarly, 82% oppose territorial concessions for peace, with only 38% open to any such compromises under extreme conditions.
tandfonline.com +1
Willingness to Continue Fighting: A December 2025 poll found 63% of Ukrainians ready to keep fighting rather than accept major concessions, with just 9% expecting the war to end by early 2026.
reuters.com
Another survey showed 54% believe Ukraine should not cede any territory, even if it prolongs the war and risks independence; 67% are categorically against recognizing occupied areas as Russian; and 78% oppose transferring currently controlled territories.
@mobbs_mentality
This aligns with earlier 2025 data, where 52% insisted on no land losses under any circumstances.
@Mylovanov
Shifts Over Time: Support for uncompromising resistance has softened slightly since 2022-2023 highs (when 80-90% opposed concessions), but it remains dominant. For instance, a mid-2025 KIIS poll noted 52% against any territorial giveaways, down from prior peaks but still a majority.
@Mylovanov
Fatigue is more pronounced in eastern regions closer to the front lines, but even there, outright surrender is unpopular.
It seems to me the Ukrainian people want to save their democracy and independence and we should do all in our power to help them."You said " this is existential, and states do not surrender territory they’ve formally incorporated" - Is it your position that one country can steal land from another and then "declare" it theirs, and that makes it alright? That they can now consider it Russian rather than Ukrainian territory?"ECO
This is what I said--- the full context
"I agree with your core point: from Russia’s perspective, this is existential, and states do not surrender territory they’ve formally incorporated unless they are defeated militarily or their government collapses. Western narratives that assume Russia will “just give up” ignore how Russian strategic culture works; they believe territorial retreat invites internal instability and, historically, regime failure.
This looks much different in full context...
I have no interest in defending anything beyond what I actually said. I was simply agreeing with Ken’s point and adding my own view. In war, history shows that the winner keeps the spoils, an unfortunate reality for the side that loses. In my opinion, negotiating and ending the war is the better path, so the losing side can at least keep something rather than be completely overtaken.
I’ve found this war horrific from day one. It’s clear Ukraine was not the aggressor, and they have stood and fought to save their nation, with help from many countries. But at some point, realism has to guide the conversation. It appears Ukraine cannot win this war outright, and perhaps negotiations could preserve part of the country and bring an end to the bloodshed. I stopped believing they could win some time ago. At this stage, I just want to see them survive.
If Russia pushes further into NATO nations, we most likely will see a world war. We would need to stop him cold.So let's say Russia took Alaska like they took Crimea and we fought them to a stand still with lots of people dying. What you are telling me is that you would be amenable to letting Russia keep Alaska in order to stop the fighting.
Wasn't it Chamberlain that said something like if Germany pushes into Czechoslovakia, then we might do something about it? Until then, we will appease you. Then WW II happened.I will debate your comment with common sense. I’m not buying your hyperbolic framing at all.
In my view, you are trying to reduce an excruciating, real-time humanitarian catastrophe into a tidy little moral slogan: Rah Rah Rah, “never negotiate, never concede, or you’re Chamberlain.” That’s not analysis, that’s emotional grandstanding. And takes little thought of what we see realistically.
Your Alaska analogy actually exposes how oversimplified his argument is. If a foreign power invaded U.S. territory, Americans wouldn’t just be weighing land on a chessboard; we’d be weighing millions of lives, the capacity to win, the nuclear stakes, economic ruin, allies, the possibility of stalemate, and whether continuing the war would save or destroy more American lives. Any serious leader would eventually consider negotiation, not because they “approve of conquest,” but because that’s what responsible governments do when total victory is impossible.
Even in WWII, negotiations were on the table repeatedly, because the British and French didn’t have the power to stop Hitler early on. Appeasement wasn’t immoral because people talked; it was disastrous because they misread German capabilities and intentions, and they had no credible plan to stop the next invasion. You are flattening that entire history into a motivational poster.
And you seem to be ignoring the most obvious element of Ukraine:
Ukrainians are dying by the hundreds of thousands, their infrastructure is being shredded, their population is fleeing, and the battlefield is still largely static. Pretending that “principle” outweighs the reality of human survival is easy for someone sitting safely behind a keyboard.
There’s a difference between appeasement and strategic reality.
Negotiation doesn’t mean handing Russia Alaska. It means:
Can Kyiv actually retake what it lost?
Can Russia be forced out without massive escalation?
Will continued fighting cost more lives than it preserves?
Do the people doing the dying support endless war?
What security guarantees could prevent future incursions?
If someone can’t engage with those questions, if they boil everything down to “fight forever, or you’re Neville Chamberlain, then they’re not arguing from common sense. They’re arguing from ego and cinematic fantasy.
You said - "I just want to see them survive." - only the pro-Putin will survive. He will kill or incarcerate anyone else.
To protect America, we need to stop Russia at the Ukrainian border so we don't have to fight them at the Polish border.I’ve found this war horrific from day one. Ukraine wasn’t the aggressor, and they’ve fought with everything they had to save their nation, with support from many countries. But at some point, realism has to guide the conversation. It no longer looks like Ukraine can win this war outright, and negotiations may be the only path that keeps them from being completely overrun. If talks could end the bloodshed, cost some territory, but still preserve most of the country and its future, I could accept that. I stopped believing outright victory was possible some time ago, at this stage, I just want to see Ukraine survive as a nation.
If Russia had the strength to sweep across Europe, we’d have seen signs of it long ago. Instead, they pounced on a smaller neighbor they assumed would be easy to overrun, and if NATO hadn’t stepped in with support, Ukraine likely would have fallen already. Russia still doesn’t have the power to take on NATO, even if the U.S. pulled back. America faces no conventional threat from Russia; a direct U.S.–Russia war would go nuclear instantly, and everybody knows it. Europe either needs to shoulder the responsibility of confronting Putin or accept living with his aggression.
What I find most regrettable is that European leaders never acted decisively before Putin crossed the line into Ukraine. He understood their hesitation from the start, and he moved because he knew the response would be weak.2014... There was a revolution, a coup, a CIA backed overthrow... whatever you want to believe... but there was no longer an elected government in Ukraine.
Crimea during this time... seceded and petitioned Russia to join the Russian Republic... there was an election, this wasn't done by military invasion...America and the UK didn't want to accept that...
So here we are... millions dead, half of Ukraine a bombed out husk... and no end in site... with the idiot Zelensky still demanding Crimea be taken from Russia.
I feel terrible for the people of Ukraine that have been used by those corrupt individuals in positions of power... on both sides.
I think peace was achievable... I don't think the war ever starts if the US and UK didn't want it to start.
Had they chosen to accept that Crimea was part of the Russian Republic, give Russia assurances about the people living in the Donbas and that NATO would not spread to Ukraine... if that had been attempted... I, and most of the world, would see Russia as the villain in this tragedy that "the West" has painted it to be.
But the world knows better... the world knows that peace could have been had, but the US and UK wanted this war, and dragged it out... which is why half the world refuses to sanction Russia and many aid Russia.
The US and UK took their shot... they tried and failed at defeating Russia militarily, economically, and supported an overthrow attempt of Putin. It all failed, there is only more death and suffering for Ukrainians to continue this... its a lost cause that can only bring more suffering.
The Day Crimea Rejoined Russia: Russian Roulette in Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqHeZUS9_EY
Meet the Crimeans Who Voted to Join Russia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1v_lu6qcyk
Donetsk Creates an Independent Government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpdCvuf-ZOk
A History Of Crimea In Five Minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSyoJYchO4YOMG, how revisionist can you get???!!! Crimea seceded? Putin invaded Ukraine and took Crimea by force of arms. All the rest is just Russian propaganda you believe and perpetuate.
Let's start with the CIA backed coup. - NONSENSE
You describe the 2014 Euromaidan protests as a "coup" or "CIA-backed overthrow" that removed an elected government. ]b\This is a staple of Russian propaganda, but the facts show it was a popular revolution driven by domestic grievances.[/b] The protests began in November 2013 as a response to President Viktor Yanukovych's abrupt decision to suspend an EU association agreement (under Russian pressure) and his government's corruption, including embezzlement of billions in state funds.
guides.lib.uconn.edu +1
They escalated into the "Revolution of Dignity" after Yanukovych's forces killed over 100 protesters in February 2014.
en.wikipedia.org +1
Yanukovych fled to Russia amid mass defections from his own party and security forces, leading parliament (including many from his Party of Regions) to vote unanimously to remove him on February 22, 2014.
en.wikipedia.org +1
This was constitutional under Ukraine's laws at the time, as confirmed by legal analyses.
quora.com
There was no "CIA-backed overthrow." While the US provided rhetorical support for protesters (e.g., via diplomats like Victoria Nuland), public evidence shows no direct orchestration of a coup.
politics.stackexchange.com
Claims of US involvement often stem from a leaked Nuland phone call discussing post-Yanukovych leadership, but that's standard diplomacy, not coup-planning.
cato.org
Independent investigations (e.g., by the Council on Foreign Relations) found the movement was grassroots, fueled by Ukrainians' desire for EU integration and anti-corruption reforms.
opensocietyfoundations.org +1
Russia, conversely, interfered by annexing Crimea and backing separatists in Donbas immediately after.
en.wikipedia.org
One conspiracy theory debunked.Now onto the fiction that Crimea wanted to be conquered by Putin.
You claim Crimea "seceded" via a peaceful election without invasion, and the West refused to accept it. This ignores the military context and international consensus on its illegality.Russian forces (disguised as "little green men") seized Crimean government buildings, airports, and military bases starting February 27, 2014—before the referendum.
chathamhouse.org +1
This was an invasion, not a voluntary secession; Ukraine's military was blockaded, and pro-Ukrainian voices suppressed.
cfr.org +1
The March 16, 2014, referendum was held under occupation, violating Ukraine's constitution (which requires national approval for territorial changes) and international law (e.g., no self-determination referendums under foreign military control).
press.un.org +1
The referendum's legitimacy is widely disputed: Official results claimed 97% approval on 83% turnout, but independent polls (e.g., by LSE) show pre-annexation support for joining Russia was around 41-55% among Crimeans, with many boycotts by Tatars and Ukrainians (who made up ~40% of the population).
lse.ac.uk +1
The UN General Assembly voted 100-11 to declare it invalid (Resolution 68/262), and no major international body recognizes it.
coespu.org +1
Even Russian human rights groups reported fraud.
euvsdisinfo.eu
A second conspiracy theory debunked.You argue the war wouldn't have started if the West accepted Crimea, protected Donbas Russians, and blocked NATO expansion—and that the US/UK "wanted" it. This inverts causality: Russia initiated the aggression. The war's roots trace to Russia's 2014 actions: After Euromaidan, Russia fomented separatism in Donbas (arming rebels, leading to ~14,000 deaths by 2022) and annexed Crimea, violating the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (where Russia pledged to respect Ukraine's borders in exchange for denuclearization).
en.wikipedia.org +1
Putin's February 2022 invasion aimed at "denazification" and demilitarization, denying Ukraine's sovereignty (he called it an "artificial state").
bbc.com +1
NATO expansion was a pretext; Ukraine wasn't on track for membership, and Russia's demands (e.g., veto over NATO) were non-starters.
jeffsachs.org +1
No evidence the US/UK "wanted" the war. They warned of invasion for months and pushed diplomacy (e.g., Biden-Putin talks in 2021).
cfr.org
Claims of Western provocation (e.g., by Jeffrey Sachs) are minority views; most analysts attribute it to Putin's revanchism.
cirsd.org +1
Peace was attempted: Minsk Agreements (2014-2015) failed due to Russian non-compliance.
en.wikipedia.org
Early 2022 Istanbul talks collapsed because Russia demanded Ukraine's neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of annexed territories—while continuing offensives.
en.wikipedia.org +2
No credible evidence Boris Johnson "blocked" peace; Ukraine rejected terms as capitulation.
atlanticcouncil.org +1
A THIRD conspiracy theory Debunked.You say half the world refuses sanctions because they see Russia as the victim. This overstates sympathy; non-participation is often pragmatic.Over 40 countries (mostly Western: US, EU, UK, Australia, Japan, etc.) imposed sanctions post-2022, freezing ~$300 billion in Russian assets and banning trade in key sectors.
en.wikipedia.org +2
Many Global South nations (e.g., India, China, Brazil, South Africa) abstain or evade due to economic ties (e.g., cheap Russian oil), not moral agreement with Russia's actions.
commonslibrary.parliament.uk +1
UN votes condemning Russia's invasion passed with ~141 in favor (e.g., March 2022), showing broad opposition.
brookings.edu
A FOURTH conspiracy theory Debunked.You claim the US/UK tried and failed to defeat Russia militarily, economically, and via overthrowing Putin. This mixes facts with conspiracy.Militarily: Ukraine's defense (with Western aid) stalled Russia, but no direct US/UK military involvement—only weapons/supplies.
cfr.org
Economically: Sanctions hurt Russia's GDP (~2-8% contraction in 2022-2023), but war economy adaptations mitigated some effects.
ofac.treasury.gov
Overthrow: The 2023 Wagner rebellion was an internal mutiny by Yevgeny Prigozhin (Wagner chief) over military grievances, not US/UK-orchestrated.
en.wikipedia.org +2
No evidence of Western involvement; it ended via Belarusian mediation.
theguardian.com
Other "attempts" (e.g., 2018 election interference claims) are Russian narratives without proof.
americanprogress.org +1
A FIFTH conspiracy theory Debunked.
You do know that so-called "imminent threat" is a bunch of hooey created by Putin to justify taking out a democratic and free neighbor don't you?
Well, our support is not what they are going to get from Trump, he would rather they become a satellite of Russia like they once were.
Europe, on the other hand, may be a different story. Given that Putin is an existential threat to all of Europe but especially the eastern part, they may make up the difference from America reneging on its promises (a Trump trait).
Hopefully, after seeing America turn tail and placate Putin, other democracies will step in and do what Trump is to afraid to do.
While the term "resilient" appears to be apt right now, this is Grok's assessment:
However, this resilience is increasingly fragile and masks structural vulnerabilities that could lead to stagnation or worse in the medium term.
atlanticcouncil.org
Economists from institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and think tanks such as Chatham House and the Atlantic Council point to an overheating economy where demand outstrips supply, driving persistent issues.
chathamhouse.org
Inflation hovers around 8-9%, with the Central Bank hiking interest rates to 21% to curb it, which stifles non-military growth.
debuglies.com
The 2025 harvest failure—the worst in 17 years—exposes agricultural weaknesses, potentially exacerbating food price pressures.
iiss.org
Other challenges include:Declining revenues and deficits: Oil prices have dropped, and new sanctions (e.g., on shadow fleets and banks) are eroding energy exports, with projections of substantial cuts to Moscow's oil income in 2026.
navigatingrussia.substack.com +1
The federal budget deficit is running at 3-3.5% of GDP, higher than planned, funded by drawing down reserves like the National Welfare Fund.
@jakluge
Labor and demographic strains: Emigration of skilled workers, combined with war mobilization, has created shortages, pushing up wages but hurting productivity. Even military production faces limitations.
jamestown.org +1
Long-term costs: Cumulative GDP losses from sanctions are estimated at 12% below potential, with stagflation risks rising as military spending crowds out civilian investment.
chathamhouse.org
Dependence on China is deepening, creating an "embarrassing reversal" where Russia sells discounted resources while buying pricier imports.
businessinsider.com
By mid-2025, signs of deceleration were evident, even in defense sectors.
piie.com
Public discourse on platforms like X reflects this divide: Pro-Russian voices emphasize outperformance and self-sufficiency,
while critics highlight war dependency and impending crises.
jamestown.org +1
Overall, while Russia's economy has proven more durable than expected—thanks to wartime fiscal policies and global shifts—the "resilient" narrative overlooks mounting imbalances. Without peace or diversification, experts warn of a slide toward militarized stagnation by 2026.
atlanticcouncil.org +1
No, they said Russia WOULD go bankrupt three years ago. Now it seems THEY is right.
I see it is time to start donating again to United24. It will be a drop in the bucket, but it is infinitely more than what Trump is doing.
Apparently, Ukraine doesn't need our Tomahawk missiles - they have their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-5_Flamingo
5 reasons Putin will never end his war in Ukraine
If President Trump ends the Russo-Ukrainian War with a durable peace, then he will certainly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. But the key word is “durable.” For an accord to last longer than it takes the ink on the document to dry, it has to be acceptable to, and accepted by, both sides.
Mutual acceptability implies some degree of equally distributed gains and losses. Anything else would be perceived by one of the sides as unfair and unjust, likely dooming the accord.
The equal distribution of gains and losses favors the aggressor. In principle, aggression should not be rewarded with any gains. It should be punished with losses, whether in the form of reparations or loss of acquired territory.
At this point, the reality of power clashes with principle, and it may prove impossible to punish the aggressor to the deserved degree. Compromise may be unavoidable, even if unacceptable to the victim.
There are thus two legitimate and durable ways for the Russo-Ukrainian War to end. Russia and Ukraine could agree to a deal that falls short of each of their desired ends, or Russia could have an epiphany and willingly abandon its imperialist war.
In the first instance, both sides would be unhappy, but equally so. That might deter them from seeking revenge or otherwise aggravating their relations. Given Russia’s current rejection of any compromise that falls short of its maximalist demand for Ukraine’s destruction, it could agree to such a deal only if forced by a joint coercive effort by Ukraine, the U.S. and Europe.
In the second instance, Trump would encourage Vladimir Putin to hightail it to Pyongyang and then support whichever more or less rational Russian leader succeeds him. Obviously, Putin won’t oblige Trump, which means that Trump would have no alternative to forcing Putin to see the light by arming the Ukrainians and enabling them to reverse Russian territorial advances.
In both scenarios, Russia can be brought to the negotiating table only by force. On his own, Putin will not and cannot opt for peace — a fact that neither Trump nor his key advisor, Steve Witkoff, appears to appreciate. But understanding that Putin has no interest whatsoever in a durable peace is the first and most important step on the road to peace.
As Thomas Friedman of the New York Times puts it, “Putin is a bad guy, a coldblooded murderer. He is not the friend of the president. That is a fantasy that Trump chooses to believe is real.”
But being a coldblooded murderer is only half the problem; that is not why Putin doesn’t want peace. The reasons for that are many.
First, Putin truly believes that the Ukrainian state must be destroyed in order for Russia to survive. That’s absurd, of course, but it’s also the intractable reality. Exterminating Ukrainians as a distinct people is an imperative for Putin. No compromise is possible.
Second, Putin has wholly identified himself with the war. It’s his. As a result, his political — and possibly physical — survival depends on the war’s outcome. And given that the war has killed or wounded over 1 million Russians and ruined what was once an economy with great potential, nothing short of a smashing victory will do.
Third, Putin knows that if and when the war ends, several hundred thousand demobilized soldiers — angry, aggressive and armed — will descend like locusts on Russian society and increase its already-high level of criminality. Putin knows from Russian history that hungry returning soldiers can also bring down regimes.
Fourth, Putin has created a war economy that benefits a large segment of the population and a variety of elites. Ending the war means transitioning from that kind of economy to a consumer economy and experiencing adjustment difficulties and a potentially large downturn.
Finally, the war enables Putin to pretend that Russia is still a great power. Once the war ends, Russians and especially their elites will see that their brilliant leader has transformed their country into an appendage of China and North Korea. Inexpensive vacation packages to the Hermit Kingdom will be small consolation for the loss of prestige.
The moral of the story is obvious.
If Trump truly wants a Nobel for bringing peace to Ukraine and Russia, he will have to address the primary root cause of the war: namely, Putin. Anything else is a fake negotiation that can only produce a fake peace.
https://thehill.com/opinion/internation … n-ukraine/Let me emphasize that last part - "If Trump truly wants a Nobel for bringing peace to Ukraine and Russia, he will have to address the primary root cause of the war: namely, Putin. Anything else is a fake negotiation that can only produce a fake peace.
Unfortunately, Trump, like Chamberlin, is out to appease Putin.I took a long look at the article, which has prompted a lengthy comment.
Just my view---
I’ve read the argument that “Putin will never end his war in Ukraine,” and while I understand the logic behind saying Putin is trapped by his own decisions, I think the article treats the situation as static and ignores several real-world scenarios that could shift the outcome. Nothing about geopolitics, military balance, or national interests is frozen in place forever.
For one, the piece keeps insisting that only force can bring Russia to the table, but we’ve already seen that time, economic pressure, and battlefield stagnation can change political incentives. Russia isn’t operating from unlimited money, unlimited manpower, or unlimited public tolerance. A war that keeps grinding down soldiers and draining budgets eventually forces strategic recalculation, even in autocracies.
The article acts like Ukraine has only two choices: total victory or total surrender. That’s not how most wars end. Korea, Cyprus, Kashmir, the Balkans, Georgia, Moldova, the world is full of armistices, freezes, boundary adjustments, and ugly compromises that prevent mass death even when nobody loves the outcome. The article calls that “fake peace,” but a ceasefire that stops the killing is still better than a fantasy war with no endpoint.
In my view, there’s the broader diplomatic picture. European leaders have already begun pushing for “peace initiatives” because the economic and political strain is showing. Ukraine is running low on manpower, and Western defense industries can’t fully replace what’s being used. At some point, even allies will want clarity.
The author completely ignores Putin’s age and succession risk. He’s not immortal. Russian elites may tolerate this war now, but if the cost continues to rise, internal pressure can force change. Regimes don’t fall until they do, and then history pretends it was obvious.
Fifth, Putin doesn’t control every variable. China has leverage. Beijing prefers a weakened West, yes, but it does not want Russia collapsing or nuclear escalation that wrecks global trade. If China decides the war is bad for business, it will pressure Putin in ways the West can’t. That’s another scenario the article refuses to consider.
Now, regarding Trump, his public statements show a different way of thinking than the author assumes. Trump repeatedly says:
The war never should have happened.
He wants both sides to “stop the killing.”
He believes strong U.S. diplomacy, not unlimited money, is the path to peace.
He insists Ukraine needs security guarantees, not endless war.
When Trump met Zelensky, he literally said both sides should “stop where they are and end the war, meaning use current front lines as bargaining markers, not surrender Ukraine entirely. That’s not Putin’s dream outcome; it’s a recognition that wars often end where they stall.
Trump has also said openly that he would pressure both sides, including Russia, and that he would negotiate from strength. That means military aid is not off the table; it means it’s a tool. Trump’s argument is that diplomacy backed by sticks works better than open-ended blank checks.
Trump’s core thinking seems to be:
The U.S. should stop writing endless funding commitments.
Europe must shoulder more of the burden.
Ukraine’s survival matters, but a negotiated framework is necessary.
This war ends through leverage, not ideology.
That doesn’t mean Trump is “friends” with Putin; it means he wants to push both sides to a table and force a deal. That’s the job of negotiators, not cheerleaders. Push for an end...
Saying Putin “will never” end the war assumes a kind of mystical determination. History says otherwise. Every “forever war” ends under the right conditions: economic collapse, political change, military stalemate, diplomatic realignment, or generational fatigue.
So no - I don’t buy this idea that peace is impossible unless Russia is beaten into submission. That approach risks a wider European conflict, nuclear brinkmanship, and endless bloodshed. A durable ceasefire backed by guarantees, pressure, and diplomacy may not satisfy anyone’s perfect justice, but it could stop tens of thousands more from dying.
Sometimes realism beats moral theater. That’s how wars actually end.I don't think you know or understand Putin. He will NOT stop. His goal is to get back the old USSR. Read the quote below in the article I provided.
If he is not stopped now he will continue until he is stopped. It's just that simple. He WILL attack NATO eventually. Then what? Think of how much money that will cost the United States then.
It's time for those on the right to stop being so gullible when it comes to Putin. He is not a nice man and does not have the best interest of his citizens in his goals. Putin IS a dictator.
Putin derides European leaders as he insists Russia's war goals in Ukraine will be met by force or diplomacy
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia’s goals in Ukraine are unchanged and will be accomplished, either through negotiations or by further military advances if diplomatic efforts fail.
Putin, speaking at an annual board meeting of the country's Defense Ministry, touted Russia's military progress on the battlefield and technological advancements as his war in Ukraine grinds on into a fourth year.
"The goals of the special military operation will undoubtedly be achieved," he said, using the Kremlin's term to refer to Moscow's 2022 full-scale invasion.
"We would prefer to accomplish this and address the root causes of the conflict through diplomatic means. However, if the opposing side and its foreign patrons refuse to engage in substantive dialogue, Russia will achieve the liberation of its historical lands by military means," the Russian leader told military officials, according to a transcript of the speech released by the government.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte warned allies last week that Russia could be ready to use military force against the alliance within five years and urged members to boost defense spending and production so their armed forces have the resources to protect their homelands.
Putin referred to European leaders as "piglets" during the Defense Ministry meeting, according to a translated video of the remarks posted by Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev.
The comment was part of a broader tirade against the West, with Putin accusing European governments of helping Washington try to weaken and divide Russia.
"They were hoping to profit from the collapse of our country. To get back something that was lost in previous historical periods and try to take revenge, said Putin. "As it has now become obvious to everyone, all these attempts and all these destructive plans towards Russia completely failed."
The remarks come as U.S., European, Russian and Ukrainian officials engage in a flurry of diplomacy over potential paths to ending the war.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his negotiating team met in Berlin on Sunday with Jared Kushner and U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pu … &ei=10"I don't think you know or understand Putin. He will NOT stop. His goal is to get back the old USSR. Read the quote below in the article I provided." Mike
I understand that Putin wants to restore what he sees as the old Soviet sphere. Where I disagree is in thinking he will only stop if he is forced to. He isn’t a foolish man, he knows that attacking NATO would almost certainly trigger a world war, and Russia would lose unless NATO refused to defend Europe.
For me, the spending isn’t even the primary issue. My deeper concern is that we’re supplying weapons for a prolonged killing ground, a war that cannot be won. It saddens me to say it, but that’s the conclusion I’ve come to.
The money the U.S. is spending overseas could be redirected toward Americans who are genuinely in need. We’re dealing with a serious healthcare crisis, and we have no realistic way to address it without borrowing more and driving our national debt even higher. In my view, it’s time to scale back what we spend around the world and focus on our own citizens.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia’s goals in Ukraine are unchanged and will be accomplished, either through negotiations or by further military advances if diplomatic efforts fail." Mike
I’m encouraged to hear him say he’s willing to negotiate. That said, we know he hasn’t always been truthful, so I can only hope he follows through. I’ll continue to pray that this dictator recognizes the inhumanity of his war and finally comes to the table. Zelenskyy has made it clear he’s open to negotiation. My hope is that Putin realizes that if he keeps pushing forward, NATO appears prepared to keep supplying Ukraine with weapons. Even now, we’re seeing Trump sell weapons to NATO so they can pass them along to Ukraine, which serves the interests of the U.K. and Europe. It’s also obvious that Trump has grown disillusioned with funding the war directly. If Democrats regain Congress or the White House, I would expect a return to higher levels of U.S. spending.
Too much common sense and realism in this post... Something that those who only see things thru their ideological and misinformed lense cannot absorb and comprehend.
Your endless battles to try to reach such in these forums have proven that countless times before.Ken, I’ve come to realize that these battles are just wasted energy. I thought appealing to basic common sense would break through, but this issue, this war, should be obvious. It should never have happened, and as I said from day one, it isn’t a war Ukraine can win.
People talk about Putin, and they’re right about his nature, how prideful and ruthless he can be. That alone should make it clear he will not stop short of winning or holding onto whatever territory he has taken. Do they not see? A leopard doesn’t suddenly change its stripes.
It seems some in our society have lost the ability to recognize something that is blatantly obvious - like 2 + 2 still equaling 4, no matter how someone tries to twist the equation.Not true... if that were so, there would have been no Trump 2.0... considering how blatantly corrupt some States were in the election, Trump's win had to be overwhelming for them not to bury it.
What you are fighting here in these forums is the same mindset that is trying to destroy the nation and/or retain their political control and continue the corruption that has long been in power.
That link to the WEF I left the other day was informative and showed how that organization groomed politicians like Gavin Newsom and Justin Trudeau... look at how incredibly bad the governments they run have been for the people they govern."What you are fighting here in these forums is the same mindset that is trying to destroy the nation and/or retain their political control and continue the corruption that has long been in power." Ken
Are you giving those forum chatters a little too much credit? I’m not convinced some of them know up from down on certain issues. They fall into groupthink so easily, and it doesn’t take much for people to jump on whatever the crowd is chasing. They just follow the loudspeaker,left-leaning media, and that’s all she wrote. In my view, there’s very little critical thinking going on. So is it really them trying to destroy the country, or are they just unknowing pawns?"Again PROJECTION." ECO
No, again you have a problem with context; look up 'opinion,' 'view,' or 'perception.' Reread my comment. Followed by an analysis of my comment from AI. It seems you need to realize this is no more than a chat forum, where frequently views are shared, due to personal perception on a given issue.
My comment
"What you are fighting here in these forums is the same mindset that is trying to destroy the nation and/or retain their political control and continue the corruption that has long been in power." Ken
Are you giving those forum chatters a little too much credit? I’m not convinced some of them know up from down on certain issues. They fall into groupthink so easily, and it doesn’t take much for people to jump on whatever the crowd is chasing. They just follow the loudspeaker,left-leaning media, and that’s all she wrote. In my view, there’s very little critical thinking going on. So is it really them trying to destroy the country, or are they just unknowing pawns? Sharllee
AIs analisis. Yes — that comment clearly shares a view in context.
It does a few things at once:
States your opinion directly (you don’t think the forum members deserve much credit, and you question their grasp of issues).
Identifies the behavior you’re criticizing (groupthink, jumping on trends, lack of critical thought).
Names the influence you see guiding them (left-leaning media acting like a “loudspeaker”).
Ends with a pointed rhetorical question that frames your main view: are these people actively trying to damage the country, or are they being used without realizing it?
It’s opinion-based, contextual to the discussion you were having, and it communicates your skepticism about both the individuals and the forces influencing them.
Projection
A projection is when someone assigns their beliefs, motives, fears, or conclusions onto others without evidence, or claims to know what others think or intend.
(note as you did here with your context --- "Likewise, Trump actually believes Putin would honor their agreement. Trump, who is not save nor rational, believes Putin is sane and rational. Unlike Chamberlain, who was not anything like Hitler, Trump and Putin are kindred spirits with the same mental illnesses - the main difference use to be that Trump didn't resort to murder. But with the slaughter of men clinging to wreckage in the Caribbean, that changed." ECO
You have used words to indicate facts. Such as "Trump actually believes", " Trump, who is not save nor rational, believes Putin is sane and rational. " need I go on...
It crosses the line from “this is what I believe” to “this is what they are, what they want, or what they’re going to do.”
Examples of projection:
“They want to destroy the country.”
“They don’t care about truth.”
“They’re being controlled by the media and don’t even know it.”
These assume motives inside other people’s minds — something we can’t truly confirm.
In my view, most of your posts use projection. As I showed a good example above. I suggest you run a few of your posts through AI, and ask if the context of your comment project or share a view.Your view, opinion, or perception is the Projection. Read your own definition.
And your example misses the mark entirely. That is not by definition "projection". It is a statement of verifiably fact or logical conclusion based on observation.
* Trump is not sane - The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 29 mental health experts, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 39 mental health experts, Trump Contagion, The MORE Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 40 more mental health experts
* Trump Believes Putin would honor - His own words.
* Trump believes Putin is sane and rational - his own words.
When speaking of Democrats "wanting to destroy the country" - that IS projection.
When speaking Trump and MAUGA "wanting to destroy the country" - that IS NOT projection but a statement of the obvious starting with Trump's insurrection as proof.
And when talking about others than the Far Left or MAUGA THIS fits your definition of Projection:
" I’m not convinced some of them know up from down on certain issues. They fall into groupthink so easily, and it doesn’t take much for people to jump on whatever the crowd is chasing. They just follow the loudspeaker, left-leaning media, and that’s all she wrote. In my view, there’s very little critical thinking going on. So is it really them trying to destroy the country, or are they just unknowing pawns?"The definitions were AIs. Again, my comment with AIs cirtique of my comment. That's my comment, a view, and does not mirror projection.
Are you giving those forum chatters a little too much credit? I’m not convinced some of them know up from down on certain issues. They fall into groupthink so easily, and it doesn’t take much for people to jump on whatever the crowd is chasing. They just follow the loudspeaker,left-leaning media, and that’s all she wrote. In my view, there’s very little critical thinking going on. So is it really them trying to destroy the country, or are they just unknowing pawns? Sharllee
AIs analisis. Yes — that comment clearly shares a view in context.
It does a few things at once:
States your opinion directly (you don’t think the forum members deserve much credit, and you question their grasp of issues).
Identifies the behavior you’re criticizing (groupthink, jumping on trends, lack of critical thought).
Names the influence you see guiding them (left-leaning media acting like a “loudspeaker”).
Ends with a pointed rhetorical question that frames your main view: are these people actively trying to damage the country, or are they being used without realizing it?
It’s opinion-based, contextual to the discussion you were having, and it communicates your skepticism about both the individuals and the forces influencing them.
I have nothing more to share on the issue. I have made my point.What’s fascinating about this, Sharlee, is how perfectly your description fits the MAGA media world you live in. You talk about people who “fall into groupthink so easily,” who “jump on whatever the crowd is chasing,” who “just follow the loudspeaker… and that’s all she wrote,” and who show “very little critical thinking.”
That is exactly how Fox, Newsmax, Gateway Pundit, and the right-wing influencer circuit function: repeat the same talking points all day, punish anyone who breaks with the narrative, and keep the base locked into outrage on command.
And just so we’re clear, I’m not pretending this is only a right-wing problem. I was careful to exclude genuinely far-left audiences for a reason: they often behave just like MAGA crowds, just with a different hero and a different set of slogans. My criticism here is aimed at the ecosystem you actually participate in, not some imaginary perfect “left.”
You’re asking whether those folks are “trying to destroy the country” or are “unknowing pawns.” I’d turn that question right back around: when the same people automatically defend Trump no matter what he says or does, repeat claims that have already been debunked, and treat any uncomfortable fact as a “plot,” is that independent thinking—or the very groupthink you’re warning about?
As you pointed out, psychologists have a word for this: projection—describing your own side’s behavior and assigning it to the other team as a moral indictment.We have shared our views. I have nothing further on the subject.
Amazing... how did not wanting the war to continue become "automatically defend Trump no matter what he says or does"?
I've been exposing the tragedy and callousness of US/UK efforts to escalate this war for years. Long before Trump returned to office.
As I said to you the other day Sharlee, you want to debate and share opinions... others are here just to denigrate those like you who try and disinform those reading that don't know.
You are trying to debate... they are trying to denigrate and discredit. If not an attack on the information's credibility, then an attack on the person delivering it.
This particular topic of Ukraine for instance, Mike's position is understandable, it is personal for him... why would someone that does not have a personal attachment to Ukraine be so adamant for the war's continuation, being even more emotional/irrational about it than Mike?
Why would someone shrug off the millions suffering or dead... and earnestly advocate for its escalation?
I have an insight into these things due to my background, like you have insight into medical/healthcare issues... no sane person (IMO) that doesn't have strong personal ties to Ukraine would want this war to continue.
Nor would a sane person (IMO) ever have wanted it to start... not over Crimea, not over the Donbas, not when understanding what could go wrong, how easily it could lead to WWIII or civilizations collapse... not when understanding that region was dominated by Russian speaking people that did NOT want to be part of Ukraine and wanted their independence, or, if they must, join Russia... because the majority of the population was Russian.
I understood what they were going for... the UK and US... had they accomplished it, there was a lot to gain... resource wise and power dynamics wise globally... but they failed... Russia is not getting weaker, Ukraine is, Russia has allies and trade partners now that it didn't have 4 years ago... Ukraine continuing this war only means more loss, more death, more risk of global disaster."Mike's position is understandable, it is personal for him... why would someone that does not have a personal attachment to Ukraine be so adamant for the war's continuation, being even more emotional/irrational about it than Mike?"
It is nice to be so detached of the reality of the situation.
I'm sure anyone whose family has experienced the death and destruction as mine has as well as those of my friends are the only ones who can understand. Should anyone on this forum have these experience impact them directly with their family, I'm sure they would also be emotional and considered "irrational."
Nobody in Ukraine wants to continue the war. What they want is for the invaders to go back to their lands. The world needs to understand what a serious danger and threat putin is to peace in the world. He does not understand anything but force and violence.
The world needs to stop dealing with him by acting like Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain was a conservative. He actually believed hitler would honor their agreement. Chamberlain believed hitler was sane and rational. As history has taught us, he was wrong.
Those who can't comprehend that putin is the modern day hitler are either not in tune with reality or so obtuse they are willing to repeat history.Not Ukranian, not your friend, no one in my family has experienced the death and destruction as your has...
Still, I understand. And I agree 100%.Likewise, Trump actually believes Putin would honor their agreement. Trump, who is not save nor rational, believes Putin is sane and rational. Unlike Chamberlain, who was not anything like Hitler, Trump and Putin are kindred spirits with the same mental illnesses - the main difference use to be that Trump didn't resort to murder. But with the slaughter of men clinging to wreckage in the Caribbean, that changed.
That's how I expect you to see it, you are not detached.
The Lindsey Graham mouthpiece on here advocating for the wars escalation, with posts filled with hyperbolic nonsense, is another matter entirely.
Others, 'thinking' they know what is right or what is going on giving their 2cents in here that advocate for this war, most likely never saw a wartorn country or combat.
I disregard them due to their ignorance...
Sadly, I told you years ago where this was going to lead Ukraine... I said it would be America's next Iraq... I understood the callous warmongering lunatics in the Biden Administration that wantonly wanted this war far better than you
Some of them, like Graham, speak with glee that they are killing so many, at no cost to America in terms of our soldiers lives... as if the lives of Ukrainians were not even worth considering.
Good people suffer and die, by the millions, so that others can enrich themselves and play their power/control games.
This was always a no win situation for Ukraine, even if they rip Crimea from Russia's control, the price is not worth it ...and it was obvious it never was going to be...right from the start.
ADD:
While you probably are unwilling to remember our conversations on here prior to Russia invading, you were fine with Crimea being part of Russia... You had no interest in starting a war over it.
There was a deliberate effort that is well documented for those who are willing to dig... showing how Russia was goaded into this war.
After all the rhetoric, the bottom line is do the American people want to give up Alaska to satisfy Putin?
That is the question some here are suggesting the Ukrainian people do - give up territory the Russians stole. At this point, it is a resounding NO, they do not want to.
If that is what they want, then the rest of the democratic nations of the world have a moral obligation to make sure Putin loses.No... they do not.
And no... Ukraine is not a democratic nation.
Nor is it a NATO one.
It is fighting for Crimea, which seceded and is part of the Russian Republic.
This is a war that only the lunatics and warmongers in UK and the US support... or the criminals enriching themselves from it... those that don't care about the millions killed or crippled... those that would never put themselves in harm's way to fight it.Can I bring in a different perspective.
Trump is pro Russian because it does not want Ukraine be part of Europe. As Europe will gain a huge asset and will be stronger. Trump does not like a strong Europe. So he is playing a divide and conquer tactic. Supporting Russia and attacking Europe.
Trump is also pro Russia as Putin has blackmail material on Trump. Remember the first talk Trump had with Putin? After this talk he was suddenly meek as a lamb. And ever since he is always doing Moscow's bidding.Thank you for that great perspective - wish I would have thought of framing it that way.
It is speculation though. But within Trumps character of being a bully. Attack the ones that are a threat. Europe is more a threat economical wise than Russia. Europe is also less corrupt than Russia and so more difficult to control and do his personal bidding. (Look at the difference of treatment between Argentina and Brazil.)
Trump is the first US president who switched sides. Pro Russia and anti Europe. Which makes intelligence sharing difficult during the Ukrainian-Russian war.Given Trump's decimation of America's ability to collect intelligence, I have to wonder how useful it is anymore.
You keep posting false statements and I will keep posting the TRUTH
1. Ukraine IS a democratic nation just as America is (although it is on shaky ground right now) a democratic nation and for the same reasons.
2. NATO is not a country and therefore by definition cannot be democratic or authoritarian or anything else but an organization of nations. So, isn't that claim misinformation?
3. Crimea seceded - already debunked. Putin STOLE Crimea from Ukraine
4. People can decide on the veracity of your last comment.
Your analogy is hyperbolic.
The Alaska analogy doesn’t track. The U.S. is a nuclear superpower—no one is “taking Alaska,” and America wouldn’t rely on NATO to defend it. Ukraine doesn’t have that kind of deterrence, which is why it has had to depend on NATO for weapons and support. Without that backing, Ukraine likely would have lost this war long ago. Recognizing military reality isn’t the same as endorsing theft; it’s acknowledging limits. Moral and emotional outrage doesn’t guarantee a military victory, and pretending it does only prolongs a war Ukraine cannot win.
Standing on a soapbox thousands of miles from a killing field is very easy to do... Living in that killing field is horrific.Again you dodge, Are you calling the Ukrainian people stupid because they are being patriotic about their country and don't want to quit? It sure sounds like you are saying you know better than them.
And also, I can't except a defeatist view that encourages Putin to do more. So long as the Ukrainian People want to keep fighting, then it is the free world's obligation to help them and not turn tail and run.
Here again are the common sense reasons why.
Violation of international law and precedents: Russia's annexation of Crimea (2014) and parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia (2022) is widely regarded as illegal under international norms like the UN Charter, which prohibits acquiring territory by force. "Quitting the fight" by accepting these gains could erode global rules-based order, setting a precedent that rewards aggression—potentially encouraging similar actions elsewhere, such as by China toward Taiwan or other disputed regions.
Ukrainian agency and resolve: Ukrainians have demonstrated strong national will to resist, with polls showing majority support for continuing the fight until full territorial integrity is restored. Ceding land without their consent could undermine self-determination and democracy, ignoring the human cost of occupation (e.g., reported atrocities, forced deportations, and cultural erasure in annexed areas).
Broader security implications for Europe and NATO: A perceived Russian victory might embolden Putin to test NATO borders further (e.g., in the Baltics or Poland), increasing the risk of direct U.S./NATO involvement later. Sustained support for Ukraine is seen by many as a cost-effective way to degrade Russian military capabilities without American boots on the ground, enhancing long-term deterrence.
Economic and humanitarian toll of appeasement: While the war's costs are high (over $100 billion in U.S. aid since 2022), historical analogies like the Munich Agreement (1938) suggest that conceding to aggressors often leads to greater instability and expense down the line. Additionally, Russia's exploitation of occupied territories—through resource theft, grain exports, and forced labor—exacerbates global food insecurity and economic disruptions.
Potential for Ukrainian success: With continued Western aid (e.g., advanced weapons, intelligence), Ukraine has reclaimed significant territory before (e.g., Kharkiv and Kherson offensives). Critics argue that prematurely "quitting" overlooks evolving battlefield dynamics, such as Russia's mounting losses and internal strains, which could shift leverage toward Kyiv in negotiations.I will correct some of the assumptions in your comment, not because I think the Ukrainian people are “stupid” or that their patriotism is misplaced; they clearly have every right to defend their country, but because the question isn’t just about desire or resolve; it’s about outcomes, strategy, and long-term consequences. I’m not dismissing their agency; I’m trying to weigh the realities of war alongside principle.
Yes, Ukraine’s fight is rooted in patriotism, self-determination, and the defense of international law. I completely agree that ceding territory to an aggressor like Russia could set dangerous precedents globally, undermining norms against conquest. I also recognize that the human cost of occupation, atrocities, deportations, and cultural suppression is real and devastating. These are moral and legal reasons why support for Ukraine is justified.
Where I differ is on the framing that we must continue indefinitely simply because the Ukrainian people want to fight. Popular will is important, but it doesn’t automatically guarantee strategic success or global stability. Wars are costly, and continued escalation carries enormous economic, humanitarian, and geopolitical consequences, not just for Ukraine, but for Europe and the world. I worry that framing support as unconditional could prolong suffering without a clear path to victory.
I also think we need to separate moral obligation from tactical calculation. Supporting Ukraine can be wise, but that support should be calibrated to maximize effectiveness and minimize harm. Encouraging a fight that may have diminishing returns could actually weaken Ukraine’s leverage in the long run and stretch the resources of the free world.
I would argue that recognizing the Ukrainian desire to fight doesn’t mean we endorse a “defeatist” view if we discuss negotiated settlements or strategic pauses. Advocating for pragmatic, realistic solutions isn’t the same as surrendering to Putin; it’s about protecting lives, sustaining Ukrainian resilience, and maintaining the rules-based international order over the long term.
So, I stand with Ukraine in principle and respect their determination, but I also insist on balancing that with sober, strategic thinking about what continuing the war actually achieves versus the costs. Patriotism alone, as admirable as it is, doesn’t make a war winnable or sustainable. It only offers more casualties.The ONLY outcome that they say is important to them is not to fall under the thumb of Putin and to retain all their land. Too me, that is not hard to understand and support with money and arms for as long as they want it.
All other considerations is mere noise."The ONLY outcome that they say is important to them is not to fall under the thumb of Putin and to retain all their land. Too me, that is not hard to understand and support with money and arms for as long as they want it." ECO
This is really an unknown. Very little is shared about the death and destruction on the ground, and I don’t put much stock in the polls the media keeps pushing. I honestly have no idea what the people actually feel. Ukraine hasn’t even held an election for a new president; one was supposed to happen in early 2024, but it never did, and it’s now seriously overdue. I think if an election were finally held, we might get a clearer sense of how the people feel. In my view. which is all I’ve offered, and without claiming to know what Ukrainians truly want, as you presume to know. I simply believe peace would be preferable to an endless war. Your context directly claims --- "The ONLY outcome that they say is important to them is not to fall under the thumb of Putin and to retain all their land."
Not sure how you can be so sure.Because that is what the people are saying, obviously. That is what i shared with you. Because it doesn't fit your narrative you seem to choose to ignore it.
What exactly did you share, some vague polls? My opinion leads me to believe we really have no idea what the people of Ukraine feel. As I mentioned in another comment, they need a presidential election. It’s long overdue, and it would give us a much clearer sense of what the people in Ukraine are actually thinking.
You are projecting by saying matter afactly yoy know what the people are thinking.
"Because that is what the people are saying, obviously. That is what i shared with you. Because it doesn't fit your narrative you seem to choose to ignore it." ECO
I choose not to offer a comment as factual when I have no way of proving it. I shared strickly my opinon. As I do in the better part of my posts. When I step out with what is being provided as a fact, I source.They are "vague" only in your own mind because they are something you do not want to hear. They were very specific and I presented them more than once with substantial proof they were mainstream polls.
You provided no factual evidence or source for the polls you cited regarding what the Ukrainian people think about the war. As I mentioned, I don’t believe polls give a clear picture of public sentiment. A presidential election, on the other hand, would be a much stronger indicator of how the people truly feel.
I would like you to offer a permalink that includes links to your sources.
I found it easier to just ask Grok - again.
Key Polls Showing Ukrainian Opposition to a Russian Victory Several recent and historical polls from reputable Ukrainian and international organizations demonstrate that a majority of Ukrainians oppose outcomes that would allow Russia to "win" the war—typically defined as rejecting major territorial concessions, demilitarization, or neutrality without strong security guarantees. This sentiment has softened slightly due to war fatigue, with growing support for negotiations, but only under terms that preserve Ukraine's sovereignty and future security (e.g., EU/NATO paths and frozen front lines without formal recognition of occupations). Below are the most relevant polls, focusing on 2023–2025 data, with key findings on attitudes toward concessions, continuing the fight, and rejecting Russian-favored terms. Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) Poll - December 2025Dates: November 26 to December 13, 2025.
Key Findings: 75% of Ukrainians categorically reject a "Russian" peace plan that would involve officially recognizing occupied territories (e.g., Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, and parts of Kherson/Zaporizhzhia) as Russian, reducing the Ukrainian army, lifting sanctions on Russia, and abandoning NATO aspirations—outcomes that would effectively constitute a Russian victory. Only 17% would support such a plan. Meanwhile, 72% approve a "Europe and Ukraine" plan that freezes the front line without formal recognition of occupations, includes EU accession, and provides Western security guarantees. 63% are ready to continue fighting "as long as necessary," up slightly from prior polls, indicating resilience against surrender.
kiis.com.ua +1
Sample and Methodology: 547 adult respondents (aged 18+) in government-controlled territories, via computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) with random mobile number generation and statistical weighting. Excludes occupied areas and post-2022 emigrants, but includes some internally displaced persons.
KIIS Poll - September 2025 Dates: September 2025 (exact dates not specified in reports).
Key Findings: 76% firmly reject Russia's proposed "peace" plan (similar to the December version, including territorial cessions and military restrictions), with only 17% willing to support it. This reinforces consistent opposition to letting Russia dictate terms that would claim victory.
facebook.com +1
KIIS Poll - February/March 2025Dates: February to March 2025.
Key Findings: 50% oppose territorial concessions for quick peace and independence (down from higher figures in prior years, with 39% supporting), but 68% favor continuing military efforts to liberate all territories, including Crimea, even if it prolongs the war and reduces Western aid. 82% believe Ukraine should keep fighting without U.S. support, showing strong resistance to a Russian win. 60% are ready to endure the war "as long as necessary."
tandfonline.com
Sample and Methodology: Telephone survey in government-controlled territories (sample size not detailed in available reports, but typical for KIIS is ~1,000–2,000).
Gallup Poll - July 2025Dates: Early July 2025.
Key Findings: While 69% favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible (up from 22% in 2022), this does not equate to accepting a Russian victory—cross-referenced with KIIS data, it reflects fatigue but paired with rejection of concessions. Only 24% support fighting until full victory, a drop from 73% in 2022, but the poll highlights broad demographic consensus against prolonged conflict without implying surrender.
news.gallup.com
Sample and Methodology: Part of Gallup's World Poll; exact sample not specified, but typically ~1,000 adults via face-to-face or phone interviews in accessible areas.
Earlier KIIS Polls (2023 Context for Trends)Dates: May/June 2023 and November/December 2023.
Key Findings: 87% opposed territorial concessions for peace in May/June 2023 (support at 5%). In November/December 2023, 84% said returning all territories is essential for victory. These show historically high resistance to Russian wins, though support has dipped amid ongoing hardships.
tandfonline.com
These polls are corroborated by others, such as those from the Sociological Group "Rating" (e.g., November 2023), which track similar attitudes toward international unions and peace paths without major concessions.
tandfonline.com
Why Should We Believe These Polls?These results come from established, independent polling organizations with transparent methodologies, making them credible despite wartime challenges (e.g., inability to poll occupied territories, which represent ~18% of Ukraine and might skew more pro-Russian if included). Here's why they're reliable: Independence and Funding: KIIS (founded in 1992) is a non-governmental institute funded by international grants (e.g., from USAID, EU projects) and client commissions, not directly by the Ukrainian government, reducing bias. It conducts polls on its own initiative and publishes full methodologies. Gallup, a U.S.-based global pollster since 1935, uses standardized, non-partisan methods and has polled Ukraine consistently since 2006, often for its World Poll series.
kiis.com.ua +3
Methodology and Rigor: All use random sampling (e.g., mobile numbers for KIIS CATI) with statistical weighting to represent demographics. Sample sizes (500–2,000) yield margins of error around 3–6%, typical for national polls. KIIS notes wartime deviations (e.g., higher refusals) but adjusts via design effects (1.3 in December 2025). Gallup employs mixed-mode (phone/face-to-face) for accessibility. Results are consistent across polls, with trends tracked over time (e.g., slight shifts due to fatigue but stable rejection of concessions).
kiis.com.ua +3
Transparency and Cross-Validation: Full reports are publicly available (e.g., on KIIS website), including raw data questions. Findings align across sources—e.g., Reuters reports KIIS data without alteration—and with international observers like the Council on Foreign Relations or academic analyses. No major scandals or biases have discredited these orgs; KIIS, for instance, accurately predicted election outcomes pre-war.
kiis.com.ua +2
Caveats for Balance: Polls exclude occupied areas and emigrants (~6–7 million), potentially underrepresenting war-weary or pro-Russian views. However, KIIS includes IDPs from those regions, and results remain highly representative of controlled Ukraine (82% of pre-war population). Declining trust in Western partners (e.g., 21% trust U.S. in December 2025) suggests respondents aren't overly optimistic or biased toward pro-war propaganda.
kiis.com.ua +1
This iteration added a couple of extra polls.
Spin away.Try again... not manipulated AI answers, or ones based on "547" people polled that are supposed to represent all of Ukraine.
Here is something for you:
Tulsi Gabbard At TPUSA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FR-N5K_M_k
And here are some real links, not manipulated AI answers:
Most Ukrainians now want an end to the war
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai … .adword.pd
Ukraine Russia
Poll: Over 50% of Ukrainians want to end the war
52% of those who want a negotiated peace also support territorial concessions
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukrai … o-end-war/
Polls Show Ukrainians Increasingly Want End to War
https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/poll … sias-termsI would suggest you read your own "proof". For, save for the US traitor Gabbard, you posted what I did which says - Ukrainians will not accept surrender. The majority want a negotiated peace that DOES NOT give up any Ukrainian territory including the Crimea.
"they need a presidential election"
I'm tired of hearing this. It displays a special lack of comprehension of reality.
It is in the Ukraine constitution that when the country is at war elections are halted until the end of the conflict. Why would anyone expect the people of Ukraine to go against their own constitution? This is arrogance. It is ignorant.
'My opinion leads me to believe we really have no idea what the people of Ukraine feel'
Really? I'll tell you what the people of Ukraine feel. I know this because I have many friends and relatives in Ukraine I speak with regularly. I read the newspapers and watch the Ukrainian new. After four years of war and massive destruction of their country and their people. Tired and scared yet determined. They know if they don't stop russia now they will have to deal with being a russian state. They lived under soviet rule before and I can tell you it is not pleasant. I visited there when it was a part of the USSR. I could write quite a bit about it. Americans don't understand this. They have no idea what Ukraine experienced under the USSR.
Here, read about Holodomor then imagine fighting a country that did that to your people.
Holodomor
https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-geno … /holodomorYou are falling on deaf ears and blind eyes - it doesn't fit their narrative.
Mike, my apologies, I wasn’t aware of Ukraine’s Constitution. I was sharing my view with Eco that this kind of election might offer a clearer picture of what the majority of people are feeling. I’ll be honest, I’m leery of polls altogether; that’s my opinion.
I understand that you have a different perception than I do, given that you’re Ukrainian, have family and friends there, and draw from sources beyond U.S. media. I’m aware of the horrific and very long history Ukraine has with Russia.
With that in mind, I’m going to step away from the conversation. I feel my views are rooted in my perspective as an American citizen and may be unnecessary, and possibly hurtful to you, for very understandable reasons. My only true narrative is peace.
The Ukrainian people are in my daily prayers.
Merry Christmas, Mike. I know this season is hard with so much uncertainty back home. Wishing peace and safety for you and your loved ones.Shar,
Thanks, I know I'm too close to be objective.
I don't think war is objective. It is very simple. You win or you lose.
Merry Christmas to you.
З Різдвом Христовим та новим роком - This is Merry Christmas and Happy New Year in Ukrainian.
It sounds like "Riz-da-vom-chris-tovem - E - novem - rokum."
"Because that is what the people are saying, obviously. That is what i shared with you. Because it doesn't fit your narrative you seem to choose to ignore it." ECO
Can you quote "the people"?
I have no way of knowing what the citizens of Ukraine are thinking or feeling. I was sharing my own perspective on the war, not speculating about the views of the Ukrainian people. I wouldn’t presume to know. Your posts, however, seem to suggest that you do know what they feel and think, and that you are using that assumption to support your narrative.
Would you be so open to capitulation as a remedy if this country were attacked in the same way? Or would you see your freedom and autonomy as important enough to fight to the last breath?
Interesting, when I read the account of why the Japanese shelved the idea of attacking the US mainland when discussed by Yamamoto in 1942, they concluded that they would not succeed because of the 2nd amendment there would be a sniper behind every bush.Cred, I understand the emotional appeal behind “fight to the last breath,” but the question can’t be answered honestly without weighing realities. Every nation has to assess its capacity, population size, military strength, economic durability, and whether the war is even winnable.
If my country were being attacked by a vastly larger power with a massive army, deep financial reserves, and the ability to sustain a prolonged fight, I wouldn’t make decisions based only on emotion or slogans about freedom. I would weigh the destruction of my nation, the death toll, and whether continuing the war made survival impossible.
Capitulation isn’t a “remedy,” but neither is sacrificing a nation simply to avoid reconsidering strategy. There is a difference between bravery and refusing to acknowledge mathematics, logistics, and reality.
I see the point you’re making, and national spirit matters, but without facts, resources, and a viable path to victory, emotion alone doesn’t save lives or a nation.
As for Yamamoto’s comment, yes, deterrence matters. But deterrence works before a war starts. Once the war is already destroying your country, the calculus shifts from “fight forever” to “preserve what’s left so the nation still exists.”
Survival isn’t surrender—it’s strategy.
And I’ll add this, I haven’t approached this war with a static opinion. My views have changed year by year as the facts on the ground have changed. At this point, I don’t see a feasible path for Ukraine to outright win militarily. I still hope they can pressure Putin into negotiating an end to the killing, but he has shown no willingness to return any of the territory Russia seized.
It’s hard to ignore Ukraine’s long and tragic history with Russian aggression. That history matters, but so do present-day realities.
I must take a moment to say -------- Merry Christmas!!!!Well, Sharlee, I am not particularly impressed with the so called Russian advantage. How is that a superpower like Russia cannot subdue so small a nation that is on its doorstep? I am not so quick to write the Ukraines’ obituary quite yet. Seems to me that if Ukraine were so vulnerable, its defeat would have occurred months ago, NATO or no NATO. Ukraine has some “secret sauce” that has allowed to beat what we all thought were overwhelming odds against it.
I would fight for my life rather than submit to being a slave. Sharlee, Putin want to return Ukraine to nothing but a colony, an independent nation in name only. People are going resist becoming a vassal state. I would fight to the last fiber of my being to keep tyrannical forces from taking away my freedom.
BTW, Merry Christmas and a prosperous “26 for you.
Credence - I think a more appropriate analogy was what Shar would recommend when Washington was on his last legs, as she says Ukraine is today, in our revolutionary war. Based on the current posts, by guess is she would have surrendered to the British.
Fortunately for us, the French didn't give up like we are for Ukraine.A good analogy, we could not have prevailed against a stronger enemy while nursing defeatism. Russia has its Achilles heel otherwise this affair would not have lasted going on 4 years.
They are NOT fighting for their freedom...
They are fighting for a corrupt/criminal government that wants to continue the war to take back Crimea... which seceded... which never wanted and still does not want to be part of Ukraine.
And now... because of the hubris and idiotic decisions back in 2021 made by the likes of Zelensky, the Biden Administration, those pulling strings in the UK... millions have died and suffered... and more territory has been lost.
The lost territory is looking much like a Political map:
A good source to see the political divide (CNN... so you must trust it):
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/02 … e-divided/
So, you can flip the script and say Russia is supporting those parts/people that are fighting for their freedom from Ukraine, freedom from persecution by the other half of Ukraine... and we are supporting the oppressors and aggressors... those who despise Russians.
Its all about perspective... and then there is the reality, the one that ALWAYS existed in this war.
Crimea is not being stripped from the Russian Republic unless Russia itself is militarily defeated... IN Russia. That requires the US/UK to do it, Ukraine cannot do that itself... never could... never will.
Whether you want to call this our latest Vietnam... or Iraq... same results, millions die and suffer... a nation is destroyed needing to be rebuilt.
The simplistic return back to "if this was your country..." is BS in this situation.
Ukraine has been used in a game of politics and power, and millions have suffered because the US/UK injected themselves into Ukrainian politics.
From 2014 to 2021 Russia did not invade Ukraine... back in 2014 that was the time to do it, or 2015, when Ukraine didn't have a US/UK armed and trained force like it did in 2021.
Crimea seceded (2014) when Ukraine did NOT even have a government to speak of, there was a revolution where the elected government was overthrown!
Crimeans said F that... they had wanted to get free from Ukraine since the day we were given to it back in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev.
So... a much better analogy would be... if a delusional President like Biden, for an example, one day gave Texas to Mexico... and then Mexico fell apart and Texas petitioned to return to the USA and get free from Mexico. Would you be OK with that?
Because that is what happened. Crimeans wanted to be free from Ukraine and there is a LONG history... from the day that Nikita gave it over... that they tried to get free from Ukraine.
Crimea is filled with Russians... has been for a long time, so has the Donbas region... the division within and history of Ukraine is much more complex than a simple "if Russia was doing it to us... would you be OK with that?" that is so simplistic it borders on wantonly ignorant and baiting.
The Day Crimea Rejoined Russia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqHeZUS9_EY
Meet the Crimeans Who Voted to Join Russia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1v_lu6qcyk
A History Of Crimea In Five Minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSyoJYchO4YI'll say it before Mike does - Sorry Ken, we all know, except you it seems, that the world you describe is pure delusion.
Territorial Cessions: Ukraine must recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea (annexed in 2014) and fully withdraw its forces from the four eastern and southern regions that Russia claims to have annexed (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson). This includes parts of the Donbas region that Russian forces do not fully control.
—-
In your analogy, Texas belongs to Mexico as part of its geographic designation, secession is a concept that was settled here 160 years ago. Do we deny other countries a right to maintain its territorial integrity? There is the balance between maintaining the right to self determination, but secession or outright annexation of a territory belonging to another country is the bridge too far. Is this not the sort of stuff that you recommend in seizing Greenland against the will of their residents?
——
Neutrality and No NATO Membership: Ukraine must officially renounce its ambition to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and maintain a neutral status.
"Demilitarization" and "Denazification": Russia has demanded the "de-militarisation" and "de-Nazification" of Ukraine, terms which are vaguely defined but imply a reduction in Ukraine's military capabilities and a change in its political landscape.
Security Guarantees: Russia seeks a written pledge from Western leaders to halt NATO's eastward expansion and return NATO's military infrastructure to its 1997 positions.
Protection for Russian Speakers: Demands also include provisions for the protection of Russian speakers in Ukraine.
Legitimacy of Ukrainian Government: Putin has questioned the legitimacy of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and has demanded elections as part of peace talks, including voting arrangements for Ukrainian citizens residing in Russia.
Much of Putin’s complaint sounds a lot like Hitlers excuse to attack the Sudenland in 1938 as the territorial part of Czechoslovakia.
I saw the videos, even with the territorial concessions, what does denazification mean? A change in military capabilities and political inclinations? There are a lot of threats to Ukrainian sovereignty that is made from Russian demands. If I were a Ukrainian, I would be wary of any demand to disarm unilaterally and trust Putin to end hostilities in return.His Texas analogy has a major flaw in it. To be a "realistic" analogy, Mexico would have had to invade the US and taken Texas away from us. That is what happened in Crimea.
His fantastical rendition of Crimea asking Russian to invade them is simply Russian Propaganda and nothing more.
Credence - do you have any doubt in your mind that Ken would be advocating for Washington to surrender to the Brits?Sad really...
No... as I just noted a few posts above, so people would know the history, Nikita gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, the people of Crimea had no say, and constantly tried to get free from Ukraine... please work on your reading comprehension, your arguments are getting nonsensical.While I won't return the insult - I will correct the record with the TRUTH.
The 1954 transfer of Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR was indeed initiated under Nikita Khrushchev's leadership as First Secretary, but it wasn't a personal "gift" or arbitrary decision—it was a formal decree by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet for practical economic and administrative reasons, including Crimea's heavy reliance on Ukraine for infrastructure like water, power, and transportation via the North Crimean Canal.
wilsoncenter.org +4
At the time, this was an internal Soviet adjustment with minimal controversy, as borders between republics were largely symbolic within the USSR.
ukraineworld.org
While it's true that Crimeans had "no say" in 1954—no referendum was held—that's because the Soviet system was authoritarian and didn't involve public input on such matters; this wasn't unique to Crimea but standard for all administrative changes under Stalin and Khrushchev.
iccrimea.org +1
However, Crimeans did have a direct say post-Soviet dissolution: In the January 1991 referendum, over 94% voted to restore Crimea's autonomy as an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within Ukraine, affirming their place in the Ukrainian SSR just before independence.
en.wikipedia.org +3
Later that year, in Ukraine's December 1991 independence referendum, 54% of Crimean voters supported Ukraine's independence from the USSR, effectively choosing to remain part of an independent Ukraine.
iwm.org.uk +2
The claim that Crimeans "constantly tried to get free from Ukraine" is an exaggeration. There were tensions in the early 1990s, including a pro-Russian separatist movement that led to the election of Yuriy Meshkov as Crimean president in 1994, who pushed for closer ties with Russia and a failed independence referendum.
iccrimea.org +1
However, this was short-lived: Ukraine abolished the presidency in 1995, and by 1998, a new constitution granted Crimea broad autonomy within Ukraine, resolving the crisis without secession.
iccrimea.org +1
No major separatist attempts followed until Russia's military invasion in 2014.
iwm.org.uk +1
Pre-2014 public opinion polls in Crimea showed mixed sentiments but no overwhelming desire for secession: For instance, a February 2014 Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) poll found only 41% supported joining Russia, while earlier surveys (e.g., 33% in 2013) were even lower.
fivethirtyeight.com +2
A broader May 2014 Pew Research poll across Ukraine (including Crimea) found 77% wanted the country to remain united, with only 14% supporting regional secession.
pewresearch.org
The 2014 "referendum" under Russian occupation—claiming 97% support for annexation—is widely regarded as illegitimate due to coercion, lack of international observers, and manipulation, not reflecting genuine pre-invasion sentiment.
en.wikipedia.org +2
If anything, the history shows Crimeans largely accepted and integrated into Ukraine until external interference.
You see, Facts Do Matter.
Deleted
I think what Putin is asking for is a bit much, that is clear.
I don't know if that is part of the negotiation tactics, so he concedes some of those demands while getting others.
It's no more absurd IMO than Zelensky/Ukraine demanding all territory back, including Crimea, that Russia occupies or in the case of Crimea, accepted into the Russian Republic back in 2014.
As for the Texas analogy... Crimea was part of Russia... Nikita made it part of Ukraine in 1954, something the people of Crimea were not happy about, but those were the USSR days and they were all part of the same regime.
Multiple times since 1954 Crimea held elections, made demands, made threats, to get their independence or to rejoin Russia.
With the collapse/overthrow of the government in 2014... Crimea took that opportunity to hold elections and secede from a non-elected government in Ukraine.
If the US/UK had respected that election and secession, this conflict likely would never had happened, and what conflict there was, if any, would have been over the Donbas secession efforts, which were ongoing from 2014 to 2021.
One should be honest about the history, and perception/positions of the other side... to get a balanced idea of what is happening, unless your goal is to simply have the war continue... which is the sick and twisted hopes of people like Lindsey Graham and Victoria Nuland, that openly express their hatred for Russians and desire to see as many of them killed as possible."Multiple times since 1954 Crimea held elections, made demands, made threats, to get their independence or to rejoin Russia."
What a big bunch of absolute nonsense! You need to stop making stuff up. It says many bad things about you.
Guess what? Before the 2014 invasion of Crimea is was known as the Autonomous territory. They had their own government, etc. If at ANY time they wanted to join russia...they could have done it.
Ever spoke with someone from Crimea? Ever visited Crimea? It would be enlightening for you.
The reality is that they didn't want such a thing.
You have no idea what russia did to Crimea. In 1954 it's major population was the Tartars. Prior to this russia did what russia always does when they control a territory. They shipped the Tartars out and moved russians in. That is what they've been doing since 2014.
You really need to get your facts straight and not just throw out russian propaganda.Sure Mike,
After Crimea Votes to Secede, How Will United States and Russia Handle Gravest Crisis Since Cold War?
https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/201 … ar?lang=en
Crimea’s history of referendums
https://mondediplo.com/2025/07/10crimea-referendums
Crimean History, Status, and Referendum
https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014/03/crime … eferendum/
Crimea’s Separation from Ukraine: An Analysis of the Right to Self-Determination and (Remedial) Secession in International Law | Netherlands International Law Review
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 … utm_mediumThe TRUTH is the Truth and yours is Russian Propaganda.
Ken,
The articles you provided disprove this.
"Multiple times since 1954 Crimea held elections, made demands, made threats, to get their independence or to rejoin Russia."
Yes, in 1991 there was a vote and a slim majority in Crimea voted to stay with Ukraine. Even if it is slim, it is still a majority.
The vote in Crimean 2014 in considered illegitimate by the majority of countries in the world.
Why the Crimean Referendum Is Illegitimate
https://www.cfr.org/interview/why-crime … legitimate
You really need to knock it off about this belief that Crimea wants to be part of russia. There is polling that I've shared on this forum that shows the majority of people in Crimea want to stay with Ukraine. They preferred to be an autonomous territory.
Were Crimeans really pro-Russian before annexation?
How did Crimea’s residents feel before the war?
My research shows that identity in Crimea was far more complex than a region with a Russian, or pro-Russian, majority. Few in Crimea identified as pro-Russian nationalists. In fact, only those I interviewed within pro-Russian parties and movements identified as such. Instead, many identified as ethnically Russian, but with few cultural or political ties to Russia. Many others identified as between Ukraine and Russia: as Crimean. Meanwhile, many younger people did not identify, ethnically, even as Russian speakers, rather they identified as Ukrainian citizens.
My research shows that it is likely that Crimea was not passportised by Russia prior to annexation because Crimea’s residents viewed Russian citizenship as inaccessible, undesirable, illegitimate, and illegal.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research … annexation
I would also like to point out that I watch Ukrainian Television on the internet. One station has a segment about the latest russian propaganda. I've seen their propaganda and then come here and seen you state it.
Do you have a connection to russia?My thought exactly. I have often wondered if his words come from a Russian bot - it has happened before.
"As for the Texas analogy... Crimea was part of Russia... Nikita made it part of Ukraine in 1954, something the people of Crimea were not happy about, but those were the USSR days and they were all part of the same regime." - SEE MY POST ABOVE FOR THE TRUTH about Crimea
Like any war, we all like to see hostilities end, but at what price. What would government under Putin, and let us admit that under Putin’s peace terms Ukraine will be reduced to a colony
Would life under a Putin government be worse than the continued war and death involved to preclude that possibility?
The Ukrainian government is not likely to agree to that “bit much”.Cred,
Ukraine lived under russian authority for decades.
That is why they fight so hard to be free from them.
They will fight for this freedom for as long as it takes.
I hope it doesn't take that long.
The America First National Security Strategy — through the eyes of 'We the People'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ … r-AA1SAqaFWhile I didn't work on the National Security Strategy, I did work on bits and pieces of the National Defense Strategy. Frankly, I am embarrassed that Trump is turning over 3/4 of the world to Russia and China.
Trump's NSS reads like a surrender document.Why does that not surprise me...
With 'friends' like you having anything to do with the NDS, at any time in our past, who needs enemies... we did far more harm to ourselves (national debt, global distrust for America today) than we did making the world a better place in the past 30+ years...
Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine... every single one, the people are MUCH worse off for our interference than they were before we targeted them... the PEOPLE have suffered tremendously wherever we have interfered... if that's your idea of supporting Democracy I can see why you think Biden was the best President we have had in 85 years.
"Justice Department says it redacted faces of all women photographed with Epstein, acknowledging possible “over-redaction”"
Ya Think?
Related Discussions
- 891
What to do About Russia and Ukraine?
by Scott Belford 2 months ago
The consequences of how this aggression by Putin unfolds are enormous. The worst, of course, is the possibility of nuclear war. The best (which would be negatively consequential to Putin) is that Russia has an epiphany and removes its troops from the Ukrainian border. Any move at...
- 55
Russian missiles cross into NATO member Poland, kill 2 senior US intel
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
It looks like the war is spreading.Russian missiles cross into NATO member Poland, kill 2: senior US intelligence officialBiden has promised to defend 'every inch' of NATO territoryBy Liz Friden , Caitlin McFall | Fox News Russian missiles flew over NATO territory and killed two people in Poland on...
- 32
NATO And The Soviet Union
by Sharlee 3 years ago
NATO serves as a political and military alliance for its 29 member states spanning Europe and North America. Founded in 1949 to provide collective defense against the Soviet Union, the alliance seeks to balance Russian power and influence.Your thoughts, how do you think they are doing on their...
- 41
Ukraine Accepts U.S. Ceasefire Deal Awaiting Russia’s Response
by Sharlee 8 months ago
Ukraine has agreed to a deal put forward by the Trump administration during a meeting in Saudi Arabia, marking a big step toward securing a ceasefire and potentially ending the war with Russia. (Sratement from President Zelensky posted on X --- ...
- 17
BTW the Ukraine war just Escalated, again
by Ken Burgess 17 months ago
Ukraine’s Invasion of Russia Could Bring a Quicker End to the Warhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/09/ku … otiations/Ukraine Changed the Course of the War with KURSK Offensivehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAPs6V5Nv_AWhat will be the response... what will Russia do now that the war is in...
- 34
Biden says Putin a killer, will pay a price for election interference
by PrettyPanther 4 years ago
https://www.cnbc.comPresident Joe Biden says he believes Russian leader Vladimir Putin is a killer with no soul.Biden vowed that Putin soon “will pay a price” for interfering in the 2020 U.S. presidential election and trying to boost the reelection chances of then-President Donald Trump.Trump for...