Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mitt Romney Says A Trump Reelection Could Shake Up NATO Order

    Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) warned that a second term with Donald Trump as president could upend the NATO alliance.

    “I think if President Trump were to return as president that the nations of the world would say that they really have to rethink their own national security and the extent to which they want to be aligned with us and instead be aligned with someone else,”
    Romney told Kasie Hunt in an interview for CNN+ released Tuesday.

    Asked if Trump permanently damaged NATO, Romney — one of the few prominent Republicans willing to speak against Trump — said the former president’s America-first approach “frightens other members.”

    As president, Trump criticized NATO allies for spending too little on defense and cut the U.S. contribution to NATO’s collective budget from 22% to about 16% in 2019, according to CNN. The U.S. spent 3.7% of its GDP on defense in 2020, topping all 29 other countries that belong to the alliance, according to the BBC.

    John Bolton, a former national security adviser to Trump, told The Washington Post earlier this month that Russian President Vladimir Putin expected Trump to withdraw from NATO if he had won a second term in office.

    “In a second Trump term, I think he may well have withdrawn from NATO,” Bolton said. “And I think Putin was waiting for that.”


    President Joe Biden has sought to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to NATO amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by taking part in a summit in Brussels last week.

    Trump, 75, hasn’t declared himself a 2024 presidential candidate, but has repeatedly teased a comeback.
    ________
    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

    Comment


    • Kremlin TV Hopes Russia’s Unhinged Ukraine War Claim Will Help Re-Elect Trump



      Putin’s invasion of Ukraine pitted Russia against most of the world, leaving Kremlin propagandists yearning for any tidbits of pro-Russian sentiment in the United States. These days, state television draws on a bounty of translated quotes almost exclusively from two Western voices: Tucker Carlson of Fox News and former U.S. President Donald J. Trump. They have a plan to reward them both: Carlson with a highly coveted interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Trump with a freebie PR campaign designed to light his path back to the White House.

      Last Thursday, Russia’s Defense Ministry released a colorful diagram, purporting to demonstrate that President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, is secretly bankrolling the Pentagon’s biolabs in Ukraine, allegedly developing biological weapons to target Russia. The allegation was preposterous and was squeamishly avoided by the responsible mainstream media, but Tucker Carlson immediately latched on to it. Talking about the accusation later the same day, Carlson did his best to pre-empt any doubts about his motivation. He said: “What are the outlines of that story? We’re not sure. We know it’s legitimate to ask what it means, why wouldn’t it be? You’re not a Russian agent repeating discredited Putin talking points if you ask. You’re a good citizen.”

      Carlson’s disclaimers notwithstanding, Kremlin propagandists see the Hunter biolab material as just the right kind of toxic waste that can bury his father’s chances of re-election in 2024. On Sunday, Russian state TV host Vladimir Soloviev opened his program, Soloviev Live, with a clip of Tucker Carlson’s show from March 16. In the clip showcased by Russian propagandists, Carlson was berating Florida Congresswoman Maria Salazar for not forcing Ukraine to concede to Russia’s “peace deal,” which in essence demands nothing less than total capitulation. Carlson said, in part: “I’m just asking you: Has it occurred that many lives might be saved if we were to encourage the peaceful solution that’s already on the table? Are you doing anything in that direction?”

      Soloviev’s spectacle proceeded to showcase Russian strikes on the city of Lviv in western Ukraine, coinciding with Biden’s visit to Warsaw about 45 miles away over the border in Poland. The state TV propagandist, who often boasts of his close ties with the Kremlin, asserted that Russia bombed that particular city to send a direct message to Biden. Soloviev added that “cruise missiles hitting Lviv” were “the perfect response to Biden’s speech.” While the pro-Kremlin mouthpieces are seething with anger against the current U.S. president, they are still rooting for the return of his predecessor.

      Virtually connecting to the studio for his weekly appearance on the show was Dimitri Simes, who heads the Center for the National Interest. The Mueller report documented extensive interactions between Simes and his organization with top Trump campaign officials. The Center for the National Interest hosted candidate Trump’s first foreign-policy speech in 2016, attended by Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States. In 2015, the center arranged meetings with U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve officials for convicted Russian agent Maria Butina and then-Russian Central Bank Deputy Governor Alexander Torshin.

      Soloviev gushed about Simes: “I cherish his friendship.” Simes reciprocated: “For me, it’s always a great honor and great pleasure to appear on your program.” During their discussion, Soloviev brought up the biolab conspiracy theory and its potential impact on the presidential election in 2024. He said: “Russia served up a beneficial deck of cards for Trump, because the documents discovered in Ukraine, plus the evidence uncovered on Hunter Biden’s laptop, demonstrate the participation of Hunter Biden’s company in biological programs in Ukraine. A number of English-speaking media outlets have already picked it up, and of course, China clutched onto it. Can Trump’s people use this as a line of attack against Biden and his family?”

      Simes mused: “Not only can they do that, but they are already doing it. But this will be very difficult to accomplish, because the mainstream American media, perhaps with the exception of Fox News... mainly support Biden and not Trump. They’re constantly attempting to present any information that could harm Biden as some sort of underhanded intrigue, which somehow involves Russia and Vladimir Putin. There is now a new terminology in American journalism, which didn’t used to exist. They don’t say ‘Russia’s attack against Ukraine,’ or even ‘Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.’ It’s also not enough to describe it as ‘Russia’s aggression.’ That is now insufficient. They have to add ‘baseless and absolutely unprovoked.’ When Trump says something, they describe it as ‘Trump falsely claimed.’ When Tucker Carlson starts to say something—the leading commentator of Fox News—they immediately say that Tucker Carlson is speaking at the suggestion of Putin, that he is getting his writeups from Moscow.”

      Soloviev surmised: “Dimitri Konstantinovich [Simes] pointed out that you can’t hear this point of view anywhere—even on Fox News—with the sole exception of Tucker Carlson.”

      Back in 2021, during his TV show The Evening With Vladimir Soloviev, the host pined for the return of his favorite American president: “Things were so good under Trump... Listen to Trumpushka.” After playing a clip of Trump’s interview with Sean Hannity, wherein the former president dismissed the idea of helping Ukraine fight off Russian aggression, Soloviev sighed: “[He is] so sorely missed.” Between the war in Ukraine, which is likely to become a prolonged struggle, and the crushing U.S. sanctions, only one candidate shows the promise of potentially erasing the consequences of Russian aggression and dramatically limiting America’s support for Ukraine. Clutching to these prospects, the Kremlin’s mouthpieces are openly signaling Russia’s intent to involve themselves in yet another U.S. election.
      __________

      Russia Russia Russia still hasn't given up on their Useful Idiot. And he clearly hasn't given up on Russia.
      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
        [SIZE=18px]Russia Russia Russia still hasn't given up on their Useful Idiot. And he clearly hasn't given up on Russia.
        Was that an international Marsha, Marsha, Marsha?
        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
        Mark Twain

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

          Was that an international Marsha, Marsha, Marsha?
          If it's international wouldn't it be la Marseilles, la Marseilles, la Marseilles?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zraver View Post

            If it's international wouldn't it be la Marseilles, la Marseilles, la Marseilles?
            Or Mischa, Mischa, Mischa....
            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
            Mark Twain

            Comment


            • Tulsi Gabbard And Tucker Carlson Featured In Stunning Exchange On Russian TV

              Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s defenses of Russian President Vladimir Putin have evidently landed them comfortably in the Kremlin’s good graces.

              During a broadcast on Russian state television this week, Gabbard was apparently referenced in very friendly terms by one of Putin’s most prominent propagandists, Vladimir Soloviev.

              He introduced Gabbard, a Democratic primary candidate for the 2020 presidential race, as “our girlfriend Tulsi,” according to a translation by Russian media analyst Julia Davis, a columnist for the Daily Beast.

              A clip was then aired of Gabbard’s appearance on Monday’s episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” in which she suggested President Joe Biden was secretly plotting to remove Putin from power.

              After the clip aired, a panelist reportedly asked, “Is she some sort of Russian agent?”

              According to Davis’ translation, Soloviev said she was.

              During Monday’s interview, Gabbard argued that Biden was pushing for regime change in Russia through “economic warfare.”

              “They are doing so by waging this modern-day siege against Russia, isolating, containing, destroying their economy, starving the Russian people in the hope that the Russian people or the military will rise up and revolt and overthrow their government and get rid of Putin,” she said during part of the excerpt that aired in Russia.

              On Sunday, Biden said that Putin “cannot remain in power” in off-script remarks during a speech in Poland. White House officials quickly clarified that Biden was not advocating for regime change in Russia but that “Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region.”

              But according to Gabbard, “it was not a gaffe at all” and Biden is “lying” about his true motives.

              The Putin-friendly rhetoric is nothing new for the former congresswoman from Hawaii. Last month, as Putin was beginning his invasion of Russia, Gabbard blamed the U.S., NATO and Ukraine, claiming that the war could “easily have been avoided” if NATO had “simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO.”

              She has also lent credence to a Russian-backed conspiracy theory about U.S. biological labs in Ukraine that American officials have warned could serve as justification for Russia to use biological and chemical weapons against Ukraine.

              In 2019, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested in an interview that Gabbard, then a long shot in the Democratic presidential field, was being groomed by Russia as an “asset” who would run as a third-party candidate and help usher in a Republican president. Gabbard filed and then later dropped a defamation lawsuit against Clinton over the “asset” comment.

              Carlson, meanwhile, has been a favorite of Russian propagandists for weeks. The Fox News host has repeatedly been featured on Russian state-sponsored television for his defenses of Russia and criticisms of the U.S., NATO and Ukraine, and was even reportedly endorsed by the Kremlin in a leaked memo to state media.

              Earlier this week, he promoted a bizarre theory to keep Putin in power, suggesting that Islamic extremists would somehow get hold of the country’s nuclear weapons and use them on Americans if he was removed.

              ___________

              The love-fest that the American Right has for Putin should be startling but, then again there's the last several years that says it's no surprise.
              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

              Comment


              • Things would surely be different in Ukraine if Trump were president

                Donald Trump is right. If he were still president, the situation would be far different in Ukraine.

                If Mike Pence had ignored his Hoosier values of truth, justice and the Constitution and cooperated in overturning the election results, Trump could now be president.

                There would be no danger of armed conflict between Russia and NATO over Ukraine.

                There would be no NATO. Trump contended throughout his first term that NATO was outdated. He belittled and insulted leaders of European nations in the alliance. He was reluctant to support the collective-defense agreement known as Article 5. By now in a second term, he would have pulled out of the alliance and scuttled it.

                There would be no suggestion from a President Trump that Vladimir Putin is a butcher and must go after Russia invaded Ukraine. Trump praised the “genius” of Putin as Russia amassed troops for the invasion. And he wouldn’t let a little thing like Russia seeking to dominate its neighbor ruin his bromance with Putin. Hey, he pulled out of Syria and let Russia dominate there.

                There would be no long, heroic stand by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He would have been dead a month ago. Trump holds a grudge. Zelenskyy didn’t announce an investigation of Joe Biden before the election, even when Trump held up needed defensive weapons for Ukraine to force it. Fervent Trump supporters like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Madison Cawthorn haven’t forgotten. They call Zelenskyy a “thug” and “corrupt.” Trump, if still president, wouldn’t forget and wouldn’t coordinate massive arms shipments and sanctions to save Zelenskyy and thwart friend Putin.

                There would be no Ukraine. Without the United States and a unified NATO providing the help to stall the invasion, Russia would have smashed into Kyiv and disposed of Zelenskyy, still with a terrible toll in Ukraine civilian deaths but with less delay against an outgunned Ukrainian military left without needed weapons.

                Trump, though no longer president, still speaks out, claiming that he really won re-election and demonstrating how he would be responding to Putin if still in the White House.

                Trump calls for Putin to do something now, something very important.

                It wasn’t a call for Putin to halt the massacres in Ukraine. It was a call for Putin to release possible dirt on President Biden’s black-sheep son Hunter.

                Trump resurrected and embellished a controversial, last-minute 2020 campaign contention that Hunter Biden might have (or might not have) received money through funding of a firm by the wife of Moscow’s mayor.

                “She gave him $3.5 million,” Trump stated as fact. Why? “I would think Putin would know the answer to that. I think he should release it,” Trump said. “I think we should know that answer.”

                Putin would of course be believed if he announced, “Yes, the Bidens accepted millions in bribes along with that thug Zelenskyy to set up a Nazi government and germ warfare labs in Ukraine.”

                Well, U.S. intelligence agencies didn’t believe Putin’s claims that troops on Ukraine’s border weren’t going to invade. They wouldn’t believe he had turned truthful now after a life of lies.

                But Trump would believe. He famously declared at a meeting with the Russian leader that he believed the word of Putin over findings of his own intelligence agencies.

                If Putin did provide dirt helpful for Trump’s election in 2024, it would pretty much cinch that Trump, if president again, would approve Putin’s conquest of Ukraine and signal no concern over Putin’s desire to return other countries, Poland, Hungary and the Baltics, to their status in the old Soviet Union.


                While investigations continue into what Hunter Biden and Donald Trump Jr. might have done wrong, the possible transgressions of either child of a president, proven or not, shouldn’t hinder the efforts to save all those children in Ukraine.
                ____________

                The Leader of the Republican Party has never failed to show where his priorities are.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • My Take: Why did Putin invade Ukraine? Why now?

                  Why did Putin invade Ukraine now?

                  History answers these questions.

                  Why? Putin is an anti-democratic fascist. A communist would not tolerate a capitalistic oligarch class; Putin makes them rich; they support his dictatorship; that’s fascism. (Sound familiar?) He kills opponents, invades neighbors, commits war crimes (remember Syria), and controls the media.

                  Why now?

                  Blaming Biden, Republicans claim to know why now, shamefully trying to gain political points rather than presenting a united front against fascist aggression. “We have a weak president,” “Failed our allies,” “leads from behind.” Withdrawing from Afghanistan was “an invitation to the autocrats.” Trump said it’s “because of a rigged election,” claiming Putin’s “pretty smart” for “taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions.”

                  While Western Europe was colonizing overseas, Russia was colonizing peoples in Eurasia. With the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 there were 15 new nations. When Ukraine became independent, it was agreed that Ukraine, giving up its nuclear weapons, would be a neutral state between east and west. But this was not good enough for Putin.

                  Gaining power in 1999, Putin had two goals: preventing democracy in Russia and the former Soviet Republics and restoring his geopolitical control over these republics. He has successfully established puppets in several, including Belarus, and invaded Georgia. Ukraine rejects him.

                  Poland joined NATO in 1999 and Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 2004. Putin hates NATO because it is an obstacle to his desire for expansion in Europe. A stable democracy is a prerequisite for membership in NATO. Trump and his Republican cronies have worked to destabilize Ukraine.

                  Between 2004 and 2014 Republican Paul Manafort earned $12 million from Russian oligarchs doing Putin's bidding in Ukraine and helping to elect Viktor Yanukovych a pro-Russian, anti-NATO leader in 2012. In 2014, when protests overthrew Yanukovych because of corruption and his policies, Putin’s response was to take Crimea. Obama put sanctions on Russia.

                  In the spring of his 2016 campaign Trump questioned NATO’s relevance, saying he would “certainly look at” pulling the United States out. Despite the pushback, Trump continued to question our involvement as obsolete (implying that Russia is no longer a threat) and too expensive. In Trump’s questioning NATO Putin saw a friend or a fool he could manipulate. Trump publicly asked Putin for help in his campaign, which Putin was quite willing to give.

                  Manafort became Trump’s campaign chairperson. Manafort/Trump changed the GOP Platform, weakening support for Ukraine. Manafort was ousted from the campaign when the public learned he continued his Russian contacts during the campaign. Manafort, eventually convicted of financial fraud and failing to register as a foreign agent, was pardoned by Trump!


                  In office, Trump blamed Ukraine for the election interference believing Putin’s denial of Russian influence. Trump agreed that Crimea should be part of Russia and wanted to ease sanctions imposed by the Obama administration allowing Russia back into the G7. He supported Putin’s “peace” plan to carve out part of Eastern Ukraine. In 2019, newly elected Zelensky was confronted with Trump’s blackmailing and withholding of promised military aid. Between 2017 and 2019 Trump had an unprecedented 16 or more private conversations with Putin, even confiscating translator notes. Trump wanted the American people to never know what he and Putin talked about. According to his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, Trump had contempt for Ukraine and thought about what’s good for Trump, not about geopolitical threats to Europe. From 2004 to 2021 Trump and Republican actions helped destabilize Ukraine, which helped keep it out of NATO.

                  As recently as the 2020 campaign Trump discussed with advisors removing the U.S. from NATO. Their advice was to wait for his second term to do so, as it could cost him some votes. With 87,000 troops on the border of eastern Ukraine during Trump’s presidency, it appears that Putin was postponing his invasion so he could take the Baltic States and possibly even Poland as well. Days ago, Russian state TV called for “regime change in the U.S.” calling on Americans "to again help our partner Trump to become President."


                  Blaming Biden, who has worked hard to repair Trump’s damage, Republicans are forgetting Trump’s cozy relationship with his friend Putin and authoritarians, his alienation of European democratic leaders, his attempts to withdraw the U.S. from NATO and the GOP’s destabilizing role.

                  Putin has long talked about restoring Russian control over the “breakaway” Republics from the Soviet Union. Even if Trump was reelected, Putin, might have waited a year to allow Trump to withdraw the U.S. from NATO, thus making Putin’s job easier.

                  Republicans’ saying that Joe Biden is partly responsible for why the invasion is taking place now is partly correct. The 2020 election of Biden removed Putin’s “friend” Trump from office, preventing him from taking the U.S. out of NATO.

                  With U.S. membership in NATO secured, with Poland and the Baltic States protected, with Ukraine moving to a working democracy with individual freedom under Zelensky and its possible future membership in the European Union and NATO, and with nothing more Putin can gain from Trump, there is no reason for Putin to wait.

                  We can now add another name to the long list of amoral, soulless Russian leaders: Ivan IV the Terrible, Alexander II, Lenin, Stalin, and Trump's friend, Vladimir Putin.
                  ___________
                  “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                  Comment


                  • No! The ONLY reason why Putin invaded now is that Poroshenko was in charge of UKR. And Putin knew Poroshenko, another Mafia boss, would fight, fight hard, but most of all fight dirty. When Zelensky got elected, Putin tested the man and found him wanting. Putin's decision had nothing to do with Biden nor Trump since neither would interfere with his invasion plans and neither did.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      No! The ONLY reason why Putin invaded now is that Poroshenko was in charge of UKR. And Putin knew Poroshenko, another Mafia boss, would fight, fight hard, but most of all fight dirty. When Zelensky got elected, Putin tested the man and found him wanting.
                      I can definitely see Putin viewing Zelenskyy as a milquetoast coward and therefore someone who would cut and run at the first sign of danger.


                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      Putin's decision had nothing to do with Biden nor Trump since neither would interfere with his invasion plans and neither did.
                      I don't see this as a strictly "either-or" situation. Most geopolitical decisions aren't, for that matter.

                      The U.S. response to Ukraine's takeover had to figure into Putin's decision. To say it had nothing to do with the U.S. president simply isn't credible or realistic. There's more that the U.S., should it act as a leader, could do (as indeed we've seen) than direct intervention into conflict.

                      Putin clearly saw Trump, as the op-ed stated,a friend or a fool he could manipulate and Russia's propaganda organs still see Trump as a "partner".
                      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                        I don't see this as a strictly "either-or" situation. Most geopolitical decisions aren't, for that matter.

                        The U.S. response to Ukraine's takeover had to figure into Putin's decision. To say it had nothing to do with the U.S. president simply isn't credible or realistic. There's more that the U.S., should it act as a leader, could do (as indeed we've seen) than direct intervention into conflict.

                        Putin clearly saw Trump, as the op-ed stated,a friend or a fool he could manipulate and Russia's propaganda organs still see Trump as a "partner".
                        The only position that either Biden or Trump that would have come into Putin's decision making is a US Brigade acting as a blocking force. Since neither Trump nor Biden is willing to do so, neither figured into Putin's decision. Putin did not have to jump through hoops to convince Biden, let alone Trump, to avoid committing US troops to that fight.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          The only position that either Biden or Trump that would have come into Putin's decision making is a US Brigade acting as a blocking force. Since neither Trump nor Biden is willing to do so, neither figured into Putin's decision. Putin did not have to jump through hoops to convince Biden, let alone Trump, to avoid committing US troops to that fight.
                          Like I said, U.S. troops in Ukraine were never an option but that's hardly the only move that the U.S./NATO could (and did) make.
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                            Like I said, U.S. troops in Ukraine were never an option but that's hardly the only move that the U.S./NATO could (and did) make.
                            And nothing we did stopped the invasion nor disuade Putin from invading, especially when he was convinced the war would be over in a week. And nothing we did could convinced him otherwise.

                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • And nothing we did stopped the invasion nor disuade Putin from invading, especially when he was convinced the war would be over in a week. And nothing we did could convinced him otherwise.
                              maybe, but if he figured Trump was going to take the US out of NATO in his second term, then Putin would have had overwhelming reason to not interrupt his enemy from making a mistake.

                              in any case I doubt Putin actually cared about the actual quality of the Ukrainian leader facing him.

                              as you mentioned pre-war, if the belief was that the Ukrainian military could only fight decently at the platoon-level, then whether or not you had a mob boss or a comedian in charge of that collection would hardly be the deciding factor. Churchill couldn't be Churchill if the English people couldn't fight worth a damn.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment


                              • It was said the only leader that scared the shit of Stalin was Titto, not because the Yugoslav Army was that good but that Titto could kill Stalin in his sleep. Mob bosses don't do last stands.
                                Chimo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X