What to do About Russia and Ukraine?
I fail to see the logic in the Biden administration opposing transferring the MIGs to Ukraine (assuming they are opposed). I can see why it wouldn't be a good idea to transfer them to a US airbase first, like Poland wanted to do. But I feel there should be no objection (assuming there is) to Poland transferring them if they wan to.
Our analysts say that Ukraine can't really utilize them, but from where I sit, who cares.
As to air defense system, we should be giving them as much as they can handle of all types. If they need training, do it covertly.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … e33b19f684Back on to Ukraine.
I yesterday a map that had an unusual feature, an apparent retreat by Russian forces. I follow the attached analysis about the war in Ukraine (I guess some will call it opinions, lol) that include maps of their best estimate of where the front lines are.
One area of interest is a drive to the northwest of Mykolaiv along the Pivdennyi Buh River that appeared on several maps prior to the one produced on March18. On the latest map, which reflects Ukrainian counter-attacks in that region, that drive toward Voznesenski is missing.
Here is one of the "opinion" pieces I use as my source.
https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysi … ct-updatesHere is the problem with those who try to minimize or pass-off as so-called "opinion" (which often are eye-witness accounts) reports by those close to Trump. For Trump groupies to be correct then the following would have to be substantially incorrect or purveyors of lies. Please keep in mind that many of these books report on the same things from different people which leads to a lot of corroboration. Keep in mind also that most of these books are written by Well Respected authors whose veracity is unquestioned or people close to Trump.
My point is they can't ALL be wrong as those who belong to the Trump (as in Jim Jones) cult.
- Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man by Mary L. Trump, Ph.D.
- Disloyal: A Memoir by Michael Cohen
- Rage by Bob Woodward
- Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff
- A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership by James Comey
- Fear: Trump in the White House by Bob Woodward
- A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America by By Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig
- A Warning by A Senior Trump Administration Official (Miles Taylor, the Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Homeland Security)
- I’ll Take Your Questions Now by Stephanie Grisham
- I Alone Can Fix It by Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker
- The Plague Year by Lawrence Wright
- Frankly, We Did Win This Election by Michael C. Bender
- Peril by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa
- The Madman Theory: Trump Takes On the World by Jim Sciutto
- The Mueller Report by The Washington Post
- The Reckoning by Mary L. Trump
- Dark Towers: Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump, and an Epic Trail of Destruction by David Enrich
- Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein
- The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President
If even one or two of the above paint a true portrait of Donald Trump, then it is clear the Trump cult is wrong and are supporting a madman.Why not start a new thread about all the books that have been written about Trump? This thread was created to converse about a current subject that is on many, Americans' minds. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine.
Damn. I was gonna post an article about what to do about Ukraine, but I see this is now a "Trump" thread so I will put it in the WW III thread
GAWhy not post it here? It is very clear Trump will be blamed for all future wars. TDS, It's past an obssesion its an addiction.
Trump ONLY gets blamed for what Trump did or failed to do, which is only fitting.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/19/politics … index.html
This analysis piece is very revealing. The Key Takeaways:
1. President Biden has "been developing the one he has with Vladimir Putin for two decades."
2. "Biden warned that Putin had dreams of rebuilding an authoritarian empire going all the way back to his days as a senator from Delaware."
3. One of Putin's strategies in meetings is to go off-topic and expound on immaterial things. Over the decades, Biden has learned to interrupt Putin when he does this and force the conversation back on track.
4. "Biden has deliberately worked with allies abroad to deny the Russian leader the one-on-one, Washington vs. Moscow dynamic that the President and his aides think Putin wants. "
5. Biden "has moved just as deliberately at home to depoliticize opposition to the invasion of Ukraine so that, even among Republicans, support for Putin has been forced to the fringes so that vilifying the Russian leader has become the one major area of bipartisan agreement since Biden took office. "
6. ""What Putin is trying to do is surround and encircle Kyiv," said Rep. Greg Meeks, a Democrat who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "What Biden is trying to do is have the whole world surround Putin.""
7. "Part of the lesson Biden took from being involved as vice president during Putin's 2014 invasion of Crimea was that NATO nations would need a much faster, more humiliating and more cohesive response ". Biden achieved this goal.
8. "Campaigning in 2020, Biden spoke about the confrontation he saw coming."
9. "Joe Biden," a senior administration official said, "has known Vladimir Putin for decades and knows exactly who he's dealing with."
10. ?Whenever they'd speak, Biden would interrupt Putin as the Russian President launched into complaints that American officials see as a whataboutism tactic designed to distract and undermine.
No, Biden would say, that's not what we're talking about, according to one senior administration official who has witnessed those conversations. "
11. ""President Putin can't use a lot of his common tricks with President Biden, like trying to confuse people by going down long historical tangents or meandering into the minutiae of policies because President Biden sees those tactics coming a mile away and doesn't take the bait."
12. "Biden has often told a story of a meeting with Putin at the Kremlin in 2011, when he was vice president, and telling the Russian leader, "I'm looking in your eyes and don't think you have a soul" -- a cutting response to President George W. Bush's infamous 2001 comments getting a sense of Putin's soul from looking him in the eye and finding him to be "very straightforward and trustworthy." "
13. "Biden thinks he wouldn't be able to keep the current levels of unity -- in the US and around the world -- if Putin sparked the kind of partisan breakdown that he did in 2014, when many top Republicans spoke admiringly of his strength and leadership largely because he was taking on Barack Obama."
14. "Even as Biden has ramped up what he's been saying about Putin, there's only so far he can go before tripping into the escalation he's so desperately trying to avoid.
"It hurts him to see the devastation in Ukraine, and it would be easy to say, 'That guy's evil and we're going after him and we're going to get him,'" Meeks said. "The question is: Is that the right thing? Because then you're talking about World War III.""Again this opinion piece from CNN. I could dispute each and every one of your 1 - 14. What a bunch of crap.
""What Putin is trying to do is surround and encircle Kyiv," said Rep. Greg Meeks, a Democrat who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "What Biden is trying to do is have the whole world surround Putin."
This is so laughable --- Putin is waging a war, he is killing innocent civilians, he is winning his war. Biden has shown the world he is fearful of Putin. Putin carries out his threats. The entire world will blame this old fool for the mess he and NATO created. World war III really, Putin holds all the cards, he has already put his nuclear team on high alert. He would use a Nuclear weapon if he needs to in my opinion. Today he used his brand new Hypersonic missile. WE don't have this superior missile. He said he would use it, and he did. And he will hold that little tidbit over the NATO to do whatever he pleases. I call it, we already toast and don't even know it. Well, some of us do. Biden needs to be removed, and quickly, America, as well as the world, is in trouble. We need someone that can be a strong leader Biden is not that guy IMO.
The CNN article is nothing but conjecture. My God, do you ever deal in anything but this kind of opinion article?
Biden has the entire world skrewed up, not to mention in danger.That shows you how partisan and overcome by BDS you are. Every one of those points are historical facts no matter how much you don't want them to be. Sorry.
Not one of the examples is historical. Not one. I realize you feel they are, this is odd in itself. My gosh, all are nothing but an author's view of a simply CNN article. I realize you believe them to be historical, just in no respect agree with you.
Not to be rude, But I will take a break from back and forth with you. It's Just getting weird.This is stupid. Are you saying "Biden warned that Putin had dreams of rebuilding an authoritarian empire going all the way back to his days as a senator from Delaware." never happened? That Biden NEVER warned that Putin had dreams ...? That the author LIED about that?
This is Biden's opinion. I have never actually found a quote from Putin making that statement. Have you? I could be wrong, and I do know Bidens has been saying that... Yes, it is an opinion, Biden's opinion. You seem to have a problem with facts and opinions. If Putin made that very statement, and Biden repeated it by quoting him, that's a fact. If Biden just thinks Putin had dreams of rebuilding an authoritarian empire, that's just his opinion.
And the author did not lie, he shared Biden's OPINION. He did not in any respect back up that opinion with a quote from Putin, only shared Biden's opinion.
The entire piece is an opinion article. Simply all conjecture.You deflected again. You claimed that Biden never " warned that Putin had dreams of rebuilding an authoritarian empire going all the way back to his days as a senator from Delaware." was a LIE. You said "Not one of the examples is historical. "
I asked if you were claiming that Biden NEVER warned that Putin .... You deflected by saying that was just Biden's opinion, which is totally beside the point.
So, let's get back to the veracity of your claim that "Not one of the examples is historical. ". Clearly, you are wrong. You were wrong on that one and the other 13."You claimed that Biden never " warned that Putin had dreams of rebuilding an authoritarian empire going all the way back to his days as a senator from Delaware."
What I said that I had not heard Biden make that statement and that if he did --- that would constitute as his own opinion. I could say the same, and that would be my opinion. Have you found a source with the quote? where Biden --- "warned that Putin had dreams of rebuilding an authoritarian empire going all the way back to his days as a senator from Delaware" ? I have not.
In regard to 13.
13. "Biden thinks he wouldn't be able to keep the current levels of unity -- in the US and around the world -- if Putin sparked the kind of partisan breakdown that he did in 2014, when many top Republicans spoke admiringly of his strength and leadership largely because he was taking on Barack Obama."
OK --- Does the words Biden thinks not indicate opinion?
You will need to point out a historical fact in your example. I see none. What would be historical about Republicans offering their individual opinion whether complimentary or negative? It would still constitute their individual opinions on the matter.
Do you feel anything on your this constitutes as factual? If so how? I see each example as opinion-oriented, pure conjecture the author used to write his opinion piece. It is clear you agree with his opinion of Biden. This is your choice, your right. The author sought to write his view in hopes that he could get his points across. Make people think... This is what journalists do, and should do. But, his article was not written to be factual, just sharing his view. Take number 1. ... This could be looked at as very possible. But for me, I have not witnessed Biden actually meeting with Putin more than a handful of times since he was VP and now president. So, I don't buy Biden has dealt with Putin for DECADES... To me this is hyperbolic. Just my view.
2, As I said not sure Biden ever said that... Hopefully, you have a source on 2.
But you get the point, I am not going through 12 more to prove my point. I think you appreciate and are more willing to buy into opinions than I am. I think this is a societal problem and is causing a great problem today in our society. Too many opinions, and facts.
I think you need to reread 1-14
1. President Biden has "been developing the one he has with Vladimir Putin for two decades."
2. "Biden warned that Putin had dreams of rebuilding an authoritarian empire going all the way back to his days as a senator from Delaware."
3. One of Putin's strategies in meetings is to go off-topic and expound on immaterial things. Over the decades, Biden has learned to interrupt Putin when he does this and force the conversation back on track.
4. "Biden has deliberately worked with allies abroad to deny the Russian leader the one-on-one, Washington vs. Moscow dynamic that the President and his aides think Putin wants. "
5. Biden "has moved just as deliberately at home to depoliticize opposition to the invasion of Ukraine so that, even among Republicans, support for Putin has been forced to the fringes so that vilifying the Russian leader has become the one major area of bipartisan agreement since Biden took office. "
6. "What Putin is trying to do is surround and encircle Kyiv," said Rep. Greg Meeks, a Democrat who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "What Biden is trying to do is have the whole world surround Putin."
7. "Part of the lesson Biden took from being involved as vice president during Putin's 2014 invasion of Crimea was that NATO nations would need a much faster, more humiliating and more cohesive response ". Biden achieved this goal.
8. "Campaigning in 2020, Biden spoke about the confrontation he saw coming."
9. "Joe Biden," a senior administration official said, "has known Vladimir Putin for decades and knows exactly who he's dealing with."
10. Whenever they'd speak, Biden would interrupt Putin as the Russian President launched into complaints that American officials see as a whataboutism tactic designed to distract and undermine.
No, Biden would say, that's not what we're talking about, according to one senior administration official who has witnessed those conversations. "
11. "President Putin can't use a lot of his common tricks with President Biden, like trying to confuse people by going down long historical tangents or meandering into the minutiae of policies because President Biden sees those tactics coming a mile away and doesn't take the bait."
12. "Biden has often told a story of a meeting with Putin at the Kremlin in 2011, when he was vice president, and telling the Russian leader, "I'm looking in your eyes and don't think you have a soul" -- a cutting response to President George W. Bush's infamous 2001 comments getting a sense of Putin's soul from looking him in the eye and finding him to be "very straightforward and trustworthy."
13. "Biden thinks he wouldn't be able to keep the current levels of unity -- in the US and around the world -- if Putin sparked the kind of partisan breakdown that he did in 2014, when many top Republicans spoke admiringly of his strength and leadership largely because he was taking on Barack Obama."
14. "Even as Biden has ramped up what he's been saying about Putin, there's only so far he can go before tripping into the escalation he's so desperately trying to avoid.
"It hurts him to see the devastation in Ukraine, and it would be easy to say, 'That guy's evil and we're going after him and we're going to get him,'" Meeks said. "The question is: Is that the right thing? Because then you're talking about World War III."?What I said that I had not heard Biden make that statement and that if he did - [i]NO, that is not what you said! Let me repeat what you really said " You said "Not one of the examples is historical. "
Let's focus on that, why don't we?
I am not going to play your "find me a quote" game, I don't have time. The author of the article is reputable and I have no reason to doubt he did his research. Neither should you. Hell, you believe anything Trump says and he is a PROVEN serial liar.
13 - The author was reporting the historical FACT as to what Biden was thinking at that point in time - a historical perspective. Are you questioning his veracity in reporting such a thing?I am saying nothing you have listed in your 1 -14 is historical.
And no I don't believe everything Trump has said. Much of what he also has shared is his opinion. You need to become acquainted with the definition of opinion. "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
What I said -- I said that I had not heard Biden make that statement and that if he did you did prove it. I also very clearly have said -- Not one of the examples is historical. "
MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
That shows you how partisan and overcome by BDS you are. Every one of those points are historical facts no matter how much you don't want them to be. Sorry.
My reply is -- Not one of the examples is historical. Not one. I realize you feel they are, this is odd in itself. My gosh, all are nothing but an author's view of a simply CNN article. I realize you believe them to be historical, just in no respect agree with you.Interesting. Your perception of what happened before today is certainly different from my perception of it. I see
1. Something that happened between 2002 and 2022 as being "historical". It certainly isn't present or future.
2. Something that happened between 2002 and 2009 as being "historical". It certainly isn't present or future.
3. Something that happened between 2002 and 2022 as being "historical". It certainly isn't present or future.
4 through 14. Something that happened between 2002 and 2022 as being "historical". It certainly isn't present or future.First, let me remind you that referred to your list of events historical. Your comment -- MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
"That shows you how partisan and overcome by BDS you are. Every one of those points are historical facts no matter how much you don't want them to be. Sorry."
I consider anything concerning history; concerning past events historical. I do not in any fashion feel Biden's opinions constitute fitting the definition of historical. his memories are his memories, his opinions are just opinions.
I consider Thoughts, opinions are not historical periods. Why do you feel they are? You continue to bring up number 14.
14. "Even as Biden has ramped up what he's been saying about Putin, there's only so far he can go before tripping into the escalation he's so desperately trying to avoid.
"It hurts him to see the devastation in Ukraine, and it would be easy to say, 'That guy's evil and we're going after him and we're going to get him,'" Meeks said. "The question is: Is that the right thing? Because then you're talking about World War III."
What in the world do you find historical about this statement? An opinion It's an opinion from Meeks. Are Meeks opinions all historical? Are yours. are mine?
In my view, none of the things you listed are historical events. All are opinion-oriented."I consider Thoughts, opinions are not historical periods. Why do you feel they are? " - Because they happened a long time ago? To me, that qualifies, to you, I guess it doesn't.
I most certainly did say -- What I said that I had not heard Biden make that statement and that if he did.
HERE IS THE PERMALINK WHERE I MADE THE STATEMENT.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4234814
YOUR COMMENT -- "You claimed that Biden never " warned that Putin had dreams of rebuilding an authoritarian empire going all the way back to his days as a senator from Delaware."
What I said that I had not heard Biden make that statement and that if he did --- that would constitute as his own opinion. I could say the same, and that would be my opinion. Have you found a source with the quote? where Biden --- "warned that Putin had dreams of rebuilding an authoritarian empire going all the way back to his days as a senator from Delaware" ? I have not.
I am done with this line of conversation, I have shared my view. take it or leave it. I have more than made my point. You're being argumentative due to not being able to defend your 1-14 crazy BS.as historical.
This makes me smile. The Ukrainians fighting the Russians with Russian equipment and shelling Russian soldiers with Russian missiles.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/20/europe/r … index.htmlChina providing humanitarian aid to ... UKRAINE!
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … ddc6afe363
Since this is CNN, some say this is just an opinion, not fact, lol.It is like I suspected Esoteric, China is not in a hurry to get knee deep into the mud with Russia over this mess....
I do NOT think anyone here on the HP forum would call the article you posted here an opinion piece, and here is why.
A great example of an article that is not opinion-oriented --- as you will or should note --- the author describes what will be provided, with a factual cost. He offered when the statement was made, Monday, the article is dated Monday, March 21, 2022. The author quotes a live human being, Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin, and stipulates when this statement was made --- said during a regular briefing.
No opinions pure facts. CNN rarely posts anything but conjecture in my opinion. They do pick and choose factual stories to report. But I would behave you to compare this article to your 1-14 article, which was an opinion article. This should help you decipher between the two.
"China will provide another batch of humanitarian aid, worth 10 million RMB ($1.57 million), to Ukraine “based on the development of the situation and actual needs,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Monday.
“China will continue to play a constructive role in promoting the de-escalation of the situation in Ukraine and is willing to make its own efforts to overcome the humanitarian crisis,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said during a regular briefing."But you do, because it was from CNN after all which all of your comments clearly make one believe that CNN is good for nothing else. Why should this one be any different?
To repeat -- I do NOT think anyone here on the HP forum would call the article you posted here an opinion piece, and here is why.
A great example of an article that is not opinion-oriented --- as you will or should note --- the author describes what will be provided, with a factual cost. He offered when the statement was made, Monday, (factual day) the article is dated Monday, March 21, 2022. The author quotes a live human being, Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin, and stipulates when this statement was made --- during a regular briefing. They substantiated their article with facts. Most of the times they do not.
Article --- "China will provide another batch of humanitarian aid, worth 10 million RMB ($1.57 million), to Ukraine “based on the development of the situation and actual needs,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Monday.
“China will continue to play a constructive role in promoting the de-escalation of the situation in Ukraine and is willing to make its own efforts to overcome the humanitarian crisis,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said during a regular briefing.
China provided its first batch of humanitarian assistance -- worth 5 million RMB ($790,000) -- to Ukraine earlier this month."
No "it appeases" no, I think or I feel"... Or he said this long ago, without a source...
As I have said before, we have different views on what consisted of fact or
opinion. I always like to see actual information, along with quotes that back up the information. I also can appreciate opinion pieces, they offer others' perspectives on a given subject. It's then up to me to agree with their view or dismiss it.Sharlee:
"Shame on you --- these soldiers were sent there under false pretense, and are human beings. You need to pull away from CNN, they are poison."
That is your opinion.
Fareed Zachariah of CNN Global Public Square always has notable geopolitical figures on his show. Last week, he had Volodymyr Zelenskyy on his show for a full hour. Is he poison?
I will take CNN's journalist over Fox News' Talk Jocks any day of the week. Granted, CNN also has panelist on their shows and they are voicing their opinions, but they also have real journalist as well.
I believe Your mission in life is to make Biden look bad, no matter what he does or says. Of course this is my opinion. But then there all your comments on all your forums to support my opinion.First, sadly you bring up my quote. It would have stayed dormant if you had not repeated it. At this point, I will post the comment I was responding to. It would seem you have changed it context into something about media. This was solely about a comment ECO mode, that I found "in my view" offensive. Offensive to me... My comment spoke on my behalf, no one else's.
MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
This makes me smile. The Ukrainians fighting the Russians with Russian equipment and shelling Russian soldiers with Russian missiles.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/20/europe/r … index.html
My comment --- Shame on you --- these soldiers were sent there under false pretense, and are human beings. You need to pull away from CNN, they are poison.
It is my view that CNN distorts the news to fi an agenda. Your point in regard to Fareed Zachariah's show is well-founded. If you have been following the conversation I am having with ECO in regard to Opinion versus facts --- you would see he posted a CNN article that was pretty much factual. I used that article to compare it to another opinion article he had posted in hopes of showing him the difference in articles. In regard to CNN, much of the time their pieces are opinion-oriented, I more enjoy factual pieces with sources. That is not to say I do not enjoy opinion pieces, because I do, but I take them with a grain of salt.
We very clearly have opposing ideologies, and clearly opposing views, when it comes to news outlets.
It well appears am in this majority when it comes to my opinion of CNN.
In regard to CNN -- CNN's Ratings Collapse Prime Time Down Nearly 70% In ... It would well appear many share my opinion of CNN.CNN's Ratings Collapse: Prime Time Down Nearly 70% In.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyell … 49ab026dda
I have posted my views of Biden, and I have also shared factual information on his policies I disagree with. I am always open to back and forth on my posts.
This is a political forum, I share my views, Some do not like my views, but that would be their problem as it's my problem when I disagree with theirs.
Not sure what you are referring to in regard to " But then there are all your comments on all your forums to support my opinion."?
Not sure what social media forum you refer to? I do not tweet, my Facebook is a forum where I do not discuss politics. The only place I would be discussing politics would be a political forum. So, which forum are you referring to?
It is clear you don't appreciate negative opinions in regard to Biden or his administration. This is unfortunate, and pretty unrealistic. I would venture to say, many other political forums are very much brutal in regards to sharing views in regard to Biden. I certainly am very much disappointed with Biden's job performance, and find him a weak ineffective, scary president. "The White House faces similarly concerning numbers related to economic recovery, with 58% disapproving, a 12-month high, per the ABC News/Ipsos " "56% disapprove of how he is handling the Russian crisis."Sharlee:
"It is my view that CNN distorts the news to fi an agenda. Your point in regard to Fareed Zachariah's show is well-founded. If you have been following the conversation I am having with ECO in regard to Opinion versus facts --- you would see he posted a CNN article that was pretty much factual. I used that article to compare it to another opinion article he had posted in hopes of showing him the difference in articles. In regard to CNN, much of the time their pieces are opinion-oriented, I more enjoy factual pieces with sources. That is not to say I do not enjoy opinion pieces, because I do, but I take them with a grain of salt."
That is your opinion and is not factual. Everything that you are quoting about polls are opinions. That's why they are called opinion polls. We all know that opinion polls are not accurate when it comes to elections. That's when the rubber hits the road. But I'm sure it makes you feel good and you can say Hooray for my side. I think they call that confirmation bias.
I know you like facts. So I'm doing you a favor. I think this is the article you are referring to in reference to ABC News/Ipsos " "56% disapprove of how he is handling the Russian crisis." It would be nice if you would post the link next time because it does show some favorable aspects of what Biden is doing as well.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/americans-rem … d=83409068Yes, polls are the opinions of those that participate in them, that is correct. As I said --- I more enjoy factual pieces with sources. That is not to say I do not enjoy opinion pieces, because I do, but I take them with a grain of salt."
Much of the time polls do tend to be correct in calling elections. Some polling takers are more accurate than others
As a rule, I do post links, I have been accused of posting to many sources by some, and some say my sources are not relevant. It seems a bit of a waste of time. I will be glad to post the source from the comment in question.
March 22, 2022 "Although Biden's overall rating is flat, Americans' approval of his handling of the coronavirus response (53%) and the situation with Russia (42%) has each risen six points over the past month. At the same time, approval of his handling of foreign affairs (43%) and the economy (36%) is not significantly different than in February"
https://news.gallup.com/poll/390953/bid … dling.aspx
March 22, 2022 - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden- … 022-03-22/
March 22, 2022 https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/ … opagnqapa/
March 22, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/ … ugh-russia
" It would seem you have changed it context into something about media." - MOST of your comment WAS about the media, especially your other favorite punching bag, CNN (one of the most respected news outlets in the business). So I can understand why Mike thought you were talking about media.
Of ALL the sad things happening in Ukraine, this has to be one of the saddest. Putin kills a four-time survivor of Nazi concentration camp.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/21/europe/b … index.htmlLatest developments from Ukraine:
"Russian forces continued to settle in for a protracted and stalemated conflict over the last 24 hours, with more reports emerging of Russian troops digging in and laying mines—indications that they have gone over to the defensive.
Ukrainian forces continued to conduct limited and effective counterattacks to relieve pressure on Kyiv, although the extent of those counterattacks is likely less than what some Ukrainian officials are claiming.
Russian efforts to mobilize additional forces to keep their offensive moving continue to be halting and limited.
Russian progress in taking Mariupol city remains slow and grinding.
Increasing Russian emphasis on using air, artillery, and rocket/missile bombardments of Ukrainian cities to offset forward offensive momentum raises the urgency of providing Ukraine with systems to defend against these attacks.
Key Takeaways
Russian forces continue to go over to the defensive, conducting restricted and localized ground attacks that make little progress.
Ukrainian forces are conducting limited and successful counterattacks around Kyiv to disrupt Russian operations to encircle the city (which has now become extremely unlikely) and relieve the pressure on the capital.
The Battle of Mariupol continues as a block-by-block struggle with fierce Ukrainian resistance and limited Russian gains.
Russia is likely struggling to obtain fresh combat power from Syria and elsewhere rapidly.What is wrong with Israel. Why are they providing comfort to a mass murderer??
More than one month into the conflict, Israel's Prime Minister has yet to openly condemn Russia, instead trying to balance a fine line between Israel's Western allies, including the United States, and its strategic relationship with the Kremlin.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/28/politics … index.htmlFailure to condemn is now "comforting" an enemy? Is that like a call to a peaceful demonstration is an insurrection?
Yes!
So is your second comment, the enemy in that case are those trying to overthrow our democracy, like Trump and gang.
We hand these nations so much in American aid, maybe we need to examine our alliances and their costs more carefully, Israel is a case in point.
This is just off the presses, Esoteric.
Is Trump a complete madman? How dare he speak to Putin over his vindictive politics in the face of this invasion. Who is it that keeps telling me that this a responsible person? I find him totally unfit for any office beyond local dog catcher.
What is this about?
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-asks-putin … p_catchallWouldn't it be ironic if Putin "dished dirt" on Trump instead, lol. I suspect there is a lot of it to "dish".
"Unfit for office"? We knew that before he got elected.
"Madman"? We learned that while he was in office.
I wouldn't trust a dog to him. He might try to turn it into a cat as he is trying to do with our democracy.
The UK slap sanctions on a guy named Brilet because he is also the deputy director of state-owned Rossiya media and is accused by the UK government of actively engaging in "propagating the Kremlin's disinformation about Russia's invasion of Ukraine."
Maybe we ought to take a page from the UK and consider Tucker Carlson for the same treatment for the same reason. FAKE FOX itself should be investigated because of their pro-Putin propaganda activities.Exactly how STUPID are the Russians??? I just read that after they occupied the Chernobyl destroyed nuclear power plant in late February, they started digging trenches in the nearby Red Forest. Guess what, they started dying from radiation poisoning and the troops rioted.
Russian troops have now abandoned Chernobyl with maybe a few rashish left (racist fascists).I had no idea, Esoteric, I heard that some people never left after the meltdown bsck in the 80s. Are the radiation level in the area so toxic as to still be lethal? No one warned these soldiers about the danger?
Radiation poisoning is among the most painful way to die.
This is worse than F-Troop.The area around Chernobyl was quite safe - UNLESS you disturb the top soil. When one does that, it releases the radioactive material back into the air for it to float around killing people again.
As i remember an old report on that place, the only people anywhere near the plant are the workers who monitor it. They live in a village quite a distance to the East. (which the Russians are also seemingly pulling out of.)
I remember that being reported the same day the Russians took over Chernobyl. BUT, like Trump Republicans, apparently they don't read MSM either, lol.
Was this the work of the Ukrainians or a Russian false flag operation. The linked video purportedly shows missiles striking a fuel depot in Belgorod, Russia. The Russians say it was two Ukrainian helicopters while the Ukrainians, at the moment, are saying they know nothing about it. Personally, I hope it is the former for it is about time the Russians get a taste of their own medicine.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 … dn-vpx.cnn
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … 85fb0f1009My Two Cents:
Modern history has shown that no one really wins in asymmetrical warfare. In WWII, the allies won because they used symmetrical warfare
The difference being in symmetrical warfare, like WWII, a military invades a country, by starting at one end and controlling the land mass and the people until the enemy no longer has the will to fight. In WWII, there were winners and losers.
In asymmetrical warfare, like Vietnam, Korea, and the Mid-east, wars were fought by trying to defeat pockets of resistance. The enemy may are may not wear uniforms. There are no clear winners or losers.
In the mid-east, there was one exception with Colin Powell using symmetrical warfare to remove Saddam Hussein from his invasion of Kuwait.
I think Putin will have a hard time occupying Ukraine, because he is using asymmetrical warfare to control the country. Of course, that is a negative for him, bur a positive for everyone else. More than likely, Putin will withdraw at some point, but there will be concessions made by both sides, with no real winners or losers, except for the Ukrainian people, who have already lost so much..This war can be different all other modern wars, save Korea, I guess. In both, the victim has the ability to strike back at the aggressor in their own territory.
I believe Ukraine was responsible for the attack on the fuel dump, and they need to do more of it.
I also think Putin has lost this war in almost all respects, save infrastructure and, possibly, total military failure (assuming he can hang on to Crimea. I don't think Ukraine will be able to inflict much in the way of infrastructure damage to Russia.
Economically, Russia will be destroyed for years to come. Politically, it will lose any influence it had to direct the course of events.
Militarily, they were shown to be a paper tiger and have been embarrassed beyond belief. The world now knows they are ineffective at fighting a conventional war. It will take decades, probably, to build back what the Ukrainians have destroyed, especially since they won't be able to afford to.
All they will have to keep themselves totally out of third-world or worse status are their nukes. They DID have the 11th largest economy, either just ahead or just behind Texas. There is no telling how far down they will go.
Ukraine, on the other hand, will eventually recover. Once they finished kicking Russia's butt, the world will come to it rescue in another important way, helping them rebuild the material things in Ukrainian life. They certainly won't need any help with their self-esteem. All of the flattened buildings will be rebuilt (as will their military). Ukrainians will be able to go back home to pick up the pieces, proud with the knowledge that, with the help of the West and many others, they persevered.
Here is a good summary of the impact of sanctions on the Russian economy. I don't think it says it in here, but inflation is at 20% and growing.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/01/economy/ … index.htmlSymbolic of the way things are going for Putin, the Ukrainian flag was raised again over Chernobyl.
To the West and Northwest of Kiev, the Ukrainian forces have pushed back hard against Russian forces. One incursion is within 11 miles of cutting off a huge swath of Russian troops that lie West of Irpin. Similar progress is being made East of Kiev as well.
One would hope that if Ukraine can push the enemy out of armillary range of Kiev, they can go on the defense and move forces to the East and South fronts.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … f4895d5228You're on top of this significantly. Curious . . . why is there rarely any news on the Dumbas region and Crimea?
I read a lot about the Donbas region. Just yesterday, the Ukrainians were kicked out of Izyum, but are putting up a good fight just South of that city. The defenders of Mariupol are still, amazingly, holding out. The Ukrainians are kicking butt South of Mykolaiv and are getting close to Kherson.
I just tweeted this out and am getting a great response.
HELP GET THE MESSAGE OUT to #Russians. If YOU speak #Russian, try "cold calling" to numbers in #Russia and telling anyone who answers what is happening in #Ukraine. This message deserves a lot of retweets.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/02/europe/c … index.htmlScott:
It appears Putin has put an air-tight bubble around his civilian population, by shutting off all news, except his propaganda and having his people living in fear of criticizing him.
Our sanctions could backfire if Putin blames the western world for the hardships it places on the Russian people. We need to be able to get them to understand he is the cause of their hardships.
He has essentially sealed off his country from any outside information. In the old days, they use to air-drop information leaflets that people could read the truth about what was going on.
Even with today's technology, it would be hard to pierce his air-tight bubble. Even with the cold calls, if people don't want to talk or listen it isn't going to help them understand. Hopefully, there will be more that understand than don't.
Does anybody want to hazard a guess as to when Trump and the Trump Republicans will join Putin in minimizing the massacres by the Russian in Ukraine.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/04/europe/r … index.htmlMy guess is that he will not, although it is possible he will deny any exaggerations or assumptions. That civilians were killed in urban warfare is expected, for instance, and not a war crime, although indiscriminate and intentional killing of civilians is.
(How many civilians were killed at Hiroshima or Dresden, in London air raids or the bombing of Glasbow for example)
We'll see who is right.Wilderness: The Nuremberg Trials and The Geneva Convention?
I am curious, do you thnik we killed those civilians in Hiroshima or Dresden for the fun of it like the Russian troops did or to end a war? I sense another false equivalency here..
Partly in reaction to Putin's war crimes in Ukraine, Biden stopped letting frozen US dollars to be used by Russia to pay its debt; putting even more pressure on Putin to end his aggression. Now Putin will have to choose between using the scarce dollars he does have access to to pay his debts and make it that much harder to fund his war or let Russia go into default.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/04/business … index.html
Speaking of Aggression. It seems there is an international Crime of Aggression (unprovoked war) and there is a push to charge Putin with that. It is much easier to make a case against Putin for this more serious charge than it will be for two other international Crimes of Genocide or War Crimes against Humanity. (The latter can be used against Russia's military commanders.)Another suggestion I heard yesterday that I could get behind is sending a NATO flotilla into the Black Sea.
That would require agreement from Turkey to allow foreign warships to pass through into the Sea. Nato or not, I wonder if they would do that.
Turkey’s government had said on Friday it was working to determine whether a state of war existed in the region. In wartime, Ankara can block some warships from countries involved in the conflict from accessing the Black Sea under the 1936 Montreux Convention.
That would mean Russian and Ukraine could be blocked and not NATO, I would think.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia … NGZLQsfWYgMaybe. Of course, the first shot fired by NATO puts the entire EU involved in the war.
The problem is that such agreements are always subject to interpretation (or simply ignored), and Turkey can pretty much do as it pleases as the passage is through their country. All they have to do is "interpret" the rules as to mean whatever they wish them to. They certainly would not be the first to do so.
The Bosporus strait has to be of enormous importance to Russia, and if I were Turkey I would be very, very careful about inserting myself into the fray.I wonder. Unless they are afraid Putin will nuke them, the Russian army has proven not up to the task of taking on someone more than half their size. To be successful, it seems, their foes need to be the size of Moldova or Georgia or Chechnya or Syrian civilians.
True. At the same time no country on earth has joined the fray. Perhaps we're [i]all afraid of Putin's nukes. With good reason, it seems, even though at this point he has not used them. Yet. If he actually loses this conflict it would not surprise me if he did.
He is crazy enough, that is for sure. To me the big question is will anyone carry out his orders? Remember, our military was very afraid of Trump pulling the same stunt and had made plans to thwart him.
I don't know. I see on the news that the Russian populace is falling back from him...and I see where they are celebrating him.
The problem may well be that, unlike Trump, Putin has almost total control over the country and the people. Trump could never simply order someone captured, tortured and killed; Putin can and does.According to this article, the sanctions are working, but they are having a negative impact on the Russian working class.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ru … li=BBnb7KzYes, that's what I mean. I've also seen what are reported as thousands that are leaving the country. But then the news shows large rallies cheering Putin and his actions.
What is the truth? With our media, who knows? Perhaps it's both.
But I hope that Lisin is not still in Russia; that he has physically left the country for now. It doesn't seem wise to criticize Putin while easily within his grasp.If you are speaking of the Right-wing so-called media., you are right, honesty and truth are hit and miss.
As to MSM, they are clearly to be believed for at least telling the truth. Most of the MSM are relatively unbiased in their journalism. Not so much with their opinions, but that is not news in any case.
I can't recall even one instance of a network or paper outright lying. Granted, a reporter here or there may have, but then, when caught, they are fired.
On Fox, they are given a raise.Scott: I like it, very good. It's all about sponsorship and viewership with Fox.
That is all very true. One must hope there are a few sane people between Putin and the Button.
I think I agree with what President Zelenskyy is right - if the UN fails to toss Russia out of the organization, then the UN has no reason to exist.
It was just said, and I agree, Putin is worse, much worse than ISIS ever thought about being.Russia kicked off the Human Rights council - it is about time. Now they need to kick them off of any other body they are able to.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/07/politics … index.htmlI wonder how the Putin Caucus - Trump, Gosar, Massie, Andy Biggs, Dan Bishop, Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn, Scott DesJarlais, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Glenn Grothman, Clay Higgins, Bill Posey, Chip Roy, and Tom Tiffany. - will minimize the fact that the Russian butchers knew what they were doing in exterminating Ukrainian civilians.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/07/europe/u … index.htmlI really hope everyone can agree that these are the most belligerent, destructive, divisive voices in politics.
I am afraid a few on this forum look up to them, which is really sad.
On a military note, what I haven't heard mentioned in the shift to the Eastern and Southern fronts, the Ukrainians now have the advantage of interior lines. They can move troops from one part of the battlefield to another much easier that the Russian butchers can. That helps mitigate the superior numbers Putin has.
Another thing going for them that has just become apparent is they dominate the drone skies. There army of armature drone operators (which used to be just a hobby to them, has become a major force multiplier!Just to show everybody how evenhanded and unbiased I am, I offer this opinion on Obama, one I fully agree with (which is disappointing to someone who I look up to as being a great president in so many other ways)
The author is a clear-eyed Republican, btw - a REAL Republican.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/opinions … index.htmlLatest updates:
* Russia is unlikely to be able to mass combat power for the fight in eastern Ukraine proportionate to the number of troops and battalion tactical groups it sends there.
* The Russian military continues to suffer from devastating morale, recruitment, and retention problems that seriously undermine its ability to fight effectively.
* The outcome of forthcoming Russian operations in eastern Ukraine remains very much in question.
* Ukrainian forces retain control of defensive positions in eastern and southwestern Mariupol, despite Russian claims to have captured most of the city.
* Russian forces along the Izyum-Slovyansk axis did not make any territorial gains in the last 24 hours.
* Ukrainian forces continued to repel daily Russian assaults in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts.
* Ukrainian counterattacks have likely taken further territory west of Kherson, threatening Russian control of the city.All of these are coming from outside media; from sources foreign to the Russian government.
Which to believe? Our media (and government) or that of Russia? Both are known to lie at the drop of a hat, telling us whatever they wish us to believe, and personally I don't believe either one. I do believe that both are intended, to give the appearance best for the government involved and are limited to information that will do that."both are known to lie at the drop of a hat, " So long as you are talking about the right-wing media (which is not much different from Russian propaganda), then I can agree with you. If you are not, then you Trumped as well.
And if you don't think CNN and the rest of the left wing media gives false stories then you must be blinded by TDS. They all tell false stories, partial stories, specific portions to give the listener/reader a false conclusion. Deliberately, to align with a political position.
"In prime time, Fox News finished the quarter with an average total audience of 2.554 million viewers, up 3% from 2021, according to ratings data compiled by Nielsen. MSNBC finished the quarter in second place with an average total audience of 1.205 million viewers—down 46%, while CNN finished third with an average total audience of less than a million viewers: 857,000 viewers, down a staggering 56% from 2021"
"Among viewers 25-54, the demographic group most valued by advertisers, FNC was first with 429,000 viewers (up 9% year-over-year), followed by CNN (232,000 viewers, down 56%) and MSNBC (149,000 viewers, down 59%)."
"Fox News’ The Five was the most-watched show in cable news for the quarter, which puts the show in the record books as the first show to air outside prime time to take first place in two consecutive quarters. The Five drew an average total audience of 3.676 million viewers. FNC swept the top five shows for the quarter, with The Five followed by Tucker Carlson Tonight (3.617 million viewers), Jesse Watters Primetime (3.124 million viewers), Hannity (3.057 million viewers) and Special Report with Bret Baier (2.72 million viewers)."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyell … d8bac56935
Just going from bad to worse.
I must say, Fox must be doing something right. Maybe viewers started to put two and two together. In my view, people lost trust in CNN and MSM"In prime time, Fox News finished the quarter with an average total audience of 2.554 million viewers, - What relevance does that have on whether they lie a lot or not? What if I told you the main Russian channel had 90% of the Russian audience, does that mean they tell the truth?
"
"Fox News’ The Five was the most-watched show in cable news for the quarter, " And all that means is that Trump Republicans don't watch anything else. On the other hand, everybody else splits their viewing among a dozen or more MSM outletsI just offered stats. I am not willing to go farther than my original thought -
"I must say, Fox, must be doing something right. Maybe viewers started to put two and two together. In my view, people lost trust in CNN and MSM"
I can honestly say I don't tune into CNN or MSM. I feel they manipulate the news, and are very much hyperbolic when verbally reporting the news. The jocks in my view are revolting. As are some on Fox.
I can't add anything more to my opinion. I think the Stats speak louder than my opinion.Sharlee:
"I can't add anything more to my opinion. I think the Stats speak louder than my opinion."
You just said you can't add anything more to your opinion and in the next sentence, you just added more to your opinion by using the phrase "I think", therefore it's still your opinion. That is called circular reasoning.
Circular Reasoning
A type of informal fallacy in which a conclusion is reached that is not materially different from something that was assumed as a premise of the argument. In other words, the argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. Circular reasoning is sometimes difficult to detect because the premise and conclusion are not articulated in precisely the same terms, obscuring the fact that they are really the same proposition. Another name for this is weasel wording.MSM is Main Stream Media.
Those stats don't speak to anything about whether the outlet tells a lot of lies or not.
Again, Fox has a lot viewers because it is basically the ONLY game in town for Trump Republicans (Real Republ9icans watch the other outlets as well).
As I have pointed out when you compare Fox JUST to CNN, you are comparing apples with oranges. A FAIR, UNBIASED comparison would be between the SUM of viewership of all right-wing outlets (of which Fox as by far the lion's share) and the SUM of all other outlets that people have to choose from.
Without that, all you have is proof that more people watch Fox as opposed to CNN.
So, as any statistician, including myself, will tell you, your comparison does not speak louder than anything.
While the right-wing propaganda outlets have been caught in many lies, I doubt you will find even one attributed to an MSM network. I am not counting the rare errant journalist who has been caught, but the network showing that as a general policy.
I am also not referring to the very occasional misreporting which, when pointed out, the MSM almost always admits to and corrects.
It is your extremely partisan bias that blinds you to the real truth.
That bias is responsible for you distributing Right-wing propaganda such as the claim that the MSM are as bad as Trump in telling the truth.And you will ignore/discount the continual efforts to slant news reporting according to political bias. The efforts to report only part of the story, the efforts to turn factual news into tear jerking reports, etc.
In my world such efforts are lies, plain and simple. They are efforts to convince a gullible public of something that is not true, and that is a lie. There are many, many ways to lie - it can be body language, use of loaded words, partial stories, misleading photos, etc. The key is that they are designed and intended to convince the listener/reader/watcher of something that is not true.
And all of MSM does it, not just the right. The left are masters at such use; presentation of information in such a manner as to give an impression that is false to fact.Wilderness: You are right. All one has to do is watch Putin and Trump. They are both masters of lie-craft. (My new word.)
"And you will ignore/discount the continual efforts to slant news reporting according to political bias. " - Yes, you are right, the Right-wing propaganda outlets do that a lot. As to MSM in general, you have offered no proof that what you say is true, you only give your highly biased opinion.
At least in terms of actual journalism, your opinions (since you offer no good examples), I find the MSM I consume to be fair, truthful, and relatively impartial.
I agree, most media has a right or left lean. I also feel that most media only give part of any issue or story. It's usually over simplistic and allowing for quick conclusions while ignoring the multitude of other variables that affect the issue. But honestly I think a lot of Americans don't have the attention span for more than a quick concise bit that tells them everything they think they need to know. In my opinion, most want a black/white, yes/no, my team/your team perspective. I think a lot of people don't want to hear any information that may have them considering or accepting a view that would be considered as the other side's.
The media reinforces the divisions in our society for those who choose to remain in a one- media bubble.I decided to look that up and see what I find. I went looking for the breakdown between the various print, radio, TV, etc first, but ran across this for social media instead. Since we are talking politics, I will report only on Red vs Blue.
What percent of a platform's users get their news from that platform:
Facebook: R - 44%; B - 52%
You Tube: R - 41%; 54%
Linkedin: R - 41%; 54%
Twitter, Tic Tok, Instagram, and the like: R - 23% to 33%; D - 61% to 74%
It is SAD to report that about 50% of Americans get their news from Social Media, at least sometimes. And it seems from above that the majority 2/3rds are left-leaning and 1/3rd right-leaning.
Why would ANYBODY get their news from social media?
That said, 68% get their news from TV, 50% from radio, and 32% from print (which sort of proves Faye's point)Faye: What we look at and listen to today are called shows and media. They are not called news. In most cases, they don't have real journalist on these shows. They have anchors and panelist who give their opinions based on what has been presented as news.
Those panelist are what drives our opinions and make us stay tuned to watch the commercials. The anchors all have earpieces and our being directed by producers and others in booths to make sure that we listen to the sponsors commercials. That's why it is called commercial television.
I come from the time when we had real newscasters who were real journalist, like Walter Cronkite and The Hunter/Brinkley Report. They would broadcast the news for one hour during what was called the News Hour. That's it, until the next day.
It all changed when Reagan removed the Fairness Doctrine. I try to watch David Muir's show it is 30 minutes, including commercials, but somehow he covers all the news of the day without having ill informed panelists.
I also try to watch Farred Zakaria's show. He always has notable guests, including foreign leaders, and noted analysts. He starts every show with: "This is my take." He wants you to know it is his opinion. I yearn for the days of Walter Cronkite and others who presented real news without all the BS we get today.
Putin's latest assault on Russia - he defaulted on the money he has borrowed from the rest of the world. Actually, it is a "selective" default because he wanted to pay in rubles instead of dollars as the loans require.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … index.htmlPutin pays an even greater price. How does he hide this from the public
Russian warship evacuated: Conflicting reports have emerged from the Russians and Ukrainians about an incident involving a Russian warship in the Black Sea. The Russian Defense Ministry claimed the Moskva was evacuated after a fire onboard detonated ammunition, seriously damaging the vessel, according to Russian state media. But Odesa state regional administrator Maxim Marchenko claimed Ukrainian forces hit the ship with "Neptune" missiles, causing serious damage to it.Which story will Russian people believe? That there was an accident forcing evacuation (from their government) or that it was damaged by enemy fire (from their enemies)?
I see big rallies celebrating Russia's involvement in the war - that is not stemming from foreign news sources decrying Russia's illegal war or war crimes. It comes from what Russia is telling their people.They will believe whatever Putin's propaganda machine tells them to believe. I suspect many of those rally attendees will be a the point of a gun or threat of arrest. The Russian people do not have an independent mind.
What should the West do when Putin shoots of a low-yield tactical nuke?
I still stand by what I felt in the first days of this war. he most likely will use a low-yield tactical nuke or Chemical weapons. And I don't think we have any cards to play due to this evil man will threaten Europe with nukes... I don't think the US wants millions of civilians killed. Putin will play the numbers game with lives. He will have the US more or less helpless.
I would think he will take Ukraine, and all we can hope is he
stops there.
I don't think we can afford to call his buff, he has that hypersonic weapon that can carry a nuke, and go undetected. We may have some very dark days ahead.Sharlee: Nuclear weapons, have a nasty side effect called fallout. I don't think that as crazy as Putin is he would poison the land that he wants back with nuclear radiation that lasts forever. Look at what happened at Chernobyl when he had his troops dig trenches around the complex. They all acquired radiation poisoning and that land can't be used forever.
To put it simply Putin is like a person holding a hand grenade with the pin still attached and saying if you come any closer, I will pull the pin, but will he? That question gives him the advantage he needs to continue his goal of taking back Ukraine.
This article puts it all in perspective for me.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … astrophic/OK, that is one view. Don't you think the end result will be world domination by Putin? If not, why not? Or don't you think he won't pull the same stunt with:
1. Baltic States
2. Hungary next
3. Followed by Moldavia
4. After that, Poland
5. Slovakia
6. Austria?" Don't you think the end result will be world domination by Putin? "
No, I think if he uses a nuke it will be to show the world he will use nuclear weapons, and I think if he uses a nuke, it will be in an area he has already left scorched earth. I don't think he is dumb enough to go much further due to he will fear a huge form of retaliation from NATO.
Down the road, he may try to move to other countries. He wants
Ukraine for economic reasons in my view, and thought it would be an easy mark. At this point he seems determine to continue with his war.Absolute nonsense.
Putin can't even take and hold a small portion of the Ukraine.
Zelenskyy recently asked President Biden to put Russia on the state terrorist list. He should do just that.
I wonder if Putin ever studied history (although his Trump-like narcissism would prevent him learning anything). Adm Yamamoto, before attacking Pearl Harbor famously said [i]"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain, I will run wild and win victory after victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of victory"[/i
I saw that while just visiting the Pearl Harbor museum.
Putin didn't even win "victory after victory".I stumbled across a headline that Elon Musk's Starlink system could be a major factor in Ukraine's military 'successful', (like just staying alive and viable), resistance.
Yahoo Finance
"Elon Musk did something awesome that has nothing to do with Twitter"
". . . Musk responded in less than 24 hours, saying Starlink service is now active in Ukraine. That was step one. Starlink requires ground terminals, small dishes that connect with the satellites. Those began arriving within two days, according to another tweet by the minister who asked Musk for them. It’s not clear how they got there, though European employees at Tesla, where Musk is also CEO, may have helped with deliveries. The U.S. government is now involved, and there may be 5,000 ground units in Ukraine, or more, with each unit functioning like a router than can handle many users."
". . . Ukrainian fighters are using it too—and some say the service is helping them beat the Russians. Writer David Patrikarakos of Unherd interviewed one soldier in eastern Ukraine who said, “Starlink is what changed the war in Ukraine's favor. Russia went out of its way to blow up all our comms. Now they can't. Starlink works under Katyusha fire, under artillery fire. It even works in Mariupol."
Ukraine asked and Musk said yes within 24 hours, and was sending the needed equipment within two days—apparently coordinated by Tesla operations.
I remember hearing about the Starlink/Ukraine connection, but the details about the speed and equipment stuff were new to me.
[EDIT] Oops, forgot to link the headline.
GANice finds... He has the ability to solve problems quickly. Not a bad attribute. But, do not lose the reality he brought Twitter, and some feel he hopes to destroy the world with right-wing misinformation. ( Ms. Shar Snarky)
For your dining and dancing pleasure.
https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/star … explained/I knew the haters would be out --- Don't think the richest man in the world is losing any sleep over a company he purchased for 1.5 billion that is now worth $100-billion.
He is one of a kind man in my view, we have seen so
few in our lifetime. But, you have fun trying to bash this man...Sharlee: Excuse me. What makes you think I bashed him? I think he is pure genius. He makes everything seems so simple and all his inventions and ideas work.
What people fear is that he will allow the Russians and Trump free reign to once again sow misinformation and propaganda.
Here is an OPINION about Musk and Trump that I can agree with.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/opinions … index.htmlScott: I don't doubt he is all of the things that the article refers to about Trump and Biden having similar political agendas, but Musk is a genius inventor.
Trump never invented anything in his whole life that I know of, but he certainly has destroyed many things politically. We are now seeing the result of his fulfilled promise to stack the court to remove Roe v. Wade
His waiting to take action on the virus when he knew it was lethal caused millions of deaths. I have learned that in the beginning stages, the virus spreads exponentially. Trump did not stop it at that point, but said it was just like the flu and would go away. His OWS was too little too late. We are still paying the price for his BS positive spin on the virus.
From what I have seen of Musk in interviews, he appears to be socially awkward. I don't know how that will play into his approach to taking over Twitter."From what I have seen of Musk in interviews, he appears to be socially awkward"
He has Asperger's Syndrome.I don't minimize Musk's genius with material things. But he seems to have gone off the deep end morally.
I disagree, Trump invents things almost every day. He is the most prolific liar in history (or close to it).
Destroyed? Not just politically - Maybe he hasn't destroyed Barron, but that is about it, I fear.
He may have more of a fight to buy Twitter than he thought. The gov't is looking at issues with the way he is going about it.
On a lighter note; Ukraine is through to the finals of Eurovision this Saturday:-
Eurovision 2022: Ukraine among 10 to reach the final as world's biggest pop music contest kicks off https://youtu.be/mwQqZuaUp-kApparently some (maybe most) Trump Republicans consider our support of Ukrainian democracy has "hand-outs". What is wrong with these people???
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters Sunday, after leading a GOP delegation to Kyiv this weekend to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, that most Republicans support Ukraine's efforts to combat the brutal invasion from Russia.
He held the call in Stockholm, Sweden, where he is currently holding with GOP Sens. Susan Collins, John Barrasso and John Cornyn after their trip to Ukraine. The group is planning to meet with Finland's president on Monday.
When asked about Republicans who are criticizing the spending to help Ukraine, he responded "it's in our interest to help Ukrainians."
"This is not some handout," he said about the spending. "The first place to stop (Russian President Vladimir Putin) is in Ukraine. And that's what we're determined to do."
When asked about Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul blocking the fast-track process to pass the $40 billion Ukraine supplemental, McConnell dismissed any concerns.
"Well, it's no secret Rand and I have a different worldview about the importance of America's role around the world. So that was not surprising and it won't create a problem," he said. "We'll get the job done by Wednesday."
He also said President Joe Biden should declare Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, saying "I think it's a good idea.” So do I
."This from the German Ambassador to the US -
"It is true that for many decades our strategy rested on the fundamental assumption ... that interdependence would produce stability, predictability, and to some extent of a time, even alignment. It was, if you will, our experience with regard to the GDR [the former East Germany] and with reunification and even with regard with the implosion of the Soviet Empire. We now do see that interdependence can actually also produce vulnerability. So this assumption, in effect, has been pulverized."
Germany was not alone in trying to be rational with irrational people. The world. even though the intentions were laudable and the logic seemed straight-forward, made a big, big mistake trying to treat Putin's Russia and China as nations that had a moral code - they do not.
Basically, it is time to isolate both from peace-loving nations of the world. (Unless, of course, they turn to democracy.) Don't try to defeat them, just shun them and cut them off from the benefits a free world has to offer.Wonderful, does America have a moral code? It recently destabilized the regime of Imran Khan in Pakistan. It is the biggest destabilizing force in the world. Why didn't you add India to the list? It is now the biggest trading partner of Russia. Add India and China is almost half of humanity. I am surprised you think you can shun half of humanity and survive.~Best of luck. I suggest if you have time you read a few articles on the subject on HP.
America has its own interest, just like any other country. Moral code, bringing democracy to other countries is a myth. The US is struggling with "moral code" and democracy in their own country for a long time. Different rules for the black population and white population, and different rules for poor people and rich people. The Majority vote for a president is not automatically a win for a president. Only two parties.
No, Moral Code and democracy is a Public Relations stunt.
But many countries around the world don't have a moral code...Absolutely we have a moral code. Sometimes, like during the Trump regime and many other conservative administrations, we hide it. But, unlike many other nations, that code is built into our Constitution and we, in spurts and starts, continually strive for it. At least most liberal administrations try.
"destabilized the regime of Imran Khan in Pakistan." - Prove It, just don't claim it
India, while it has its own discrimination problems, still abides by a moral code, which Russian and China do not.
If we don't shun China, we won't survive either. We don't NEED Chinese goods and services - they just make things cheap for us. Unfortunately, most Americans expect CHEAP.Is there any issue you won't bring Trump into?
GAThere are very few issues that Trump hasn't negatively impacted. And, until he stops being a existential threat to America and American democracy, I will take every chance to oppose him. Where there is logical link, like the one above, then I will shine a light on it. He must be defeated just as Putin must.
As Wilderness has said many times now - Trump is a VERY BAD MAN.That is my attitude regarding this as well, Esoteric.
Until he either he deliberately steps out of politics, keeps his mouth shut and stops this "kingmaker role" and quietly go to pasture like so many ex-presidents before, croaks or is placed in jail, he remains fair game.For me. jail would provide the most justice.
Nope. I disagree. To say the US has a moral code is a fantasy. The US is a world power player, and since when did people with power let their actions be guided by morals. Kings didn't/don't, huge corporations don't, and neither US politics doesn't.
The US is warmonger number one. And has started and been into wars more than any other nation after WW2.
Besides it's only since the 60 that whites and black can share the same bathroom... And still, there is a huge race problem (which makes sense as the ´60 is not that long ago.)
So moral code.... well as a person you may have one, but as a country, you don't.
India also has its own problems with a caste system that's highly discriminatory.
Rusia I don't know that much about it. So I can't judge, (but there is def. a huge gap between the haves and have nots)
China has just like the US the death penalty. (if you find this a good code of conduct well....)
I think it's pretty difficult to talk about moral code when talking about politics... I don't buy that myth anymore."To say the US has a moral code is a fantasy. " - Try reading our Constitution. The preamble is our moral template. Sometimes we are able to live up to it, sometimes we are not. For everyone of your examples of failure (and you didn't even include the big ones), I can give you counterexample where we met the challenge.
"Warmongers" - Is your definition whether someone has been in ANY conflict, regardless of the reason OR started wars?The constitution is not the same as reality.
And the constitution was written in a time when slavery was still normal in the US.
First as long as the US has the death penalty I do not consider it to have moral codes.
I do not consider Vietnam, Korea, or Iraq, Afghanistan conflicts. they are wars with millions of innocent lives lost.
The US invaded in these cases independent countries. (for whatever reason) - I see the invasion of another sovereign country as warmongering (it's worse actually as you do not threaten to go to war, but you actually go to war) -
The US fighting for "democracy" is laughable, as the US itself hasn't a proper democracy. (as long as a president can be voted in with a minority of votes I do not consider the US a proper democracy - let alone that US politics is elitism - you'll never be a president unless you are loaded with money)
The dictatorships of South America were supported and inflicted by the US...
No I don't think you can talk about a moral codes and US politics.
To point fingers to other countries who are worse does not make the moral compass of your own country better.
Morals are like fashion, they change. People once thought slavery was proper moral behavior. Surely Nazi Germany had moral codes.
- I think talking about moral codes is a tricky thing. A lot of bad things are done in the name of proper moral codes. (or in other words my point of view is right yours is wrong...like God gave me moral codes and I have the God given right to kill you as you do not follow my moral codes...)From your comments I gather you don't have an understanding of the concept of goals and aspirations.
Since you don't, we don't have a common basis for discussions because you are simply left with your biases.
Also, America is technically a "democracy", we are a representative republic. We use the word "democracy" for a much longer description such as a government for the People, by the People, and of the People.
Truth be known, our founders hated the idea of mob rule (which is a true democracy in the Greek sense). They preferred a system where the majority found it very hard to trample on the rights of the minority.It's simply that the phrase "moral codes" is very tricky. The Islamic State also has moral codes.
And according to their view, western "moral codes" are disgusting.
So that's one reason not to use the term "moral codes" as it is simply a point of view.
Some people find breastfeeding in public not done and morally not acceptable behavior. Others find it normal and morally acceptable. And so on.
Personally, I think it's incredibly slippery to talk about "moral codes" when talking about politics of any country.
Goals and aspirations of whom?
Everybody has their own goals and aspirations. A country may have those "goals and aspirations" in its constitution but that doesn't mean much.
The law (and constitution of a country) is made in most countries by the elite, the king and its man (or "Founding Fathers") it's adjusted over time with laws to keep the powers that be (who make the rules in the first place") in power and the subjects/plebs/us in place.
The so-called moral code is nothing but hot air if it comes down to it. That's why there are plenty of moral scandals among the rich and famous. They know that they have the liberty to use different moral codes than ordinary men. (child labour in factories in faraway countries owned by brands in western countries...sexual herrasment etc etc.)
Nevertheless, morals are important but only for yourself.. I loathe missionaries for that reason. Who are they to tell other civilizations that they're better.... Also the famous pointing finger of the west at other non-Western societies is questionable.
The founders hated the "mob rule" just like the white minority in the apartheid regime in South Africa! As the majority can be a threat to the powers that rule.
There is too much myth about "The Founding Fathers" (almost a religious term) that I find highly suspicious. They were just politicians and people with power, grabbing more power. (or read being more independent of UK) and later idolizes by great spin-doctors.
Democracy is a truly powerful weapon in the hands of ordinary people but in many countries, the democratic voting system is a watered-down "democracy", favoring certain groups. And true democracy is labeled as a filthy "the mob rule".
Morals are complicated and not for nothing a whole section of philosophy is dedicated to it. Whole religions spend their main part of teaching on it.I have to disagree. There are moral and ethical principals that are universally accepted regardless of whether a person is religious or secular. Whether a given society lives up to them at a particular time or place has no bearing on whether these guidelines exist or not. But simply stated, society will not exist without them.
Among them are individual rights, autonomy, freedom, justice, and equality. Other studies found that these moral codes are also universal: help your family, help your group, return favours, be brave, defer to superiors, divide resources fairly, and respect others’ property,
Our Constitution embodies most of those and over time, America has tried to live up to them.
We can compare anecdotes until the cows come home. You present one bad act by America and I will present one good act. By adding those up and comparing the results gets us nowhere.
What counts is what we TRY to do and, by and large, America tries to do good while protecting its national interests.
We started out building slavery into our Constitution. Why? So we could actually HAVE a Constitution. What was also built into it was a form of a sunset clause where the expansion of slavery in America would end. In the end, after a Civil War, slavery was abolished as a legal institution. That was a great leap forward in reaching our moral goals.
Our founders were well aware of the limitations to liberty that existed in their time. Consequently, they constructed the Constitution such that it could be modified to reflect more progressive times in the future. Two major advances in that realm was the 13th and 19th Amendments giving blacks and women, respectively, the right to vote - another major moral achievement.
You speak in discreet units and end up getting lost in the weeds. I try to look at things in a much broader scope so as to see the whole picture.Yes I agree, a moral code is one of the glues that hold a society together. But I'm not sure if these are universal. The roman empire existed for a long time and slavery was seen as morally fine.
Morals change as society changes. The rights for gay and lesbian people are still morally troublesome for some for example..but more acceptable then 100 years ago.
I think what's written on paper is not always the same as in reality.
Black people probably had the right to vote according to the constitution but the reality was different.
Or look at the moral code of companies. They use it often enough in their PR campaigns, but the reality is often different.
Many countries have the same thing as the US in their constitution but this does not automatically mean that they are followed...The law is a complicated thing.
What I'm reading is that if the US moral code does not match yours then we don't have one. Only your code is right and proper; anyone or any entity that does not agree has no code at all.
Have I got that right? Or do you accept that there IS no universal moral code, that all people and all nations differ in what they consider right and that your code is not automatically the only one that is "right"?The last one Wilderness. Everyone has different moral codes. I don't think there is a moral code
Perhaps universal human rights are close to a universal moral code.
My moral code is not necessarily the best one. And I hate missionaries for that reason who have the arrogance to think that their moral code is better than that of the indigenous people living on a remote island.
Morals are close connected with culture and culture with country/weather/language and this is different in every country (and even inside countries)
What I'm highly suspicious about is the combination of politics and morals.
I don't trust politics and corporations (in other words power structures) enough with high morals. Too often you see that morals can be bent and put aside when they are obstructing a goal.
A lot of blood has been spilled by forcing "morals" on other people. Especially through rigid religious beliefs."A lot of blood has been spilled by forcing "morals" on other people. Especially through rigid religious beliefs."
Fully agree. It's always interesting to find a culture or religion wherein morals only apply to those already inside that culture or religion. Those outside of it can be treated (and are) with those bothersome morals interfering.
But I cannot agree with the concept that universal human rights are a moral code, for there are no more "universal human rights" than there a universal moral code.
Again, it is interesting to watch people that want something to declare that it is their "human right" to have it...without bothering to find someone to guarantee that right. Without that guarantee any "right" is just so many words, meaning little more than "I want it".Yes, I wasn't sure either. That's why I said perhaps. I think you're right and human rights and moral codes are slightly different things.
I do not know, needs a bit of study I guess. But I can imagine that there are some basic things like. Don't kill another human being and don't steal. I think these are in all societies not acceptable, but you need an anthropologist to answer that one.
But well the killer will always have a reason to kill, the question is is it justified...and then you need judges and rules...and suddenly things become complicated.
Morals change and are not set in stone.
Different generations in the same country can have different morals.
(just look at the evolution of bathing suits...)So you think Thomas Jefferson was wrong when he wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—"?
Does anyone think all men (and women) are "created" equally strong, equally smart, equally ambitious, equally good looking, etc. etc.? Do you?
Does everyone think an invisible ET from another universe made this one and all it's people, one at a time?
Pretty words, but that's all. We don't even agree that a Creator gives the right to life as we take the right away all the time let alone the God bestowed and guaranteed right to liberty."Does anyone think all men (and women) are "created" equally strong," - Here you are being obtuse again. You know as well as I that Jefferson was talking about Rights. Does Liberty have anything to do with your red herrings? Does the Right to Life have anything to do with your red herrings? Does the Pursuit of Happiness have anything to do with your deflections? NO! Yet you bring them up anyway.
Cmon, Wilderness, anyone can see that in the "eyes of the law" all people are to be treated equally. If this cannot stand, then the entire American experiment is a sham.
That was written in response to the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, in a conversation about morals, specifically universal morals. It had nothing to do with law.
Don't forget that Wilderness is a master at deflection and misdirection.
We are talking about moral position of unalienable, fundamental rights that all humans have and he deflects to talking about intelligence, strength, and other non-sensical things.
He apparently doesn't understand either that "Rights" are not immutable. You are born with them, but you have to conduct your life so as to keep them. People don't get a free pass simply because they started out equal.Who guarantees those rights that you are born with? Who guarantees the right to life of an infant in a car crash? The life of the infants and toddlers killed in the Ukraine? The victim of a mugging? How did they conduct their lives so as to have that inalienable right removed?
Nature endows you with the right to eat or be eaten; to take whatever you have the strength to take. And that's the ONLY "right" that you are born with. The rest are granted by someone else...until you suddenly don't have it anymore.
It is sad in a tactical sense to see Ukraine give up the fight at the Azovstal steel plant as it gave Putin fits and tied down troops from murdering civilians elsewhere.
BUT, from a humanitarian aspect, it is totally understandable. Now the world must wait and see if Putin murders these heroic fighters.Russia has "attacked" Finland for applying for NATO membership. Putin has cut off Finland's natural gas supply for which they say they were prepared. Don't know if this hurts Finland, but it would seem to be another economic blow to Putin
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ru … b83a2e09daA good report about a Russian officer who resigned (and lived) rather than fight the Ukrainians. He, apparently, it not alone.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/22/europe/u … index.htmlPutin's motivation for invading Ukraine is the same as Trump's losing the election. Trump can't accept losing his election and is trying to destroy our democratic republic and Putin can't accept losing Ukraine. Both are very powerful men with huge sick egos.
History shows that many countries that once were nations are now gone, Putin would love to get all the countries that were once part of Imperial Russia back, but NATO is stopping him from doing that.
Putin can't accept the sovereignty of Ukraine. He wants to return it to mother Russia, even if he has to kill every Russian who is living in Ukraine. It's too bad the Azov Regiment lost the Azov steel mill. They will probably end up in Siberia or six feet under. This pretty much explains his motivation and his de-nazification of Ukraine agenda.
https://www.vox.com/2022/2/24/22948944/ … eclare-war
After following the news about Russia's problems executing their war, it got me to thinking about an experience I had with the Air Force.
The reporting clearly shows that in both men and material, Russia is running very short. Worse, short of general mobilization, they are running out of replacing the forces killed or wounded. Even worse than that, they can't produce the war material being lost fast enough because of the sanctions. And, that does not have a resolution.
Putin has been forced to continually shrink his objectives from conquering the whole country to just trying to take the Luhansk Oblast. He has even given up on capturing the Donetsk Oblast.
Further, the Ukrainian Army is putting up a hell of a fight in Luhansk while counterattacking on several fronts, driving the Russians back. This is up in the Kharkiv Oblast in the NE, around Koshov and Davidiv Brid in the south trying to relieve Khershon. They even took back the town of Toshkivka near their last major city in Luhansk, Severodonetsk.
Russia keeps throwing a continuously dwindling supply of men and equipment into the effort and is actually making some gains around Severodonetsk.
But their will come a point ... and that brings me to my Air Force experience.
I had a several jobs while working as a civil servant with the Air Force and DoD. One was as a cost analyst and another was a readiness analyst. Part of my job was tracking the readiness of air force units (and with DoD Army and Navy as well).
After the Cold War ended, funding dried up and that negatively impacted spares and repair funding. Over time, I watched miracles being worked by local commanders and logistics personnel to keep our aircraft ready to go to war. Then one day (actually over several months) I saw reports of readiness levels falling across the Air Force.
It was hard to build a case for more funding when Air Force personnel, by hook and by crook, had been keeping the airplanes flying and their numbers up. But finally time caught up with them and they couldn't hold back the flood of bad reports.
That is what I am thinking is going to happen to Putin - a sudden collapse of his war effort. Sort of like a balloon popping rather than shrinking from a slow leak.
(For the rest of the story. On the cost side (using a new MIS I was program manager for called AFTOC - Air Force Total Operating Cost) my team developed the financial argument to take to the President to get him to FINALLY request more money from Congress. The MIS I ran also tracked various readiness metrics which were rolled into the cost analysis and turned over to planning and programming types who put together a formal briefing they would take to the National Security Council and the President. We got our money.)I can't believe ANY American city would still have ties with Russia. If so, who are they and recall their mayors.
Zelensky urges US mayors to cut Russian ties: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called on US mayors to cut “brotherhood” ties with Russian cities and to take part in “the largest economic project of our time” by helping to rebuild Ukraine after the war, during a video address to the 90th Annual Conference of US Mayors.If anybody had any doubts as to Putin's intentions, he makes them clear hear. It is nothing short of reestablishing the Czarist Russian Empire. An Empire that included Poland and surrounding territory to the north and south, Finland, parts of Sweden, and everything to the east. It also extended south to the Persian-Afghan-China border.
He believes all of that should belong to him and he means to have it.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/10/europe/r … index.htmlIf anyone is interested and didn't already know, here is a website about Ukraine, by Ukraine I found.
https://war.ukraine.ua/Somebody blew up the daughter (and disinformation specialist) of the so-called architect of the Ukraine invasion. Murdering Putin blames it on Ukraine. But smart people in intelligence says that simply doesn't make sense.
Given that Putin has no morals and is a psychopath, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't another of his False Flag operations.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ru … 0a27a84e3fTrump and "Speaker" Johnson and the House MAGA are NOW personally responsible for Ukrainian soldiers dying on the battlefield. Trump supporters must be proud of what their so-called "America First" (which in truth has turned out to America Last) agenda has wrought.
What is it about keeping Ukraine out of Putin's hands is a National Security interest? Most Democrats and many Senate Republicans are smart enough to understand that.
Zelenskii states the "It's unbelievable" that Trump (and by extension his supporters) is on Putin's side. Actually, I am not surprised.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/europe/z … index.htmlPutin always knew he couldn’t beat America militarily, so his next best option was to infiltrate our political systems and seize control of the GOP. It increasingly looks like he’s pulled it off, right down to blocking US aid to Ukraine.
"Useful idiots” doesn’t begin to describe Comer and Jordan, who have enthusiastically promoted Russian lies. DOJ needs to investigate to determine whether and when they knew Smirnov was a Biden hating, lying, Russian asset.
Truth and facts, however, don’t seem to matter to the two Jimmies. They have vowed to continue on with the factless inquiry.
They don’t care about what’s best for America or the American people.
They don’t care that Putin has been running their Republican Party by remote control via Trump.
All they care about is their next appearance on Fox."They don’t care that Putin has been running their Republican Party by remote control via Trump."
Link, please, proving Putin is communicating with Trump, complete with orders on what the GOP must do.
Or is this just another case of a leftwing "truth artist" that doesn't care whether the statements made are truth or not as long as they claim Trump is evil?
Making such statements without proof is not only libel it is also far beneath you. You know better.That is my opinion. Between Trump's continual praise of putin, his blocking of aid to Ukraine and the Jordan/Comer debacle, I'm concerned with the movement in our country toward Russian sympathy.
As far as statements without proof? LOL yes I should have stated it as my opinion but I think that's obvious. There are posts here daily presented as fact with no credible sourcing.
More importantly, do you agree that Jordan and Comer should be investigated as to whether and when they knew they were promoting a witness who was not credible and possibly linked to Russian intelligence?It is not obvious when stated as a fact, as truth without evidence. You should take more care; even an opinion is much more valuable when supporting reasons and documentation is provided.
I am not familiar with the matter of Jordan and Comer, but it does sound much like the original information that Trump was collaborating with Putin about fixing the election. Nothing was done then; why would it be done now (except, of course, it is about Trump rather than Dems)?"During his custodial interview on February 14, Smirnov admitted that officials associated with Russian intelligence were involved in passing a story about (Hunter Biden)," prosecutors said this week.
Smirnov faces one charge of making a false statement, and one of creating a false and fictitious record, in his dealings with an FBI investigation.
Comer, Grassley Jordan and many other Republicans repeated Smirnov's claims. Did they not properly investigate this man's claims? They were warned that he was not credible but they went ahead anyway. Why would I believe anything coming out of this committee? In my opinion it is extremely important that we know what Comer and crew knew about Smirnov and when they knew it. What if they knew this man had ties to Russia and they just hid it? I think there should be consequences.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-bi … rcna139587But isn't "It is not obvious when stated as a fact, as truth without evidence. " your hallmark as well? Just thinking back to all the many times I have asked you for evidence.
The movement by MAGA is not only toward Russian sympathy, it is toward Putin-style autocracy.
Remember, they once had a working constitution, a somewhat independent "congress" and a somewhat independent "judicial" system in the days following the collapse of the Soviet Empire. But once Putin got in charge, it all disappeared and is there in name only.
Trump saw how Putin did it and he wants to do it himself.
"They don’t care that Putin has been running their Republican Party by remote control via Trump."
Link, please, proving Putin is communicating with Trump, complete with orders on what the GOP must do.
Or is this just another case of a leftwing "truth artist" that doesn't care whether the statements made are truth or not as long as they claim Trump is evil?
Zelensky and Biden are responsible for the death and destruction in Ukraine.
They still delusionally think they are going to take Crimea.
They chose not to meet the terms of the Minsk Agreements.
They chose to walk away from the negotiations in Turkey.There were violations on both sides. Let's be accurate
I am not sure what "violations" America did, nor Zelenskii for that matter. He was just trying to save his country and get Ukraine's land back from the Russian invader. Also, I believe it was Putin who violated all those agreements.
Let's pretend I invade your house and occupy half of it. Are you going to negotiate with me to get one of the bathrooms I occupy back while I keep the kitchen and dining room?
It is so naive to think that Putin isn't pulling Trump's strings. In the real world, what you see and hear and read and observe is all the "proof" one needs to make reasonable conclusions.
What would you conclude when you watch Putin invade Ukraine and his student Trump tells MAGA House Republicans not to approve critical aid to Ukraine so it can survive Putin's murderous intentions. Why else would Trump take such an American Last position and threaten our national security?Fortunately, only a few delusional people and Russian sympathizers think that Zelenskii and Biden started the war in Ukraine. Most of the MAGA who oppose aid to Ukraine have other ulterior motives; and not good ones either. Remember, all these people who oppose it before, save for a couple like Mike Johnson who apparently hates democracy, supported the Ukrainian cause and gave voice to great outrage about what Putin did.
Ukraine has found a great equalizer in their war against Russia and its American Republican supporters - Using Drones inside of Russia itself.
Apparently, they have been very effective recently in targeting what America (out of fears of domestic resistance) refused to sanction, Russia's oil refineries. To-date, the Ukrainians have taken 12% to 14% of Russia's refining capacity and the income associated with it. If they go after Russia's ports as well, that will further reduce Russia's ability to fund its illegal war.
The downside to Americans is it will probably increase gas prices at home somewhat. To me, that is a very small price for Americans to pay to defend a nation from being conquered and a democracy destroyed not to mention the lives that will be saved. If the administration wants to lessen whatever pain may result, it can suspend some or all of the gas tax for a while.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/01/ener … index.htmlIt is sad. I spent about 6 weeks in Slovakia helping them with their successful attempt to join NATO. My piece was to develop the operations and support costs for the new air force they were trying to put together for their application.
They have now turned on NATO, the EU, and Ukraine by electing a right-wing, pro-Russia government (funny how those two frequently go together, even in America). They have halted supporting Ukraine in favor of Putin defeating them (much like our pro-Russian far-right in the House).
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/07/euro … index.htmlWhy are America's pro-Russian, far-right House members so dead set on helping Putin wipe out Ukraine and their democracy? Makes you sick to your stomach, doesn't it?
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/06/worl … index.htmlIn my view, this comment is nonsensical and lacks coherence. It appears to be making an unfounded and inflammatory accusation against certain members of the House of Representatives, labeling them as "pro-Russian" and "far-right" while accusing them of supporting actions detrimental to Ukraine's democracy. The suggestion that any members of the U.S. House of Representatives are actively working to assist Putin in undermining Ukraine's democracy is not supported by evidence and seems to be rooted in conspiracy theories or baseless assumptions. Additionally, the comment concludes with a rhetorical question intended to evoke an emotional response rather than fostering rational discourse. Overall, this comment lacks logical reasoning and factual basis, making it nonsensical in nature.
Indeed, over the past three years, Congress has passed multiple bipartisan bills providing funding support for the conflict in Ukraine. Given this history, it's reasonable to consider whether continued funding for the war is the most prudent course of action at this juncture. Are we inadvertently committing ourselves to another protracted and seemingly interminable conflict? Is it not prudent to consider what is being done to the people of Ukraine as well as the country? Is there no room for a peaceful solution, talked that would work to end this war? Your comment is shocking.Tell me how it is "unfounded". Are not certain far-right, Republican House members blocking any aid to Ukraine?
What Congress did in the past is neither here nor there, I think. It is what is happening now that is important. And RIGHT NOW the far-right, Republicans (who are pro-Russian in effect if not in inclination) are responsible for killing many brave Ukrainian soldiers and civilians.
Now, that said, if it is not important that Ukraine and its democracy survive (and thereby jeopardize our national security), then I can see why people would withhold critical aid.
As to a peaceful solution. Let's say you own 40 acres of land with buildings scattered around on it. Then your neighbor invades and occupies 30% of your land and buildings. Would you 1) have them forcibly removed or 2) negotiate such that they keep some of you land. Personally, I would pick option 1.
And yes, my comment is shocking, but it is also true.
Let me ask. If this were 1940 and we have dumped a ton of money into defending England against Nazi Germany already and we had this same group of far-right, pro-Nazi Republicans denying further aid to England, would you take the same position as you seem to be with those working toward the demise of Ukraine? In point of fact, there were those in Congress in 1940 that were trying to do just that."Tell me how it is "unfounded". Are not certain far-right, Republican House members blocking any aid to Ukraine?"
I urge you to consider my comment, as it seems you've overlooked the significant funding efforts directed toward Ukraine over the past three years. It appears there's a selective disregard for the bipartisan support and funding history from Congress. While the current bill you mention is under dispute, some are understandably cautious about swiftly allocating funds and are questioning the ongoing support or the proposed amounts. This dissent reflects opposing views to the Democrats and, in my opinion, embodies healthy governance. Many Americans, myself included, are opposed to this war and the distressing events unfolding. We witness a nation being ravaged and innocent lives lost, prompting deep concern and opposition. Your comment is your view, that does not in any respect make it true. But it was shocking to see you ignore the past three years of bipartisan funding to Ukraine, and just choose to selectively look at this current funding bill.No, I didn't overlook it. I noted that so what, the job isn't done. Russian hasn't been defeated. And defeating Russia is a top priority, in my opinion, in protecting America and the EU, let alone Ukraine.
I don't like war either, although I fought in one. But you know what I like a whole lot less? It is rampant aggression by Putin in his attempt to first take down Ukraine and its democracy, then Eastern Europe and their democracies, and then America.
What is "shocking" to me is your apparent disregard for the lives and freedom of Ukraine and by extension, us because, based on your words, it cost too much. To me, those don't have a price tag, just has France invested its fortunes to help America free itself from British rule. I am so happy that the French equivalent to our far-right, Republican anti-democracy group didn't sway the King of France to drop us "because it was too expensive"."No, I didn't overlook it. I noted that so what, the job isn't done. Russian hasn't been defeated. And defeating Russia is a top priority, in my opinion, in protecting America and the EU, let alone Ukraine."
I find it dubious to assume that Putin would take action against a NATO nation. It seems illogical to suggest that Russia would seek war with the world. The idea of Putin initiating a conflict with a NATO member raises questions about the logical coherence of such a scenario. Would Russia really want to escalate tensions to that extent, potentially even resorting to the use of nuclear weapons? It's worth considering. In my opinion, Biden and NATO have provided the public with an unreasonable justification for involvement in this conflict. But again, that's just my perspective.
"What is "shocking" to me is your apparent disregard for the lives and freedom of Ukraine and by extension, us because, based on your words, it cost too much. To me, those don't have a price tag, just has France invested its fortunes to help America free itself from British rule. I am so happy that the French equivalent to our far-right, Republican anti-democracy group didn't sway the King of France to drop us "because it was too expensive"."
I did not say I think it cost too much (again you do not contemplate context and read into my words, this is what I said, and I was discussing the Bipartisan Congress spending bills.
This is what I shared --- Indeed, over the past three years, Congress has passed multiple bipartisan bills providing funding support for the conflict in Ukraine. Given this history, it's reasonable to consider whether continued funding for the war is the most prudent course of action at this juncture. Are we inadvertently committing ourselves to another protracted and seemingly interminable conflict? Is it not prudent to consider what is being done to the people of Ukraine as well as the country? Is there no room for a peaceful solution, talked that would work to end this war? Your comment is shocking.
I certainly agree Congress has every right, and it's their job to be prudent when funding a war. Yes, to consider the current situation. For instance is there any other way to solve the situation? And yes to consider what is resulting concerning destruction and death. Again you have twisted my words to suit your view of my idelogies. I strive to share clear context. It seems you truely ignored the actual personal views I shared such as --- Is there no room for a peaceful solution, talked that would work to end this war? Perhaps some in Congress share my view. Look for peace, and end the war.Personally, I believe our intel people as well as those of our allies who say that Eastern Europe nations are in Putin's sites as he seeks to establish the old Soviet Union that he misses so much.
"Indeed, over the past three years, Congress has passed multiple bipartisan bills providing funding support for the conflict in Ukraine. Given this history, it's reasonable to consider whether continued funding for the war is the most prudent course of action at this juncture." - To me, that says we probably have spent too much money trying to protect a democratic nation whose democracy on the line; I really don't see an alternative meaning.
You asked "For instance is there any other way to solve the situation? " - Do you mean short of letting Putin keep 30% of your 40 acres? If you agree that Ukraine shouldn't give up any of the land Putin stole, then I am sure there are a lot of people in powerful places who would love to hear from you.
Using my analogy, are you willing to let Putin keep your land?
How have I twisted your words? Aren't you suggesting we have spent enough money on saving Ukraine from annihilation. Isn't that what "... consider whether continued funding for the war ..." implies? Somehow I can't read "continue funding until Putin is defeated" into that.Are you proposing that America intervene in every conflict where democracy is threatened? I strongly disagree with that notion. However, I do believe it's crucial to carefully assess every financial allocation, ensuring that our spending aligns with our goals. We must consider whether our expenditures contribute to peace and progress or perpetuate harm and suffering for innocent civilians.
My idea of peace talks would include compromise, and both Nations being satisfied with that compromise. Without it, most likely Putin will fight on and have all of Ukraine. Have you ever compared the populations of the two warring nations? That alone should tell you something.
I didn't express my opinion on the spending related to the Ukraine war. Rather, I believe it's prudent for Congress to exercise caution in allocating further funds, especially after three years. They likely possess information about the conflict that isn't available to the public. It's essential for them to carefully consider the possibility that Ukraine may not be winning the war and the high human cost associated with it in terms of damage and loss of life. It's evident that we have differing perspectives on this conflict. While your viewpoint seems influenced by media narratives, mine delves deeper into the human toll suffered by the people of Ukraine. Historically, the US has often invested heavily in wars without achieving victories, ultimately leaving behind destruction and suffering for local populations. Consider our past wars... Do you believe this conflict will diverge from that pattern?"intervene in every conflict where democracy" - to me, that is deflection to a nonsensical question that can have only one correct answer - of course not.
It seems to me whether or not to intervene is decided on a case-by-case basis. That is where my focus is. Many Western intel professionals and leaders are clear that they think THIS intervention is necessary for the reasons I have already stated.
What I am trying to get you to say without equivocation that whether saving Ukraine and its democracy and stopping Putin's aggression to reestablish the Soviet Union is worth spending our treasure or not. It seems to me that this is a simple yes or no question." Many Western intel professionals and leaders are clear that they think THIS intervention is necessary for the reasons I have already stated."
It appears after 3 years NATO is reevaluating the war. They have been making waves for a few months now. They are speaking about peace and compromise. I think they are wise in evaluating what they hope to see happen at this point - Compromise.
2 days ago --
"NATO Secretary General says Ukraine will have to decide which compromises it will accept in war with Russia – BBC"
source https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68743805
"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said that Ukraine will have to decide which compromises it is ready to accept in the war with the Russian Federation.
Source: Jens Stoltenberg in an interview with BBC to be broadcast on Sunday, 7 April, as reported by European Pravda
Details: Although Stoltenberg said that military support is critically important to enable Ukraine to repel Russian forces and force Russian leader Vladimir Putin to give up his goals of occupation, he suggested that Ukraine might also have to make concessions.
"At the end of the day, it has to be Ukraine that decides what kind of compromises they're willing to do, we need to enable them to be in a position where they actually achieve an acceptable result around the negotiating table," Stoltenberg said.
He said he was not calling for Ukraine to offer concessions now, and added that "real peace" would be achievable when "Ukraine prevails".
Stoltenberg also said that there is an "authoritarian" alliance between the Russian Federation, China, Iran and North Korea, with each country giving practical support to the others and all four growing "more and more aligned".
"China is propping up the Russian war economy, delivering key parts to the defence industry, and in return, Moscow is mortgaging its future to Beijing," Stoltenberg said."First, you jump to a huge conclusion by CLAIMING "It appears after 3 years NATO is reevaluating the war - NOT TRUE based on the rest of your post - They have been making waves for a few months now. They are speaking about peace and compromise. - ALSO NOT TRUE, based on the rest of your post.
The rest of your post CONTRADICTS those assertions I highlighted in bold.
First he says ""At the end of the day, it has to be Ukraine that decides what kind of compromises they're willing to do,". BUT THEN he says "we need to enable them - WHICH doesn't sound like reevaluation to me - to be in a position where they actually achieve an acceptable result around the negotiating table,"
He follows that up with this crushing statement "He said he was not calling for Ukraine to offer concessions now, and added that "real peace" would be achievable when "Ukraine prevails".
Those words were your justification for claiming that NATO is getting weak in the knees when they are doing just the opposite.
Now, wouldn't you call "It appears after 3 years NATO is reevaluating the war. They have been making waves for a few months now. They are speaking about peace and compromise. I think they are wise in evaluating what they hope to see happen at this point - Compromise." a tad misleading and deceptive when it is rebutting my statement that "" Many Western intel professionals and leaders are clear that they think THIS intervention is necessary for the reasons I have already stated."I am going to be blunt, your comment is very much nonsensical. You just don't comprehend the context of offering a view or a fact. Regarding the thoughts I shared about the Ukraine war, I offered my view, and sources to share where I formed my view. I assumed what NATO shared regarding the Compromise. It is more than in my view, that it appears NATO is making suggestions regarding the two warring nations that may need to compromise. You really need to slow down, read entire posts, and try not to choose a sentence, but an entire thought to understand what is being shared. It appears to me that you have a real problem with selective thinking. Sorry, but that's what I see, and I see it more frequently. Maybe stop and be less bias.
I certainly am aware of what NATO has shared over the past few years.Let me be blunter.
Why should people let false claims and innuendo go by unchallenged? You strongly implied that NATO is having second thoughts about Ukraine and that is simply not true, whether you stated it as a view (which you didn't) or as fact (which you did)
"It appears after 3 years NATO is reevaluating the war " - that is not a view, you are strongly implying that NATO is "reevaluating" the war. It is not, so why say it?
Another Claim you make is "They have been making waves for a few months now. They are speaking about peace and compromise. " - Those are statements of facts and not views. And because you omitted relevant context (which I then provided) you left the reader thinking, wrongly, that NATO is looking for a way out. The fact is, they are not.The EU... not NATO... IS having second thoughts.
Or, more specifically, the People of the EU, are having second thoughts with the war on Russia, as well as their role in NATO, as well as with the leadership in Brussels (people who are appointed, not elected).
NATO is as weak, or as strong, as America... the sum total of NATO minus America, wouldn't last two weeks against Russia.
Most Europeans think Ukraine will lose the war, according to survey
https://www.politico.eu/article/europea … ia-survey/
A majority of respondents in Hungary, Greece and Italy want allies to push Kyiv to accept a settlement.
41 percent of Europeans want an increase or maintenance of current support for Ukraine — but just a fifth want Europe to compensate for a U.S. withdrawal in support.
In other words Europeans do not want to fight for Ukraine, nor do they want to fund the war. They want America to do it for them.
The concept of 'Putin only understands the language of strength.' really is a reflection of America... we run roughshod over anyone we feel like... Libya, Syria, Iraq, to name a few.
It is American missiles and drones flying into Russia... it is not Russian missiles and drones attacking America... not yet.She said NATO, not EU. Had she said EU (and provided the evidence which you haven't either), I might have had a different answer.
I will agree with you that the Russian-leaning nations (Hungary and Slovakia) of the EU are not to keen on pissing Putin off by supporting democracy (the same democracy that got these right-wing zealots into power in the first place).
Actually, those are not "American missiles and drones" flying into Russia. They are locally designed and produced in Ukraine. Truth matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mDGj26Jhzw
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/20/11830501 … -on-russia
Didn't Libya threaten the world with nukes?
Didn't Syria use chemical warfare against innocent civilians?
Didn't Iraq attack our allies?
Your attacks against America are bound to fail.
Tell me, which is the bigger number, $75 billion or $93 billion. Which amount did the EU give?" She said NATO" Yes I did, and I offered a link to share where I got that veiw...
Yes, you did and I appreciated the link because it provided the full context that contradicted your implications that NATO was getting weak on Ukraine.
The most important thing for America and the world, is to get the Biden Administration thrown out of office ASAP.
Biden's failures all over the globe are going to take a generation for America to recover from... hard to imagine how much damage was done in 3.5 years... but the Biden Administration has done more harm globally to American interests and its reputation than the last 10 Administrations combined.
Yet another massive foreign failure of the Biden Administration:
The US military will begin plans to withdraw troops from Niger
There was an attempt on the behalf of the U.S. to revise the military agreement with Niger that would allow them to stay, U.S. officials told the AP. But the agreement between Zeine and Campbell shows that the effort has failed.
The loss of access to air bases in Niger is a major setback for the U.S. and its allies in the region because of its strategic location for security operations in the Sahel, said Peter Pham, former U.S. special envoy for the Sahel region.
https://apnews.com/article/niger-us-mil … 638dcfb702
Other views:
Niger’s military junta has agreed to release 1,000 US troops it was effectively holding hostage in exchange for Biden’s agreement to turn over our $100M airbase to Niger and Russian forces. The US media will barely mention this humiliation today.
https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1781999920104210688
Coverup: The situation in Niger is a massive foreign policy failure and the US media is refusing to report on it because they fear it will hurt Biden’s reelection efforts.
https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1782033450691666114
Yes, I siad NATO here is once again the permalink of the comment in question.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4326720Yes, truth does. Something inherently missing from the Biden Administration and NPR these days.
Ukraine claims a major strike on Russian airfields, thanking U.S. for providing long-range missiles
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/ukra … e-missiles
Kyiv has right to strike Russian targets ‘outside Ukraine’, says Nato chief
https://www.ft.com/content/175bd28f-1eb … 0cca055747
Clearly it could not.
Libya dismantled its failing program in late 2003 after reaching an agreement with the U.S. and the U.K.
Clearly it did not.
A covert CIA program created under the Obama administration to train and arm (Muslim Brotherhood) Syrian rebels to put pressure on the Assad regime failed.
From its beginnings, deciding to topple Libya, then ship the cache of Libyan Russian made surface-to-air missiles to (Muslim Brotherhood) Syrian rebels (culminating in the slaying of the U.S. Ambassador and his security detail) everything done in/to Syria was tainted by idiocy, arrogance, and ignorance.
Why the U.S. strategy of arming Syrian rebels didn’t work
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-s-s … didnt-work
It did, and then we won that war...
Then we decided to go back a decade later and create pandemonium throughout the region, starting with Iraq, then spreading to Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and we are still going strong, funding all sides of all wars in the region...
"Why should people let false claims and innuendo go by unchallenged? You strongly implied that NATO is having second thoughts about Ukraine and that is simply not true, whether you stated it as a view (which you didn't) or as fact (which you did)"
Supply me a quote where I strongly implied that NATO was having second thoughts. I shared my view, and one only needed to understand context and definition of certain words I used to indicate I was sharing a view.
It seems as if you need punishment... This is so ridiculous. My words and context were very clear. Here is my comment with the permalink to the comment. Please reread my comment.
COMMENT ECO quote " Many Western intel professionals and leaders are clear that they think THIS intervention is necessary for the reasons I have already stated."
(NOTE WORDS IT APPEARS indicate a view ) It appears after 3 years NATO is reevaluating the war. They have been making waves for a few months now. They are speaking about peace and compromise. I THINK they are wise in evaluating what they hope to see happen at this point - Compromise.
(note this is my source, to add some background on how I came to my view, note the quote from General Jens Stoltenberg )
2 days ago --
"NATO Secretary General says Ukraine will have to decide which compromises it will accept in war with Russia – BBC"
source https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68743805
"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said that Ukraine will have to decide which compromises it is ready to accept in the war with the Russian Federation.
Source: Jens Stoltenberg in an interview with BBC to be broadcast on Sunday, 7 April, as reported by European Pravda
Details: Although Stoltenberg said that military support is critically important to enable Ukraine to repel Russian forces and force Russian leader Vladimir Putin to give up his goals of occupation, he suggested that Ukraine might also have to make concessions.
"At the end of the day, it has to be Ukraine that decides what kind of compromises they're willing to do, we need to enable them to be in a position where they actually achieve an acceptable result around the negotiating table," Stoltenberg said.
He said he was not calling for Ukraine to offer concessions now, and added that "real peace" would be achievable when "Ukraine prevails".
Stoltenberg also said that there is an "authoritarian" alliance between the Russian Federation, China, Iran and North Korea, with each country giving practical support to the others and all four growing "more and more aligned".
"China is propping up the Russian war economy, delivering key parts to the defence industry, and in return, Moscow is mortgaging its future to Beijing," Stoltenberg said." Permalink https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4326720
It seems you have a tendency for selective interpretation, overlooking context to align comments with your preferred meaning. In this instance, I took care to include a link to provide the source of my perspective. Despite this, you persist in trying to assert your own interpretation. When expressing my views, I make a point to clearly state that they are subjective interpretations. At this point, feel free to believe what you wish. I believe others who read my comment likely grasped the context I intended to convey.
Now, please define your terms for "compromise". Does that include Ukraine giving up their land to the Russian occupiers or does it not?
The size of the two populations is not particularly relevant. But to take your concern a step further - Russia is three times as big as Ukraine. Yet, Ukraine is killing 4.5 Russians for every one Ukrainian. Similarly, Russia is suffering 3 Russian casualty for every 1 Ukrainian casualty sucking up three times the Russian resources as well. So, that tells me Russia doesn't have enough population to sustain their war.
Now, the size of their respective militaries is. In this case, Russia has 3.2 times more military than Ukraine. Russia also is 28 times bigger than Ukraine. Ukraine can concentrate its forces solely on Russia but Russia cannot do the same. If fact, since Finland joined NATO Putin said he is going station troops along the 830 mile border. Now, think about that when considering the kill ratio.
What Ukraine doesn't have enough of is weapons and ammunition. If Republicans refuse to keep them armed, they are as good as dead and Putin can move on to his next target - probably Moldova.You wrote - "It's essential for them to carefully consider the possibility that Ukraine may not be winning the war and the high human cost associated with it in terms of damage and loss of life. " - I would say that Congress HAS made that calculus and came down on the side of helping to save the Ukrainian people. Who hasn't are Speaker Johnson and the proRussian, far-right, Republican rabble rousers.
If Johnson would have put the Senate bill up for a vote three weeks ago, it would have passed overwhelmingly and many now dead Ukrainian soldiers would be alive today. To me, that is criminal negligence.
For people to comment that the Ukraine war is Zelinskii and Biden's fault is pure Russian propaganda said by a Russian sympathizer.
Related Discussions
- 256
A Warning From Biden Or Just Another Confused Statement?
by Sharlee 19 months ago
Biden on Thursday when addressing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee let loose with this --- This statement appears to be when Biden went off script. He was closing and decided to add this ....."So I guess — I said I was not going to talk very long; I’ve already talked too...
- 299
Is Russia Going to Invade Ukraine? Should America care if they do?
by Readmikenow 7 weeks ago
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...
- 15
Ukraine – Yet more lies from governments and mainstream media
by sannyasinman 10 years ago
Contrary to what most world governments and mainstream media are telling you, there IS NO build up of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, as these eye witness accounts from USA journalists will tell you . . http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain … dup-n67336Inform yourself. Look for the...
- 17
BTW the Ukraine war just Escalated, again
by Ken Burgess 3 weeks 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...
- 96
Presidential Debate. What do you think will happen?
by Readmikenow 1 minute ago
I think harris lacks a lot in debate skills. She avoids questions from the press. Interviews she has done are very few. With the one national press interview done by her she was accompanied by her VP. It was taped. harris will have a difficult time answering questions...
- 75
Biden Lobbed Threats At Putin
by Sharlee 16 months ago
Biden warns Putin against using nuclear weapons in Ukraine: 'Don't'Biden said the US response to any further potential attack by Russia would be 'consequential'President Biden warned Russian President Vladimir Putin against using nuclear weapons in Ukraine in a television interview while declining...