Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Who’s Soft on Russia? Meet the Republican Anti-Ukraine Caucus!
    The Republicans who love Russia and hate America.

    After years of defending a pro-Putin American president and dismissing Russia’s interference in American elections, Republicans have returned to their old shtick: accusing Democrats of being soft on Russia. Their hypocrisy is galling, but the bigger problem is that their depiction of the two parties is backward. In polls, Republicans are more dovish on Russia and Ukraine than Democrats are. And in Congress, the purveyors of isolationism, appeasement, and Russian propaganda are on the right, not the left.

    Since Russia invaded Ukraine, the House of Representatives has voted on three measures specific to the war. The first vote, taken on March 2, was on a resolution that endorsed sanctions against Russia, reaffirmed Ukrainian sovereignty over territory seized by Russia, advocated military aid to Ukraine, and pledged to support the Ukrainian resistance. All six members of the progressive “Squad”—Reps. Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib—voted for the resolution. So did Rep. Barbara Lee, the Democrats’ foremost opponent of military spending. Not one Democrat voted against the resolution. But three Republicans did: Reps. Paul Gosar, Thomas Massie, and Matt Rosendale.

    On March 9, the House passed a bill to suspend oil and gas imports from Russia. Five of the seven Democratic leftists voted for the suspension. The two who voted against it—Bush and Omar—were joined by 15 Republicans who also voted no. In addition to Gosar and Massie, this time the list included Reps. 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.

    On March 17, the House passed a bill to end favorable trade relations with Russia and its accomplice in the war, Belarus. Eight Republicans voted against the bill. Every Democrat, including the seven leftists, voted for it.

    Several Republicans have gone further. Cawthorn and Gosar are pushing legislation that would prohibit the U.S. military from deploying “by reason of the situation in Ukraine” any more troops than are stationed at the Mexican border. No sensible military planner would want more troops guarding a friendly border than deterring an imminent threat to our most important alliance, but that’s what this bill would do: It would block deployments to NATO countries in Eastern Europe. It’s a gift to Vladimir Putin.

    Meanwhile, 10 Republicans have signed on to a bill that would bar any delivery of military aid to Ukraine until “a border wall system along the United States-Mexico border is completed.” The cosponsors include Reps. Bob Good, Jody Hice, Mary Miller, Ralph Norman, and Randy Weber. (Don’t bother trying to square this demand with Trump’s insistence that he has basically built the wall, except for a couple of tiny spots.)

    Altogether, that’s 21 Republicans who have opposed, or at least sought to constrain, aid to Ukraine or sanctions on Russia. That’s a group three times the size of “the Squad,” which Republicans claim is in control of every aspect of Democratic policy. Imagine how much power those 21 Republicans would wield in a GOP-controlled House.

    The other side of the equation is the near-unanimity of support among Democrats, even from very progressive members, for standing up to Russia. Leftist Democrats generally oppose armed intervention, yet nearly all of them voted for sanctions against Russia and military aid for Ukraine. Why is that?

    It’s because they recognize the war as a showdown between right and wrong. “We have to hold Putin accountable,” Pressley told her constituents at a town hall last week. Ocasio-Cortez, at her own town hall, applauded President Biden for refusing to be “walked over” by Putin. And in a progressive teleconference on the Ukraine crisis, Lee endorsed “security and military assistance” to the Ukrainians because “we’ve got to help them defend themselves.”

    Many of the 21 House Republicans, however, don’t see it that way. They’ve swallowed a cocktail of isolationism, defeatism, partisan paranoia, and Russian disinformation. Here are the main pillars of their reasoning:

    America has no responsibilities in the world. The United States has no legal or moral obligation to come to Ukraine’s aid,” says Rosendale. Biggs and Gosar also oppose America’s commitment to Article 5 of the NATO charter, which obliges each member state to defend the others. Gaetz and Massie oppose financial support, not just military assistance, to Ukraine and other eastern European countries. Gaetz calls these countries “welfare cases.” Massie says we should scrap NATO because “Americans are done subsidizing socialism.”

    America should worry about its own borders, not Ukraine’s. This is the most popular theme among the 21 Republican resisters. In mid-February, when Biden sent troops to Europe to protect NATO allies from a possible Russian attack, Miller scoffed: “Biden wants U.S. troops to defend Ukraine’s border instead of our own.” A week later, on the eve of the invasion, Bishop said the U.S. should focus on the Mexican border instead of getting “distracted” and “absorbed in the predicament of Ukraine.”

    Russia is powerful, so America should retreat. The resisters fret that Putin would punish the West’s sanctions with “drastic measures,” that America should accept Russia’s domination of its neighbors, that we shouldn’t send “money and weaponry to Ukraine to fight a war they cannot possibly win,” and that instead we should “take NATO membership for Ukraine off the table” to appease the Kremlin.

    The invasion was provoked. Some of the resisters blame Ukraine for the war. “Ukraine just kept poking the bear and poking the bear . . . and Russia invaded,” says Greene. Others blame NATO. “We’re jabbing and have been jabbing Russia in the eye by expanding NATO,” says Massie. “They feel threatened.”

    Sanctions on Russia are a Democratic plot to hurt Americans. Many Republican lawmakers agree with Donald Trump that domestic liberals, not foreign tyrants, are America’s real enemies. Roy says he voted against banning Russian oil and gas because the ban was “designed purposefully to depress American oil and gas production” and “advance their [Democrats’] radical climate agenda.” He says Ukraine is just a cover story: “They WANT your gas to cost more. This is why Democrats jumped on the opportunity to ban Russian oil.”

    Sanctions on Russia are part of the gay agenda. Grothman said he voted against sanctions on March 17 because the bill would “leave open the possibility of the U.S. government weaponizing our vast financial wealth to threaten foreign officials that hold traditional views on life or marriage.” He specifically cited concerns about gay and transgender rights. Gosar retweeted a similar argument: “Do you really want gay pride parades in Kieve [sic] so badly that you’ll get into a nuclear confrontation with Russia?”

    Ukraine is a tool of the Biden family and the Democratic party. Trump’s propaganda about the Russia investigation and the Ukraine impeachment has saturated his party. Cawthorn calls Ukraine “incredibly evil”; Gaetz calls it “the third-most corrupt country in the world”; Greene says it was “the Number 1 donor to Hillary Clinton.” (It wasn’t.)

    These views aren’t confined to the fringe. Other Republicans have also insinuated that Biden is defending Ukraine for corrupt reasons. Weber calls Putin’s invasion “an attack on Hunter Biden’s income.” Miller complains: “After Hunter Biden made millions in Ukraine and held ‘10% for the Big Guy,’ Joe Biden is now making the United States responsible for Ukraine’s border.” (Even if you buy the “10% for the Big Guy” story, it was supposedly a deal Hunter Biden was trying to make in China, not Ukraine.)

    Everything Russia said about Ukraine is true. Some of the resisters claim that Ukraine is dangerous because of its “biological labs,” that its government exists only “because the Obama State Department helped to overthrow the previous regime,” or that U.S. military aid might fall “into the hands of Nazis in Ukraine.” These smears are identical to Kremlin propaganda.

    Russia is no worse than Canada or the United States. Boebert says the fuss over Ukraine is overshadowing a bigger story: COVID tyranny in Canada and America. “We also have neighbors to the north who need freedom and need to be liberated, and we need that right here at home, as well,” she argues.

    Massie agrees: “People are complaining about communists who may invade Ukraine. But what the hell have they been doing to our country? When you can tell people they can’t go to church, they can’t go to work, their kids have to wear these muzzles . . .”

    This is the reality of the partisan divide in Congress today. The Democratic left supports sanctions and military aid, while a significant bloc of Republicans is trying to obstruct American intervention. Some of these Republicans see themselves as an antiwar caucus. They denounce “war hawks on both sides of the aisle,” and they protest that “the left is so addicted to war.” But what they’re preaching isn’t pacifism. It’s nihilism, cynicism, cowardice, partisan derangement, and a loathing of contemporary America.
    ____________

    I still see this one and at first I was puzzled by it: "Ukraine is hideously corrupt!!" is the 'yeah but' when Trumpers can bring themselves to acknowledge Putin's invasion of Ukraine. It's just another another dog whistle: "Ukraine is a tool of the Biden family and the Democratic party."

    No wonder Trump's useful idiots still try to justify or rationalize his continued appeals to Putin for political assistance.
    “You scare people badly enough, you can get 'em to do anything They'll turn to whoever promises a solution”

    Comment


    • I'm all in favor of giving Ukraine what she needs too kick Russia's teeth down her throat but let's not pretend that the US Mexico border is friendly. It's ruled by cartels who engage in slavery and mass rape, and is a principal entry to drugs that kill 100k Americans a year. If the US Federal Government cared about it's duty to it's citizens the border would have been sealed except for legal crossing points years ago.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
        I'm all in favor of giving Ukraine what she needs too kick Russia's teeth down her throat but let's not pretend that the US Mexico border is friendly. It's ruled by cartels who engage in slavery and mass rape, and is a principal entry to drugs that kill 100k Americans a year. If the US Federal Government cared about it's duty to it's citizens the border would have been sealed except for legal crossing points years ago.
        Nice strawman, as usual.

        You forgot about White Replacement Theory....excuse me "Western Cultural Replacement". C'mon don't forget to say the quiet part out loud. It's what you're most concerned about after all.
        “You scare people badly enough, you can get 'em to do anything They'll turn to whoever promises a solution”

        Comment


        • No I am concerned about 100k OD deaths and the mass rape of every migrant woman and girl at the hands of cartel jackals. I'm concerned about lost jobs in many of formerly blue collar trades than now pay less than minimum using what is basically wage slave labor. I'm concerned about human trafficking.

          I am not concerned about race.

          Comment


          • BTW speaking of strawnen..... I say the border is not friendly based on ID deaths and you attack me with baseless claims I am a racist. That enough straw for an army of them.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by zraver View Post
              BTW speaking of strawnen..... I say the border is not friendly based on ID deaths and you attack me with baseless claims I am a racist. That enough straw for an army of them.
              You just can't remember the vile shit that you post can you? "Western Cultural Replacement" is YOUR phrase. Being a nativist is something YOU have admitted to.

              There's nothing "baseless" about it. Fucking unbelievable how low you can sink and then have the balls to deny it.
              “You scare people badly enough, you can get 'em to do anything They'll turn to whoever promises a solution”

              Comment


              • Neither of those has shit all to do with race. That's the deliberate mischaraterization you keep making.

                Yeah, I think immigration should prioritize those coming from countries with a functioning civil society. Race has nothing to do with that. An afro-carribean immigrant from Jamaica or the Bahamas for example are far better able to assimilate than someone who grew up in Putin's Russia. Someone from Chile would on average be a better future American than someone from Honduras. Same color, different civil societies. I don't get your fixation on race. I presume that like most liberals you have a paternalistic view of the races. I don't share that view. I live, work and play in a multi-racial society. Maybe you should as well. You' learn a lot.

                I have also stated over and over again I think the governments first duty is to the citizen. Last time I checked about 1 in 3 citizens is not white. So do you want to talk about fatherlessness in black homes, the FTP warrant poverty trap, failing inner city schools, how abortion has knee capped black political voice? Things I am versed in because I care about my fellow citizen without requiring some sort of sorting test. It's simply citizen or not.

                Yet no matter how many times I lay this out you ignore me and use a strawman argument because you can't actually argue against my position. If you could you would.

                Instead like every other liberal you accuse those right of you of things that are actually way more common on the Left.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  Neither of those has shit all to do with race. That's the deliberate mischaraterization you keep making.

                  Yeah, I think immigration should prioritize those coming from countries with a functioning civil society. Race has nothing to do with that. An afro-carribean immigrant from Jamaica or the Bahamas for example are far better able to assimilate than someone who grew up in Putin's Russia. Someone from Chile would on average be a better future American than someone from Honduras. Same color, different civil societies. I don't get your fixation on race. I presume that like most liberals you have a paternalistic view of the races. I don't share that view. I live, work and play in a multi-racial society. Maybe you should as well. You' learn a lot.

                  I have also stated over and over again I think the governments first duty is to the citizen. Last time I checked about 1 in 3 citizens is not white. So do you want to talk about fatherlessness in black homes, the FTP warrant poverty trap, failing inner city schools, how abortion has knee capped black political voice? Things I am versed in because I care about my fellow citizen without requiring some sort of sorting test. It's simply citizen or not.

                  Yet no matter how many times I lay this out you ignore me and use a strawman argument because you can't actually argue against my position. If you could you would.

                  Instead like every other liberal you accuse those right of you of things that are actually way more common on the Left.
                  Don't even. Just don't fucking even. Nativism IS Racism and YOU are a nativist, you admit to it and can't even grasp that it might juuuust be a little problematic, not to mention that you're a closeted (barely) anti-Semite and you'd like to pretend that you haven't said any of that and instead deflect onto things like fatherlessness in black homes, abortions and all the rest of your other dog whistle racism. You want me to believe you actually care about any of that?
                  “You scare people badly enough, you can get 'em to do anything They'll turn to whoever promises a solution”

                  Comment


                  • No natavist is not racism. That's a lefty dog whistle. Natavist is thinking the government should put the needs of the citizen first. Policy in all regards should be judged as a success or failure on how it benefits the citizen and body polity. Not some citizens, but all of them.

                    No I am not an antisemite in any shape or form. The only religion I have any issue with is wahabist Islam for the obvious problem it has with violent jihad. Many of the thought leaders I respect and follow on my social media diet are Jewish, my creator is a Jew. But as usual you can't actually debate. I raised a stink one time about Israel using WP in residential neighborhoods during the Gaza War. Oh and mistakenly thought that BDS was actually about peace. I rather quickly disowned any association with that ideology when the truth of BDS became clear. That does not make me an antisemite, or even anti-Isreal, just someone who is pro-peace.

                    Yeah, I actually do care. Like I said, I live in a multi-racial world. Most of the people I know, most of my coworkers and many of my friends are black. My wife grew up in a black neighborhood and my stepson is a fan of black culture. Black success or more of it means a better future for my adopted state generally and better futures for the kids of my black friends specifically. My personal link to all of was winning a full ride scholarship into an honors program at university. I went from "remedial" classes (mandatory for non-trads without an ACT score) that was mostly black into an honors program that was as white as a Montana blizzard. I noticed. So as a tutor my focus was on helping my black classmates translate what they knew from AAVE into ASE. So if you want to talk about how much BS it is that black students don't get credit for knowing a second language I really put down the words.

                    So take your BS claims and throw them in the trash.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      No I am not an antisemite in any shape or form..
                      Once again, your post history says otherwise. Don't even think about trying to erase the last 10 years of your posts or the staff's having to deal with your anti-semitism.

                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      No natavist is not racism. That's a lefty dog whistle.

                      So take your BS claims and throw them in the trash.
                      Wrong. Dead wrong. They're two sides of the same coin. And neither are allowed here on this board as long as I have something to say about it.
                      “You scare people badly enough, you can get 'em to do anything They'll turn to whoever promises a solution”

                      Comment


                      • Quick question without taking sides, how does "nativism" relate to indigenous rights in the US?
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • My take, the federal government has failed the tribes even worse than it fails most citizens. Our government won't honor it's treaty commitments to them. The way the reservation system was manipulated prevents generational wealth building or community based shared economic prosperity. Oil, gas, mineral deposits found on native land have either been A. Leased off at auction with the feds taking the revenues in trust instead of paying them out. Or B. Banned by "green" politicians. Schools and Indian healthcare are chronically underfunded. Poverty on some reservations is third world levels. Deaths of despair, domestic and sexual violence, substance abuse are common. Life expectancy in general is 5.5 years less for Native Americans than the general population. Political representation is muzzled by breaking reservations into multiple state and federal legislative districts. Membership in the tribe is artificially limited by blood quantum's where children of a tribal member may not be eligible for tribal membership. Historic censuses like the Dawes Commission further exclude people with significant Native American heritage from being counted or being permitted tribal membership. My great great maternal grandparents were full blooded Cherokee but were not on the reservation to be counted so we're denied tribal membership and became a "black dutch". So I am 1/32. My first two kids are also 1/32 but my youngest is only 1/64.

                          In short, the First People's got screwed, are still getting screwed, looks like they will continue to get screwed in the future. The way the federal and state governments treat Native Americans who have officially been citizens since 1924 could serve as example #1 on how the US government has betrayed it's most sacred trust to the citizen and it's solemn oath to honor treaties with sovergien nations. It's shameful.

                          Comment


                          • Putin Wants to Break NATO. Republicans Want to Help Him.

                            He's losing the war against Ukraine but making advances in his campaign to dissolve NATO.

                            Vladimir Putin’s central objective in Europe isn’t to capture Kyiv, the Donbas, or any other part of Ukraine. It’s to weaken the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which protects most of the continent against him. And in that longstanding campaign, Putin scored two significant victories this week.

                            One was in France, where Marine Le Pen, a Putin sympathizer, finished a close second to Emmanuel Macron in Sunday’s French presidential election. Le Pen is running almost even with Macron in polls for the April 24 runoff. She has said that if she wins, she’ll withdraw France from NATO’s command structure.

                            The other victory was in the United States, where 63 House Republicans, nearly a third of the GOP conference, voted against a resolution of support for NATO.

                            The House vote, taken on April 5, is a warning sign. Putin may be losing ground in Ukraine, but he’s gaining ground in the U.S. Congress. Three years ago, 22 House Republicans voted against pro-NATO legislation. That number has nearly tripled.

                            The “Putin wing” of the House GOP—useful idiots such as Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who openly spout Russian propaganda—is only a tiny fraction of the Kremlin’s target audience in Congress. They’re joined by a larger crowd of Ukraine bashers, hardcore isolationists, and right-wingers who say we shouldn’t worry about anyone else’s borders until we “secure” our own. Together, that coalition adds up to more than 20 lawmakers.


                            That’s a problem. But when you combine them with the NATO skeptics who voted against last week’s resolution—another 40 or so House Republicans who don’t trust alliances and who view Europeans as America’s rivals or adversaries—the problem gets a lot bigger.

                            The GOP’s turn against NATO is particularly worrisome because Congress has been warned, explicitly and repeatedly, about Putin’s goal of dissolving the alliance. In March 2017, after a U.S. intelligence report confirmed that Russia had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs—which was then, like the rest of Congress, under Republican control—held a hearing on this subject. The hearing was titled, “Undermining Democratic Institutions and Splintering NATO: Russian Disinformation Aims.” Analysts and former officials explained to the committee how Russia had, in the words of one witness, persistently funded propaganda in the West to “fracture allied security, stoke public distrust against democratic institutions, and discredit the alliance structures that defend Europe.”

                            Over the next two years, other reports documented the same problem. The European Council on Foreign Relations noted Russia’s efforts to undermine support for NATO in Finland, the Czech Republic, and other countries. Foreign policy journals and articles in the American press noted rising alarm in Europe at President Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw U.S. troops from the continent or to abandon the American commitment to defend NATO allies.

                            On January 14, 2019, the New York Times reported that “several times” in 2018, Trump had “privately said he wanted to withdraw” from the alliance. The article said Trump had “told his top national security officials that he did not see the point of the military alliance, which he presented as a drain on the United States.”

                            A few days after the Times report, House Democrats filed and brought to the floor the NATO Support Act, which reaffirmed that the U.S. was “solemnly committed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5.” The bill couldn’t completely bind Trump, but it expressed the sense of Congress that “the President shall not withdraw the United States from NATO” and that American policy was “to reject any efforts to withdraw the United States from NATO.” It also prohibited the use of federal funds “to take any action to withdraw the United States” from the alliance.

                            Every Democrat voted for the bill; 22 Republicans voted against it.


                            One of the 22 Republicans, Rep. Scott Perry, explained why he and other self-styled hawks had voted no. In a statement to constituents, he complained that “the bill prevented the U.S. from ever leaving NATO . . . unless Congress first voted to repeal this would-be new law.” Perry wanted Trump to be free to pull America out of NATO, on his own.

                            Perry also argued that Trump should be free “to negotiate better terms for the United States in NATO,” as though the alliance were a trade deal. And he warned that “an ally of ours today may not be an ally tomorrow.”


                            That’s how Perry and many of his colleagues viewed the world. They saw alliances as entanglements and burdens. They worried that even friendly countries couldn’t be trusted. They believed that America should hedge its commitments because our allies might screw us.

                            And that was all Putin needed. He didn’t need American lawmakers to love him the way Trump did. He just needed them to constrain or withhold support from NATO.

                            Perry’s defection was a particularly good sign for Putin. The congressman wasn’t just an Iraq war veteran. He had also chaired part of the 2017 hearing on Russia’s strategy to undermine NATO. So he must have known he was doing what Putin wanted.

                            But he did it anyway, because he thought he was protecting America from Europe.

                            In the three years since that vote, Congress has seen even more evidence of Russia’s operations to sabotage NATO.

                            In April 2019, the Justice Department released the Mueller report. It detailed how Russia had lobbied Trump campaign officials against NATO; how the Trump campaign, according to one of its own former co-chairs, had shifted away from “the NATO framework”; and how the Trump team had blocked Republican platform language that would have endorsed “providing lethal defensive weapons” to Ukraine.

                            In October 2019, the Senate Intelligence Committee released an analysis of Russian propaganda techniques. The report showed how the Kremlin had sought to “drive wedges in the Western community alliances of all sorts, particularly NATO.” One of Russia’s tricks, the report noted, was “discouraging United States support” for accepting eastern European countries into NATO by portraying those countries as “free riders.”

                            In August 2020, the Senate committee issued a report that showed how Kremlin sympathizers had lobbied the Trump campaign against NATO. The report found that in April 2016, then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had advised Trump to affirm in a speech that “our commitment to our NATO allies in Eastern Europe is absolute” and that “we need to stand up to Russian aggression together.” The Trump campaign had rejected this language.

                            In September 2020, New York Times journalist Michael Schmidt reported that during Trump’s presidency, his then-chief of staff, John Kelly, had struggled to stop Trump from pulling out of NATO. In July 2021, Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker revealed that Trump had told advisers he would abandon the alliance in his second term. And last month, Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, told the Post that “Putin was waiting” for Trump to do just that.

                            After all these warnings, and after Putin’s latest invasion of Ukraine, one might have expected the congressional caucus of NATO critics to shrink.

                            Instead, it multiplied.

                            Why did so many Republicans vote against the latest pro-NATO resolution?

                            Some openly reject the alliance. “NATO is a relic of the Cold War,” said Rep. Thomas Massie. “Why should Americans pay for Europe’s defense?”

                            Others said the U.S. should be wary of overcommitment. “We shouldn’t say that our support for NATO is unconditional,” said Rep. Warren Davidson.

                            But others, including Perry, complained that the resolution threatened American sovereignty.In a video statement, Perry told his constituents that the resolution “politicizes NATO” by saying “if you’re not supporting socialism, then we’re going to use NATO against you.”

                            This is a bizarre misrepresentation. The resolution affirmed that NATO was “founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.” Those words are literally in the alliance’s founding treaty. The resolution also called for “unwavering support to the people of Ukraine.” And it endorsed a project, jointly proposed by Democratic and Republican lawmakers, to build “NATO’s capacity to strengthen democratic institutions within NATO member, partner, and aspirant countries.”

                            To make sure nobody misconstrued that language as an attack on sovereignty, the resolution stipulated that any NATO monitoring of “challenges to democracy” within member states would be undertaken only “when requested.”

                            Perry ignored that stipulation and caricatured the resolution. So did several of his colleagues. Representative Chip Roy described the resolution as “empowering international organizations to target the internal activities of sovereign nations.” Davidson described it as “using NATO to try to undermine America’s sovereignty.”

                            Some members who opposed the measure also expressed hostility toward Europe. Davidson said “global commitments” to accords on climate, banking, and other issues were forcing the U.S. to adopt the “inferior system” of “the Europeans.”

                            Roy fretted that NATO, empowered by the House resolution, would subject Americans to “the leftist orthodoxy that now unfortunately permeates most of Western Europe.”

                            These lawmakers think they’re patriots. They think that by voting to limit NATO and America’s commitment to it, they’re protecting us. And that’s what makes their subversion of the alliance, from Putin’s point of view, so delicious.

                            It’s so much easier to serve evil when you think you’re doing good.

                            _________

                            The Guardians Of Putin make their loyalties clear...and they'll get reelected in a walk. Simply unbelievable.
                            “You scare people badly enough, you can get 'em to do anything They'll turn to whoever promises a solution”

                            Comment


                            • Alexander Vindman says the January 6 riot was Putin's signal to start building forces on Ukraine's border
                              Former Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified in former President Donald Trump's first impeachment trial, said the division sowed by the Capitol riot paved the way for Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine earlier this year.

                              "Starting just months after Jan. 6, Putin began building up forces on the border. He saw the discord here," Vindman told The New York Times Magazine in an interview. "He saw the huge opportunity presented by Donald Trump and his Republican lackeys."

                              "These folks sent the signal Putin was waiting for," added Vindman, who previously served as director for European affairs at the United States National Security Council.

                              His comments come more than a month after Russian forces invaded Ukraine in the early hours of Thursday, February 24.

                              Multiple former Trump officials told The Times that the many scandals of Trump's administration contributed to a geopolitical climate which allowed for Putin's power grab in Ukraine.

                              Vindman, along with Fiona Hill, former senior director for Europe and Russia at the United States National Security Council, specifically cited Trump's first impeachment trial — which dealt with allegations that Trump had withheld military aid from Ukraine in order to persuade Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate his political opponent, President Joe Biden — as an inflection point.

                              The Republican-controlled Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020, which only served to "embolden" the president, according to former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

                              "This is Trump saying, 'I got away with it.' And thinking, If I got away with it once, I can get away with it again," Bolton told The Times. "And he did get away with it again."


                              Trump was impeached a second time in January 2021 on an incitement charge following the deadly Capitol riot. The Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him once more.

                              Vindman, who was removed from his NSC role after he testified against Trump, said he eventually came to see these individual events — the Ukraine scandal and Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election — as "part of a broader tapestry."

                              "The domestic effects of all this are bad enough. But there's also a geopolitical impact," he told The Times. "We missed an opportunity to harden Ukraine against Russian aggression."

                              Instead, Vindman said Ukraine became "radioactive" for the rest of Trump's tenure, leaving the country without any "serious engagement" from the US.

                              "Putin had been wanting to reclaim Ukraine for eight years, but he was trying to gauge when was the right time to do it," Vindman said.


                              Bolton echoed his sentiment, telling The Times that Trump's Ukraine ordeal served to undermine Zelenskyy, who was new to office at the time.

                              "It made it impossible for Zelenskyy to establish any kind of relationship with the president of the United States — who, faced with a Russian Army on his eastern border, any Ukrainian president would have as his highest priority," Bolton said. "So basically that means Ukraine loses a year and a half of contact with the president."

                              Vindman, who is Ukrainian-American and a Soviet émigré, has previously been outspoken about the role he believes Trump and the Republican Party played in emboldening Russia to invade Ukraine.

                              In an interview with Salon last month, Vindman said Trump's refusal to criticize Putin was one of the factors that led Putin to act. He also slammed former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Fox News host Tucker Carlson for praising Putin even amid the burgeoning conflict.
                              _______

                              Dictators and despots have never had a more fawning and submissive ally in the White House than between January 20, 2017 – January 20, 2021

                              The damage done by Trump and his mob on January 6th may never be fully quantified.
                              “You scare people badly enough, you can get 'em to do anything They'll turn to whoever promises a solution”

                              Comment


                              • That rather flows against the historical facts. While Putin is not above taking advantage of US distraction as he did in Georgia. He has been more open about his ambitions when Obama and Biden held the reins. Obama famously backed off his line in the sand in Syria and offered Ukraine socks when Putin invaded Crimea and sponsored separatist movements leading to direct clashes between UA and RA forces in 15. Soon as Biden gets elected he removes sanctions on Nord Stream II.

                                That was the greenlight. You can track the build up from US approval of Nord Stream II, to the final decision to invade to after the pipeline was completed and was only awaiting final certification.

                                Putin's great miscalculations we're not waiting for final certification and dry weather. He jumped before Germany's balls were firmly in his grip. The only enabling act by the US was greenlighting Nord Stream II.

                                We got lucky that Germany however reluctantly decided to delay certification over concerns about Putin's Ukraine intentions and to oppose Putin. She is the master of Europe and if she said nope, the Ukraine was going to be doomed.

                                However Vindman"s claims do tacitly admit that during the Trump years Putin played possum. Probably due to the demonstration of what the US was really capable of when we went around his S400 and SAG group in the Med and not do vieled threats to defend his vassal and blew the shit out of Assad for gassing civilians not once but twice.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X