Oh, it was glorious, seeing that coked-up midget, “the green T-shirt”, get his spanking from Trump!
In case you live under a rock, Zelensky recently visited the White House, ostensibly to sign an agreement to share in the exploitation of mineral rights with whatever is left of Ukraine after the peace. Trump wants to recoup for the USA the hundreds of billions they poured into that never-should-have-happened war, and set it as a pre-condition for anything else to happen. If he doesn’t take the deal, according to Trump, he can “fight it out” with Russia without US support.
Scott Bessent, the US Treasury Secretary went to Ukraine to sign the deal that had been hashed out and Ukraine had agreed on, and Zelensky “slept in”, arrived late, and wound up shouting at him and did not sign. He later said he would sign in at the Munich summit, and then got into a shouting match with Secretary of State Rubio and Vice President Vance, and didn’t sign it again. Then he said he would come to the White House and sign it. Instead, he became belligerent and refused to sign it without concrete security guarantees from the US. Thus despite the fact he was told by the White House and by all his supporters in Congress that wasn’t happening and he needed to sign.
The deal would have guaranteed investment in post war Ukraine, been prosperous for both parties, and would have created a de-facto security guarantee by putting Americans and American companies and interests in the East of Ukraine, which would deter further aggression from Russia after a peace was established.
All he needed to do was smile and sign, have a nice lunch, say nice things, and go home. But no.
The full exchange is here:
The part where it really goes off the rails is near the end, starting at 38:15
If you want good clips and commentary, here is a Roumanian commentator Sebastian Sas living in the UK whom I like a lot on this topic:
Basically, Zelensky was antagonistic towards Trump and Vance, insisted on concrete security assurances in exchange for signing, and refused to shut up and take it behind closed doors as suggested by Vance, might have called Vance a “bitch” under his breath in Russian (! https://x.com/mylordbebo/status/1895555421269868776?s=61), threatened America with getting directly drawn into the conflict and having its citizens suffer directly, basically said he would never enter into any agreement with Russia, refused any talk of a compromise, and accused Trump of echoing Russian propaganda. Not smart!
It did look like Zelensky was setup, but it was a very mild provocation from Vance that led to this. From the way it ended, it looked like Trump had orchestrated it to show America, Ukraine, and the world that Zelensky was the complete obstacle to peace. This now paves the way for the US to remove support and/or Zelensky to either do a 180 on his attitude or be replaced by his own country.
Trump is playing this brilliantly.
- He always goes back to the talking point that all he wants is for the fighting and killing to stop.
- He always goes back to the talking point that it was a needless war and would never had started if he was in office.
- He wants to recoup the hundreds of billions of tax payer money poured into the war by Biden.
- He’s normalizing relations with Russia, citing diplomacy.
- He and his proxies are saying there will be territorial compromises with Russia, no NATO membership, and no US troops on the ground or US security guarantees.
- He’s finessing the obstacle, Zelensky.
Polling shows that Trump has the US public on his side, and has managed to bring even the war hawk Republicans in Congress to his side as well—Dan Crenshaw (!) Lindsey Graham (!!). Dems, Europeans, and Canada, come off as screeching forever-war mongers without skin in the game. They are being invited to step up if they want to keep the war going. They won’t.
Vance mildly criticized Zelensky on free speech issues and his brutal forced conscription of unwilling Ukrainians, for which there is ample evidence (here’s an X thread with a hundred video examples: https://x.com/mylordbebo/status/1895752927991792126?s=61). Zelenskyy had an American journalist, Gonzalo Lira, arrested and he died in a filthy Ukrainian prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_Lira?wprov=sfti1#). He’s shut down all free speech critical of him and his actions, he’s stayed in power after his term effectively as a dictator. Corruption remains rampant with billions of aid dollars unaccounted for and US weapons supplied to Ukraine winding up on the black market.
Zelensky said Putin could not be trusted as he “violated the Minsk Accords 25 times”. That’s a very one-sided view as I covered in previous blog posts. In fact, Angela Merkel, the former Chancellor of Germany, was caught saying Ukraine and Europe never intended to uphold the accords as they were just buying time to arm Ukraine against Russia (e.g., see Reuters article https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-russia-may-have-make-ukraine-deal-one-day-partners-cheated-past-2022-12-09/). And then there was the actions of the Ukrainian Banderas Nazis who kept fighting despite the accords.
Some of the more based European countries, such as Slovakia and Hungary, agree with Trump.
As I wrote on my blog in January 2022, before the invasion, in Russia and the Ukraine:
War with Russia can be avoided by ratifying their ownership of the Crimea, by promising not to take Ukraine and the nearby countries bordering Russia into NATO, and by guaranteeing Russian-speaking minority rights. Yeah, hate to be pro-Putin on this, but I would advocate for that over war.
The alternative is to take them into NATO, and then there is the requirement to defend it when it's not at all of any strategic importance to the West, but is of massive strategic importance to Russia. Russia has lots of nukes, a giant army, supplies natural gas to most of Europe, and almost half of Ukraine is pretty pro-Russian already. Plus, the West needs Russia cooperation in Iran and Syria, and an ally against China. Extremely unwise to tangle with Russia over Ukraine. And not least because the ultimate loser would be the Ukraine itself.
Yup. Pretty prescient there, although I was just echoing thinkers like John Mearsheimer at the time.
Then after they invaded, in March in Russian Invasion of Ukraine, I said this:
While it is true that Latvia and Estonia border Russia and were NATO countries since 2004, a quick glance at the map shows that it's nothing like the same threat to Russia as would be Ukraine joining NATO. Of course, Russia protested vehemently their membership at the time, but Russia did not invade.
In 2008, the West tried the same trick in Georgia, but this time Russia went to war to successfully prevent that country from joining NATO. It was a very similar situation as in Ukraine.
My take on the matter is that it has been foolishly, foolishly provocative of the West to not make it off-limits Ukraine joining NATO (in fact, the West has been provocatively encouraging the opposite). Most high-level diplomats and analysts would agree with that sentiment.
Do I believe Russia is therefore justified in invading Ukraine? No. But at the same time the West backed them into a corner. Russia has repeatedly made clear, by words and deeds, the results of pushing for Ukraine's entry into NATO. If Russia ever senses it's about to happen, which they now, justly, have, the result was always inevitable and was completely predictable and predicted.
If you are a threatening looking person with a gun in your hand (NATO), and you step closer and closer to a giant known bully with a crazy look in their eyes (Russia), and who have a track record of punching people who step too close (Georgia, Crimea, Donbas), and the crazy man is telling you to stay back, not cross this line, and yet you keep stepping closer, with your gun drawn, until you are nose to nose, is that person justified in punching you? No. But why THE FUCK were you doing that in the first place???
So, do I agree that the war was needless and would never have happened had Trump been in office? Damn straight!
There was even a peace deal fully brokered in Turkey and initialed by both sides that would have been satisfactory to Russia, but Europe and the US famously scuttled it at the eleventh hour via Boris Johnson telling Ukraine to fight and die in a hopeless unnecessary conflict as the West would back them 100%.
FUCKING EVIL WAR MONGERS RESPONSIBLE FOR MILLIONS OF DEATHS AND UNTOLD SUFFERING!!!
At that time, Ukraine would not have had to cede any territory beyond Crimea. That deal was the best they could have ever hoped for. It was clear (to me, and many others, just not the propagandized, that Ukraine had NO chance against Russia).
Thank God Trump is putting an end to it.
Zelensky did screw the pooch. All he wants is more and more from the USA. Trump just wants peace, all be it by giving up some of the Ukraine territory. He also wants to get some economic relief for the money we put into Ukraine and will continue to put into Ukraine. This is a win win for both Ukraine and the USA. Zelensky understands that this is a fact but hates Russia/Putin so much that he wants the war to continue. He needs to take the deal or the US bows out and let Europe fight it out with Russia. This would be a dumb move.
ReplyDeleteOn just the lack of decorum from Zelensky in the Oval Office. He needed to address Vance as the Vice President not JD. He shouldn’t have talked about how lucky we are to have an ocean between us.. no, America is free because we put our money where our mouth is, in the military and intelligence. They did not, then they come begging for the US to help them, which we did. They should be great full that we did. Pumper.
100%
DeleteHello Julia, I totally agree. I would add that Europe is communist at the moment. Be a leader. Europe also needs a Trump to clean up the Augean stables.
ReplyDeleteFor sure.
DeleteZelensky was ambushed. He has been a strong leader for his people and they should be proud he stood up to the bullies. Bullies only understand strength and Trump is going to end up doing whatever Putin wants anyway.
ReplyDeleteIt was a bit of an ambush, but easily avoided if you’re not a coked-up proto-dictator.
DeleteJulie, Trump consistently lies about how much money America has spent on the conflict as well as how many people have died. He also ignores that a lot of the money has stayed in America as it is spent at US weapons companies. Why do you think that is?
ReplyDeleteTrump is a famous exaggerator. If there’s a range, he’ll go to the top of it. Don’t care. He says it to emphasize his point, which is directionally correct. Without US aid, despite anything Europe may do, Ukraine was and is doomed.
DeleteI think the whole point of the conflict was to shovel large amounts of money from US taxpayers to giant US corporations, with negative productivity gain, at the expense of Ukrainian and Russian human beings. That’s what being a warmonger is all about: profit in exchange for human life and misery.
The fact that it was Putin who attacked Ukraine is known in Canada and the US?
DeleteWay to not understand any nuance.
DeleteThese weird tantrums (reportedly Biden did the same thing to Zelensky in private) either show the waning of US power or the inability to signal strength.
ReplyDeleteSince the dawn of time powerful leaders treat weaker men with respect and hospitality as a tool of diplomacy--the goal is always to awe others with how much power and wealth you have. That's why Pablo Escobar or Augustus Caesar or Genghis Khan would always use their magnanimity as a flex and a signal that they were the top dog. That's why rich people give each other ostentatious gifts. This is alpha behaviour.
Fighting allies in front of the camera--even if they deserve it--is weak and pathetic. We can hate Zelensky or love him, it doesn't matter--treat him like the favours you give him are nothing to you, and you signal who is in charge. Treat him like his one-liners touch a nerve, and you look thin-skinned and weak.
So IMHO it's troubling that Trump/Vance sweat this stuff. Eisenhower or Reagan would have been calm even if they were going to tell Zelensky to go to hell. But what has changed, our power in the world (POTUS clearly knows more about what the likely future of the US really looks like than we do) or the disposition of the men who run it?
Yeah, that’s another view. Not correct in my opinion. It was done for a purpose, as I say above, and very well done by Trump and Vance in a tag team.
DeleteYeah, you said. I only hear this view from people who already like Trump, and even then not all of them. Not surprising you have this opinion, but Trump is losing a lot of the rest of us by throwing tantrums.
DeleteI don't like foreign weasels like Zelensky or Netanyahu fleecing the US, and certainly both made Biden look weak by not doing what he asked them to do. But Trump (and especially Vance) looked like angry teenage moms haranguing their kid in public, not like powerful statesmen. It was all shrill and feminine. Can't imagine real men having so little stoicism.
I found it very masculine from Trump and Vance. Sort of wet my panties a bit!
DeleteYou must be old lol
DeleteI have Daddy fantasies.
DeleteYeah we can tell.
DeleteI'd also wager that your actual dad is somewhat conservative but not a full-blown maga guy, is that right? I understand it is a personal question, so no need to answer, but I bet I'm right.
Correct. Mom doesn’t like Trump at all, though!
DeleteCoked-up proto-dictator? Maybe, but he is stil the president of the USA. Show some respect to the office.
ReplyDeleteTrump famously does no drugs and does not even consume alcohol. Zelensky on the other hand…
DeleteOf paying taxes honestly as well?
DeleteSeemingly. Trump’s been audited more than any other citizen and they found nothing. He famously told Killary in their debate that he pays little tax because of all the loopholes the govt foolishly left in.
DeleteShould not have been broadcast publicly.
ReplyDeleteRosco
On one level I agree. Foolish of Zelensky. On another level, Trump needed the world to see him as they themselves see him privately: as the chief obstacle to peace.
DeleteIn the same way Churchill was an obstacle to peace by not negotiating with Hitler.
DeleteHitler everywhere!
DeleteIf you're the leader of a country actively fighting the Russian Army and you behave like such a nitwit that a raving neocon like Lindsey Graham is turning his back on you, you've completely lost the plot.
ReplyDeleteThe Ukrainian people have acquitted themselves with courage and tenacity against the Russians, the defense of Kyiv was one of the great military victories of the century. However, their leadership is failing them by refusing to even begin the process of ending the fighting. Zelensky just went to London where he *demanded* $250 billion. Not asked for, not requested, but demanded. His arrogance is so off putting that even Biden had to publicly chastise him for it in a rare moment of lucidity. People across America and Europe were rightly sympathetic to Ukraine's plight when the Russians first attacked, but Zelensky's conduct has squandered much of that goodwill. And many right-leaning Americans haven't forgotten how Zelensky's friends in the American deep state like Nuland and Vindman helped orchestrate the first impeachment, so there is an attitude among some that maybe we should just leave him to Putin.
Zelensky knows that the second the war ends and he has to face the judgement of the people of Ukraine, his career and possibly his life will be over. He frankly made such a mess of this that there could be a coup in Kyiv in the near future.
Agree for the most part.
DeleteI’ll take exception to the “heroic defence of Kiev”. Russia pulled back from Kiev voluntarily and unilaterally once their goal of forcing Ukraine to the negotiating table was achieved. That was the intent of the initial deep push. There was no way the Russians could have sustained an attack so deep with what they had at the time. It worked and the Istanbul deal was worked out until the collective West scuttled it.
That’s such a silly Russian dictated way of looking at the assault of Kiev. Putin wanted to control it and failed. Where do you get your info? I know you like to see yourself as well informed but consider the ultimate source of where your info comes from.
DeleteYou >*really*< think the Russians, with their relatively small army at the time, had an expectation of conquering and keeping all of the east of Ukraine out to Kiev? Really?
DeleteI have said it before, and I will say it again: you are a mouthpiece for the propaganda from Putin. I hope Putin gets you sometime in the future.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, in that mind of yours, do you actually think President Putin is sending me a checque for my work?
DeleteI think nobody thinks that you are getting paid for your opinion. But it is clear that you are solely "researching" within a bubble of the same information. I was wondering if Trump attacking Canada would change anything in your views, but it seems that being pro Trump is even more important to you than your own country and interests.
DeleteHe’s not militarily attacking Canada. Duh.
DeleteI don’t understand why Canada does not do as Trump asks: tighten the border, prosecute the Chinese triads, eliminate tarrifs and other protectionist measures where not reciprocal. All good things for Canada.
I submit your information comes exclusively from a propaganda bubble. I see the full range.
This is very obviously not about the border or tariffs or any of the other constantly changing reasons thrown around. This is solely an attempt to use tariffs to counterbalance domestic tax cuts. Range? You say the same thing over and over and not ever even slightly criticise Trump. You have no range, you are a well trained pet parrot.
DeleteYour mind is single-track. More than one thing can be true at once.
Delete- yes to what you said
- the tariffs are also protectionist of critical manufacturing in the US
- the tariffs are also designed to encourage other countries to drop their tariffs and subsidies that harm the US balance of trade.
Simple taxing of the population does not achieve those other goals. Think of it this way. The tariffs are designed for 2 and 3, 1 is a dividend back to the taxpayer to help them cope with the temporary increased costs.
No, you are the trained pet parrot. See how dumb comments like that work?
1Mr. Trump is a great politician.
ReplyDelete2Putin is also a politician.
3Zelensky is a bad actor, he doesn't understand the concept of diplomacy. So was the German house painter. This is the big problem...
We can leave Hitler out of this!
DeleteDictators differ only in name, they also kill their own nation!
DeleteJust a pet peeve I’ve developed. It seems “Hitler” is the only historical bad guy ever referenced. How about Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, …
DeleteYeah well he’s a historically recent dictator that set aside limits on power to rule indefinitely and that invaded a neighbor to supposedly recover historically lost territory. While I also hate lazy Hitler comps, if you see past the propaganda you’ve swallowed, you’ll see the similarities.
DeleteYes, none of them knew diplomatic manners.
DeleteAnd Stalin?
DeleteOkay good point. Putin is also like Stalin but at the point leaders caved to aggression Putin is currently more like Hitler.Both show how dumb Trump and Vance look cozying up to such a leader.
DeleteYours is an idiotic comparison.
DeleteLooking at the last weeks, one really wonders how compromised Trump is to Russian influence. The president of the USA working all day long to further the interests of Russia. We are truly living in fascinating times.
ReplyDeleteYou come from the premise that Russia is a natural enemy of the US. You’ve been brainwashed by all those movies you watched as a kid. Outside the US, the US is seen as just as evil as Russia.
DeleteThat’s just not true. I know falsely equivocating worldwide thoughts on Russia and America makes you feel good, it’s just not true. It is ironic how often you use the word brainwashed when your writing shows just how close minded you are except to one perspective. I know you don’t see it but that is what actual brainwashing does. How can you so confidently speak to what the rest of the world thinks?
DeleteI travel and speak to many around the world. Americans are generally held in very low regard and as being responsible for wars and conflict around the globe.
DeleteI suppose to a brainwashed person any other point of view seems brainwashed also.so we have to discern which of is the brainwashed party. Now, I’m the one actually making points and arguing from history, logic, and listening to what great men say. You seem to be stuck on your “Orange Man Bad” talking point and do not engage in any meaningful exchange of ideas..
Please. Every time a point gets made that doesn’t fit your narrow view you equivocate or dismiss it. Trump isn’t a “liar”, he’s an “exaggerator”. Putin might be a murderous dictator who invades sovereign countries but let’s not call him Hitler. Just trust me, you’re the brainwashed one.
DeleteYou seem incapable of reasoned debate. Address the points I made. Do you disagree Ukraine joining NATO was a firmly-stated red line for Russia for decades? Do you disagree that Merkel said the accords were a ruse? What is your alternative proposal for Ukraine who is running out of fighting men? Keep going until the last Ukrainian? Send the women in to be slaughtered? You talk big but have no arguments, ideas, or proposals.
DeleteUkraine had a relationship with NATO since the 90’s and didn’t set a concrete goal of membership until after Russia’s aggression in 2014. I think Ukraine should negotiate for peace but not just by giving into a dictator who will just come back for more. Putin is a bully and he has been biding his time in hopes that Trump would become President again so he would have a chump manipulated by flattery in charge of the world’s strongest power.
DeleteI asked ChatGPT:
DeleteUkraine first suggested NATO membership in the early 1990s, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In 1994, Ukraine joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, signaling an initial step toward cooperation. However, a formal aspiration for NATO membership was first articulated in 2002 under President Leonid Kuchma, when Ukraine announced its goal of joining the alliance.
The pursuit of NATO membership intensified after the Orange Revolution in 2004-2005, with President Viktor Yushchenko actively seeking closer ties. Ukraine formally applied for a Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008, but NATO, under pressure from Russia and internal divisions, declined to grant it at that time, though it left the door open for future membership.
Ukraine’s commitment to NATO membership became even stronger following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, with the government officially making NATO accession a strategic objective in 2017 and later enshrining it in Ukraine’s Constitution in 2019.
So it appears as if the first formal statement was 2002 and the formal request was 2008. Do you disagree?
DeleteSo what’s your plan to push Russia out of Ukraine?
Yeah ChatGP didn’t mention that it became a part of their Constitution in 2014 after the invasion . But what is your point? Russia antagonized Ukraine and Ukraine sought international protection. The red line of NATO membership was not crossed prior to either invasion. Keep buying excuses from that corrupt regime. Oh wait, now you’ll just say everyone is corrupt so what’s the big deal?
DeleteContinue the sanctions and the pressure. Russia has lost far more troops and domestic politics are not in favor.
DeleteOh and I’d be careful trusting ChatGTP, it’s been known to pass on Russian misinformation but you do you.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/06/18/chatgpt-grok-gemini-and-other-ai-chatbots-are-spewing-russian-misinformation-study-finds
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. It did mention that. It was formally enshrined in the constitution in 2019. The first formal request for membership, rejected due to great pressure from Russia, was in 2008, 6 years before the Crimean invasion.
DeleteI’m quite expert with AI, and know that they hallucinate, and am quite good at spotting hallucinations. In deep search mode it gives linkable references to check out which are not hallucinated. I did that and verified it all, just for you.
Ukraine membership in NATO was a hard red line, as I said, and this was well known to diplomats. It was thus highly provocative by the West to entertain it. But there were other provocations as well, namely the maltreatment of the ethnic Russian minority.
I don’t understand your point. Yes Russia invaded. Yes they were provoked (in their own eyes). Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Continue sanctions? Will China and Iran and the other BRICS countries respect those sanctions? No. All that does is push China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea into a military alliance against the West. We’ve seen that over the past 4 years. Russia only seems stronger and more self-reliant as a result. Sanctions have not worked, and Russia keeps taking more and more of Ukraine.
What’s your next bright idea?
Yeah you have all the answers. Capitulating to Putin without security guarantees is long term suicide for Ukraine’s sovereignty. Putin’s execution of the war has been a disaster for his country and he is banking on getting Trump to save him and let him keep face. Europe has spent more than the US has on this conflict and it is now up to them to negotiate a way out. Trump will only do what’s best for him personally and how he looks to the dictators he admires.
DeleteI think Trump has the answer, not me: make peace, you fools!
DeleteHere’s a prediction for you: without the US, Europe stands no chance against Russia. They will cave.
Are you kidding me? Trump’s plan is to cave. He parrots Russian talking points as much as you do. Europe at least understands the costs of unchecked Russian aggression. Trump is clueless.
DeleteClueless = avoiding WW3
DeleteLooking at history, appeasement of imperialistic aggression has often resulted in big wars, including World Wars. It is hard to see how giving in to the aggressor, especially when there is ample precedence that this aggressor has violated peace agreements in the past, will deter future aggressions or lead to a more stable global order.
DeleteI dispute your claim that since the end of the Cold War Russia has been more aggressive than, say, the US; or violated any more peace treaties.
DeleteWhat is the relevance of the subjective ve question of the US being more or less aggressive than Russia, when the subject of the discussion is Russia repeatedly invading Ukraine and Russia having been proven to not be trustworthy to not continue their aggression in the future, especially when they are actually getting economically, politically and territorially rewarded for their actions?
DeleteYou can’t compare things without benchmarks. Why should any country ever trust any other? Mutual interest only. Realpolitik.
DeleteI seriously don’t understand why Zelinsky hasn’t been unalived by his own country yet. There is nothing heroic or courageous about sending people to die in an un-winnable war while you get rich. Happy to see even some US war monger beneficiaries of the Ukraine war money laundering scheme backing away. Can’t wait til Elon starts the audit on this one!
ReplyDeleteI doubt he’ll be killed, but now he may be removed from power.
DeleteYou don't understand why the democratically elected Leader of Ukraine serving in accordance with Ukraines constitution and recently unanimously reconfirmed by Ukraine's lawmakers is not murdered by the people who elected him? Jesus, you are dumb.
DeleteYou’re very rude. Please keep it civil.
DeleteGiven Zelensky could have ended it with a better peace deal then he can get today, but kept fighting for 4 more years, maybe some of the relatives of the dead are peeved.
Fair comment, but you are the main driving force enabling and encouraging the rudeness on your blog. Your answers frequently insult comments if they do not share your viewpoint. If you want to have a more refined level of discussion, you need to set an example and enforce it.
DeleteZelensky is the elected Leader of Ukraine and has stil relatively high approval numbers (higher than Trumps for sure), although lower ones than at the start of the war. Here he is called an insolent pig, a scammer and it it is questioned why he is not simply murdered. Weird take.
The relatives of the Dead are for sure "peeved", but it was not Zelensky killing them, it was Russia. Ukrainians have seen the trustworthiness of russian "peace deals" in the past and they have seen their "mercy" in Butscha, in the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, in freezing in winter because Russia destroying their heating system, in the videos of POWs being executed, in returning POWs stories of rape and abuse, in the "filtration" centers, the torture rooms, in abducted children forcefully ripped out of their families and gifted to Russian families and many other atrocities. But seemingly Zelenskys dresscode is the problem and Ukraine at fault, because Russia was really only wanting to have peace talks and Ukraine unfortunately forced it's reluctant hand.
I’m rarely rude to anyone personally, though I am happy to trash their bad ideas. I just reviewed all my comments on this blog and can’t find an example of me being personally rude to anyone. I do enjoy spirited debate, however!
DeleteHard to know Zelensky’s approval within Ukraine as the press and all such information is tightly controlled.
Regarding war atrocities, there’s a lot of propaganda on both sides. Both sides have done bad things, I’m sure, but you can’t believe propaganda. Ukraine has complete control over their media, and even went so far as to imprison and murder an American journalist trying to get his truth out.
Then all comments on this page offer spirited debate and bad takes are pointed out.
DeleteZelenkys approval rates are continuously reported and the numbers are positive, but not unrealistically (52 percent approval was the latest number I believe). Ukraine is a democracy, Russia less so. If Ukraine's media situation is a problem, why are you never pointing out the problematic media situation in Russia, where every election shows 90+ percent support to the current government?
What propaganda? There are tons of videos of russian fighter jets firing at civilian buildings, civilians getting shot by Russian soldiers, captured Ukrainian soldiers being disarmed by Russians and then shot and so on and so forth. Are all the stories of interviewed POWs and mothers paid actors? Are the dead bodies found in Butscha and verified by governments and NGOs a complex fabrication? This is at the end your MO on this site. Every evidence not supporting your position is labelled as propaganda or untrue (or brain-washed) or that every side is bad, while every wild claim like Russia being forced to invade to protect russian-speaking Ukrainians and being oh so ready to negotiate and blood-thirsty and profiteering Zelensky being responsible for the war gets reposted and multiplied without comment/push-back, while you claim how neutral you are in your stance. The evidence is clear who invaded which country and who is killing and terrorizing civilians, but you will never look at it, as your stance is firmly pro-russian and pro-trump and whatever they say is your position.
Other than the ones that personally attack. E.g., “Jesus, you are dumb”
DeleteI don’t trust a Ukrainian poll on the popularity of the wartime Ukrainian president when all dissenting media has been shut down. Sorry.
Do you really think Russia deliberately targeted a hospital full of sick children? What’s the upside? Maybe an accidental strike? Bad things happen in war. The other side will hype it up as a “war crime”. There’s been a lot of very similar evidence put out by Russians about Ukrainian war crimes as well. I don’t believe any of it. I’m not saying if it happened or not, just that none of it is credible in wartime. Thus has it always been. You seem very wrapped up in desperately wanting to believe one side over the other.
There is plenty of evidence. Videos, pictures, statements from multiple sources - official, Ukrainian, international, civilian, military, .... This are no mere rumors or news pieces. You describe Zelensky as a coked-up midget, but others are wrapped up and desperately wanting to believe one side over the other? Projection, much?
DeleteI believe neither side on this question, that’s where we differ.
DeleteForgot to sign that. - david
ReplyDeleteNoted!
DeleteSince you live in Canada, are you willing to agree with Canada being the 51st state. You support everything Trump stands for, so he wants Canada to become a state. Jack
ReplyDeleteI’m nostalgic for a Canada I never knew, that had good standing and reputation in the world, and stood for ideals and peace making and peace keeping and the rights of its citizens. Pierre Trudeau standing up for what’s right. Jean Chrétien refusing to join into a corrupt war.. In its current incarnation, it may as well be the 51st state. We cannot actually exist without the goodwill of the US.
DeleteZelensky really is an insolent pig, and not a very intelligent one at that. If he had an ounce worth of brains, he would have put on a jacket and tie and have begun the meeting by thanking Trump and Vance for all the help the U.S. has provided to Ukraine. Next, he would have thanked Trump for offering to mediate the dispute between Russia and Ukraine so that this devastating war can end. Third, he would have gotten out his pen and said, "where do I sign? I want to give the U.S. a 50 percent interest in Ukraine's rare earth minerals." Then there would be a week or two of negotiations, Russia would get some of Ukraine's Russian-speaking territory plus a guarantee from the U.S. that Ukraine will never be a member of NATO, and people would stop dying. Talk about overplaying your hand! Zelensky is the text book example of that.
ReplyDeleteThat seems clear and obvious, and yet we still get the trolls 🧌with a different POV.
DeleteWhere do you guys get information from that agrees with this kind of take? There is a reason only a minority of one party in one country thinks this is smart and everyone else (including conservatives like me) think relying on Putin's promises is dangerous and foolish.
DeleteThis should never have been up to Zelensky. If Reagan was in charge bombers would have been buzzing Moscow as soon as the broken old trucks crossed the border into Ukraine.
Nobody relies on “Putin’s promises”. Nor the EU’s nor the US’s. We all rely on mutual self interest. And no, Reagan would not have started WW3 because that would have been insane.
DeleteJulie, I agree with your comments and want to add that while Europe has been cheering Zelensky on:
Delete1. to this day France gets all of its natural gas from Russia
2. until last year Germany got all of it's NG from Russia
3. to this day India and China get most of their oil from Russia
4. to this day Europe imports tons and tons of cheap goods from China (including cheap EV's)
What the hell kind of war is this?
Zelensky says the war continues unless he gets security guarantees form the US. Trump is right when he says that he will NOT drag the US into another fucking European war. WWI and WWII were enough!
Let the Europeans provide the security guarantee. Hell, they have a far, far more people than we have!
Hey, I have an idea. Europe has let in millions upon millions of migrants. Syria has stabilized, so migrant, if you want to stay in Europe, the price of admission is three years in the EU army fighting the Russians. Otherwise, you are going home. Goodbye!
Europe is all bark, no bite. They will cave and follow behind Trump like puppy dogs.
DeleteJulie, since you are obviously a Russian ass-et, would you like to interrogate me? Geneva Convention rules are off the table. - david
ReplyDeleteWe have ways of making you talk!
DeleteI don’t know anything! I swear! - david
DeleteI have to admit that at times I'm wondering just what kind of a viewing glass you see the world through Julie. I get that in your eyes Trump and his supporters can do no wrong. Regardless of what they do. I just can't wrap my head around you conclusions.
ReplyDeleteYou can argue that Trump is just trying to put an end to the killing. And maybe he really just is that shortsighted, and believes that he's just in the process of closing a good deal for the US, or at least disentangling the US from the conflict, leaving the Ukraine and Europe to deal with Russia's warmongering.
The thing is though, he can only close a deal, if he can get both Putin, the Ukraine, and Europe onboard. And that isn't happening without making an agreement that in some way puts something in place, that actively deters Russia from further attacks. And Russia only understands raw power. And as Trump's already given away most of his negotiating chips, by ruling out Ukrainian NATO membership and US or NATO troops in the Ukraine, there really isn't anything left to deter Russia from launching another attack in a few years. Especially if Trump has also lifted the sanctions against Russia.
The part I find the most tragic, is that if anyone's gambling with WW3, it's Trump. Because even if he manages to force the Ukraine to enter a one-sided peace agreement with Russia, with no tangible force in play to actively prevent Russia from being able to attack again in a few years, then it's just going to be a question of when the next Russian land grab happens. Within the next couple of years, there will be a window of opportunity for Russia to do so. Especially if the US either withdraws from NATO, or sows so much doubt about their intentions of honoring Article 5, that it's much the same. And if China should invade Taiwan, which will be made more likely, if Trump forces a one-sided peace deal on the Ukraine, then that will throw that window of opportunity for Putin, WIDE open, if the US, against my suspicions, engage with China, in support of Taiwan. Because the US can't deal with both Russia in Europe, and China in Asia.
Right now, Trump is actively in the process of alienating most, if not all of Americas allies through the past 80 years or so. And I'm not sure Trump actually grasps the ramifications of that scenario for America. Or if he cares.
Honestly, Kyrel, it’s tiresome when you accuse me of having a thinking process that starts with “Trump is right” when I absolutely lay out all my detailed arguments in the post without reliance to “Trump is right”. In fact, my arguments on Ukraine are consistent and predate any opinions of Trump’s on the question. I could equally say that you are a shill for the globalists and that kind of base discussion gets us nowhere.
DeleteYou come from the wrong assumption in my opinion. You think Putin is engaged in land grabbing and will continue. My position, as stated clearly by him, is he opposes further NATO incursions on his borders. He was willing to relinquish the land gained in the Donbas in the Istanbul accord in exchange for this goal (Crimea is too strategic, he can never relinquish that to an unfriendly nation).
You’re hung up on “security guarantees” which is almost equivalent to Ukraine joining NATO in all but name. Putin will never go for it outside a token force.
Who gives a flying fuck about Taiwan outside their soon to be diminished importance in chips? It’s inevitably going to China and there’s nothing anybody can do to stop that.
Julie, how much would you trust a person, that time and time again breaks their agreements? That's the problem with Putin/Russia. Every agreement made between Russia and the Ukraine, since the fall of the USSR, which were supposed to ensure Ukraine sovereign control of their area, and autonomy from Russia, has effectively been broken. So I can't really fault Zelensky for feeling a very strong need for having a peace deal include the presence of military forces to safeguard such an agreement.
DeleteYou argue that all Putin wants, is to prevent NATO to expand into countries that borders Russia. But by his own statements, Putin has effectively established that he is looking to reestablish the "greater Russia" of the USSR period. You can dress up that goal in any manner of ways, but if the end result is that old USSR block countries either become a part of Russia, or become effective satellite states under Moskow control, as during the USSR period. Both scenarios effectively become the same as a "landgrab".
Now, we can argue that Russia is fundamentally a European problem. And OK, I'll accept that argument. I'll also agree that Europe needs to (re)establish a more effective military. I can also see a point in the US coming to the conclusion that it's not financially sustainable for them to maintain the size of their military, given the state of the budget deficit, and thus they are willing to "scale back", and accept a new world order, in which the US is just one of three major global powers, each recognizing the others "legitimate sphere of interest". The US in North and South America, Russia in Europe, and China in Asia. But at the same time that doesn't seem to be the goal either. But if the US alienates its allies, that is liable to become the ultimate effect. And I'm not sure that will make the world a better or safer place to live. For anyone.
My understanding is that the Minsk agreements, 1 and 2, were primarily violated by Ukraine, not Russia. Are you certain it’s as one-sided as you claim?
DeleteAt any rate, it’s pretty childish to complain about nation states breaking deals when it’s convenient to do so, as that’s realpolitik for all nations when the interests no longer align.
The better approach is to aim for a neutral Ukraine and restart trade agreements so everyone is better off with peace than with war.
Can you find a reference where Putin has said he aspires to take neighbouring countries by military force for the purposes of Russian land expansion? I doubt it. I’ve heard him say the opposite, repeatedly.
The question of who's broken which agreement when is a complex one, and both sides are guilty of violating various agreement at one time or another.
DeleteThis is a short excerpt of what ChatGPT has to say on the matter:
"In short, Russia has been more frequently accused of breaking treaties, particularly in relation to the annexation of Crimea, the war in eastern Ukraine, and violations of agreements made after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Ukraine, while involved in violations of ceasefires and other local agreements, has not been as prominent in breaching international treaties as Russia."
As for it being "childish" to complain about nation states breaking treaties and agreements, when it suits them, I have to flat out disagree with you on that. If a country is free to uphold or ignore any agreement as they see fit, then we might as well not bother making treaties or agreements between nations, as they will then simply have no value. We have laws today, because humanity long ago discovered that it was to everyone's benefit, if we were able to enter agreements with others, and especially uphold them, once agreed upon. Without laws and agreements you have anarchy and "rule of the psychopaths". That's not a world you want to live in.
There's no question that the best solution would have been for the Russia/Ukraine conflict not to have "gone hot", so to speak. Russia should have accepted that they themselves originally ceded control of the Crimea to the Ukraine, and that should have been that, regardless of how much they might grumble about its strategic importance. But they originally and willingly gave it up when the USSR dissolved.
There's also no question that the armed conflict that happened in the Dunbas region following the Crimea takeover by Russia, should have been brought to a halt with a fair and objective election, where the people in the region could have been given the choice of remaining a part of Ukraine, or becoming a part of Russia instead. I still believe that would be the best solution today, but unlike earlier, I'm also fairly confident that none of the regions Russia currently has control over in the Ukraine, would elect to become a part of Russia today. Maybe before the war, but no today. If anything, had I been Russia, I would have taken my military force 3 years ago, and driven it into the conflicted regions, where Ukrainians were shooting at each other, and then declared it a "peace keeping force", that was hereby dictating an end to the shooting. And then I would have left it at that. If the shooting had stopped, this would have been difficult for the international community to complain about, because it would have been much akin to various other western led "peace keeping forces". Unfortunately that didn't happen.
As for your question about Putin wanting to assert control of the old USSR states, then no. Putin is careful enough no to use such expressions. But his desire to spread and expand Russian influence into these old east block states is pretty clear to infer. Putin might not feel a need for Russia to "reabsorb" the old Soviet states, but he opposes the spread of Western democracy and lifestyle into these regions, and likely seek to (re)develop or attain/maintain a strong Russian influence on these areas that constitute an effective "bufferzone" between Europe and Russia.
“Western democracy and lifestyle” he could care less about. Hostile forces and weapons on Russia’s borders is real. You know darned well the US would never accept communist Chinese forces and bases and weapons in Mexico without a fight. It’s hypocritical to have a different standard for Russia.
DeleteThis guy would seem to disagree with your assessment of Putin's view on Western democracy and lifestyle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlB-pRqdyBg
DeleteAnd yes. The US is fairly hypocritical with regards to accepting foreign troops and weapons in neighboring countries. An interesting question one might pose though, is whether the US would actually be able to prevent i.e. a Russian and BRICS backed China stationing troops and missiles in Mexico, because I don't think the US would be quite THAT willing to potentially start WW3. Especially if they've alienated themselves from their allies and NATO, and effectively have to go it alone. But then again, the US does enjoy a very safe and defensible position on the globe, which makes military action directly on the US continent very difficult, and prohibitively expensive, given the amount of resources and planning that would be required to mount an effective invasion of the US mainland, by anyone other than Canada and Mexico.
I watched the video. He provides no evidence. He’s mind reading. It’s PDS: “Putin Derangement Syndrome”.
DeleteYes, Putin is an anti-Globalist and criticizes how the West has fallen. That did not motivate the invasion (according to Putin himself). It DOES motivate his security concerns as the globalists have proven they’d love to weaken Russia, replace Putin, and bring Russia “into the globalist fold”.
Provided by a guy that's both met Putin directly and studies Russia in a professional capacity. Sure, it's a subjective assessment like yours, but you are talking about someone making that kind of analysis professionally, so let's cut him a bit of slack, and assume that he might actually have some idea of what he's talking about. Especially since it lines up fairly well with statements from other professional analysts you can find.
DeleteI'll acknowledge that Putin probably does or will deny anything of this sort, but let's also be honest and agree that he has a vested interest in not confirming if he has such a view on the West, plus he's ex-KGB, has been living with Russian disinformation and subterfuge throughout his entire professional life, and has an interest in keeping the West's "guard down", so to speak.
As for bringing Russia into the capitalist, globalist fold, I'm fairly certain that the EU tried to go that way, once the USSR fell, and before Putin came into power. The hope was that if we build up enough mutual trade, the incentive to go to war would be reduced, because it would be the equivalent of Russia shooting itself in the leg. Unfortunately that hope obviously proved naive.
Instead of listening to that guy, listen to Lavrov who spoke recently: https://youtu.be/Bdi88_TdrKA?si=l5DXB4mll51_vx74
DeleteWhat strikes me is how straightforward he is, just laying out the Russian position and the real history of the Minsk agreements, and by doing so exposing the cynical paranoid delusional hypocrisy of Europe.
Russia has a 0% chance of invading Europe so long as NATO stays where it is.
As long as NATO stays where it is. Which is sort of an issue at the moment, because Trump is very much sowing doubts about NATO remaining where it is. So while NATO currently still exists on paper, Europe has effectively been forced into a situation where it's being forced to engage in a massive rearmament, in order to be able to present a credible military deterrent to Russia, without the backing of the US, in case Trump manages to pull the US out of NATO.
DeleteThe core problem with regards to trusting what Lavrov, Putin, or any other Russian official says, is that the country has such a long history of sowing disinformation, and a vested interest in keeping the West on the wrong foot. They promised to leave the Ukraine alone. Several times. And yet, here we are.
A lot of arguments can be had over why Russia invaded Ukraine. Ultimately the fact is that they did, and now the pressing question is how we put an end to that war, without it sparking either a full on Europe/Russia war, a NATO/Russia war, or a truly global WW3. If not immediately, then within the next ten years. IMO that will require some serious international diplomacy between Russia, Europe, and the Ukraine, and Trump's "bull in a china shop" approach is in no way helping anything in that regard. He and his acolytes need to be sent to Mar-a-Largo to play golf, until the diplomats have managed to bring an end to this conflict, in a manner that's sustainable in the long run.
I meant that in the other direction, supposing NATO does not push further into Russia’s sphere. If NATO disbanded, Russia would become a bigger bully, no doubt, and say “my way or we send troops.” Just like the US!
DeleteKudo's to you Julie. You can't get anymore correct with your analysis. I don't necessarily that Zelensky was set up. It's possible but it looks like he was looking for an argument and Trump and J.D. obliged. I'm sure by the way he showed up dressed to go to the Bar they suspected something. Trump did what was right for our country. God bless the President of this United States. These other countries including Canada just need to make trade equal and get rid of these Tariffs and taxes. As far as Trudeau he was just another Biden, Neusome , Pritzker or Obama. All Losers in my Opinion. Keep the faith America is Back. Firefighter Steve
ReplyDeleteThanks for the confirm!
DeleteAs I’ve told you before, you could be a journalist. Other than Jordan Peterson, you’re about the only other sane Canadian in existence! Wish you would publish this type of content on a “safe” blog for sharing purposes. I’m not ready to let the world know about my NSFW Julie fantasy! Wemedge
ReplyDeleteAppreciated from you!
DeleteIf you think everybody is insane except you and two others ... isn't it more likely that you are the insane person?
DeleteYou’re too deep in your bubble. My views are shared by most who voted for Trump, which is a majority in the US.
DeleteYou struggle with reading. The commenter above stated that you, Jordan Peterson and himself are the only sane Canadians existing and I answered to him.
DeleteI use the English language. I did not take him literally.
Delete"Do I believe Russia is therefore justified in invading Ukraine? No." But let's reward Russia anyway -- that'll make him stop. It's cool watching a DEI hire echoing Russian propaganda.
ReplyDeleteAs far as a mineral rights providing de facto security guarantees: "de facto" guarantees aren't worth the paper they're not printed on -- all Russia would have to do to de-fang those "guarantees" would be to guarantee that they'd maintain the mineral contracts.
Of course, Trump has a long history of not honouring contracts. He's currently tearing up the treaty between Mexico, Canada, and the US that he negotiated and signed. His word means nothing. You think you'd notice that.
Realpolitik
DeleteWhen I have to take a break from enjoying all the winning, I enjoy reading the commentary from all the geopolitical experts here who can read minds and predict the future based on the movies they’ve watched and their grammar school history education. I also appreciate the laughable counterpoints from obvious Russia-shill Julie! - david
ReplyDelete“humorous”, not “laughable”! 😃
DeleteAlaska is to be part of Russia again.
ReplyDelete?
DeleteThis sad performance was expected. The US has realigned itself under Trump as shown in the recent UN vote to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine where the US voted alongside countries such as Russia, North Korea, Belarus and Hungary. It’s a horror show for the world.
ReplyDeleteGreat idea to “condemn” the guy you need to negotiate with. Duh! 🙄
DeleteSo much for his promise to end the war in one day. Another Trump cluster fuck.
ReplyDeleteDid you believe Trump’s P.T.Barnum hyperbole? Soooo cute!
DeleteThe US hasn’t given “hundreds of billions” as you say. Trump has been lying about that. Total US contribution is about $175 billion. Similar to Europe collectively.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, but hardly a “gotcha”. Trump is exaggerating by including indirect costs to the US and using replacement value of updated equipment for the old stuff that was sent. But, it’s still $175B! And at least as much as all other countries put together!
DeleteIt was too funny when Macron set him straight on his bullshit about ”European loans” live on air. Vive La France. Great television.
DeleteJust ask ChatGPT:
DeleteEuropean support to Ukraine consists of both grants and loans, with a significant portion structured as loans under various financial assistance programs.
Key Financial Support Mechanisms:
1. Macro-Financial Assistance (MFA) Loans
• The EU has provided multiple MFA loan packages to Ukraine, especially since the Russian invasion in 2022.
• These loans come with long repayment periods and favorable terms, including interest rate subsidies.
• In some cases, the EU covers the interest payments on behalf of Ukraine.
2. European Peace Facility (EPF) – Military Support
• This is mostly a grant-based mechanism, reimbursing EU member states for supplying military aid.
3. Ukraine Facility (2024-2027)
• Approved in early 2024, this €50 billion package includes both grants and concessional loans.
• Loans are designed to be long-term and on favorable conditions.
4. Bilateral Loans from European Countries
• Some European countries, like Germany and France, have provided Ukraine with bilateral loans, in addition to EU-level aid.
Bottom Line:
European support to Ukraine consists of both grants and loans, with a significant portion structured as loans under various financial assistance programs.
A longer “Deep Research” query indicates the total support from Europe is about $120B including about $40B structured as loans.
DeleteTrump is a geopolitical earthquake. Confidence in the US is plummeting.
ReplyDeleteEurope will now likely begin to decouple from the US and face Russia alone.
In the Pacific we must seriously consider whether it is in our long term interest to create new alliances excluding the US to deter China. Japan, Australia and India will have to lead. Trump may say America first but this may mean American alone.
Maybe. Or maybe balance will be returned to the force.
DeleteWhat balance do you envision in that respect Julie?
DeleteAmerica has become an all-consuming monster in the world, spreading death and destruction abroad at will with no checks or balances.
DeleteYeah in Australia we got a debate going on. If Trump goes ahead and hits us up for tariffs when we have a trade deficit with the US anyway - what’s the point in being an ally? Tempting to spend our $ on submarines and jets from the UK and France. It would sure be nice to tell the US to get fucked.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that Trump is doing reciprocal tariffs. Does Australia have any trade barriers to the US, such as direct tariffs and taxes, or industry subsidies?
DeleteI can’t fault that policy.
None whatsoever. It’s a breach of a deal. Trump polls here as number one threat to Australia ahead of Putin and Chi. Plenty of support for Canada to give the yanks hell.
DeleteWell, Canada has a shit ton of them!
DeleteI rarely comment on anythiing remotely to do with politics but the way I see this conflict is this. Needless to say Russia was wrong to invade. Having said that ,the war needs to end. There are really only a couple of solutions. 1. Is to end it now and let the Russians keept what they have taken. 2. Propose that Russia return to pre-invasion borders and create a DMZ and in two years allow for elections to see what country the occupied regions want to join. (I dont see that happening) 3. NATO uses ground forces to force the Russians back to pre-invasion boundries. Really, that is a solution but is it a solution anyone wants, because if you want that solution you want WW3 to start. Whiile it might not be right for Ukraine to give up what they consider soverign territory and I dont think Canada or the US would agree if lets say the Russians occupied 20% or our country/s the only way this war will end is right where it is now. Save 80% or your country or loose the whole damn country. Seriously it matters not who is right or wrong what matters is that we dont have WW3. There will be no winners if that is the case. Ukraine cant stop Russia and NATO is not going to either and frankly Ukraine is not the hill I want to die on!
ReplyDeleteI’m won’t give you that Russia was wrong to invade. Their position is they were rescuing ethnic Russians in Donbas from horrendous persecution. I don’t know what’s true and what’s propaganda, but neither do you. Also, when Cuba had nukes and America invaded, was that “wrong” (I know it was a fiasco, but apart from that).
DeleteThe rest I agree with. Whether 1/3rd of the former Ukraine is ruled by this set of corrupt oligarchs or that set of corrupt oligarchs, who cares? Especially when that part of the country consistently voted pro Russian.
So Russia claiming some quickly manifactured reason to invade a sovereign country is enough for you to say that you are not sure if this was correct. Weird take or deliberate spread of Russian propaganda?
DeleteDoes Ukraine have nukes (no they actually gave them up in exchange of Russian peace promises)? No, then what is the relevance of your point?
They were not quickly manufactured. The NATO expansion thing dates back to the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Donbas thing dates back the Maidan uprising in 2014.
DeleteThe NATO expansion question, really boils down to whether a sovereign nation should be allowed to decide for itself what it wants to do or not. Russia might not like having a NATO country right next door, and sharing a land border. But should Russia have the right to dictate to Ukraine that it is not allowed to join NATO, if the country's leadership should decide to apply for it, and is able to convince the NATO members to let them join the coalition?
DeleteIf you favor the "spheres of interest" idea, supported by many autocracies and dictators worldwide, then Russia could be within its right to do whatever it can, in order to prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO. But if you believe in the "international rule of law" that the West has generally stood for since the end of WW2, then every country has the right to make its own decisions about its own future. No matter what size the country might have, and what other countries might think about it.
Let's take the theoretical scenario that the US leaves NATO under Trump. Should the US be allowed to dictate to Canada that they it must leave NATO? And in case of a US military invasion of Canada, should the country then readily accept ceding control of a significant part of the country, occupied by the US military, because the US feel that North and South America, as well as the Arctic, fall under its sphere of influence?
We can argue back and forth about all sorts of details Julie, but ultimately this boils down to whether or not a few countries should have the right to dominate and dictate what other countries can or can not do. And whether or not we should be going back to a point in history, where it was acceptable to have wars of conquest, in order for one country to take control of another country's territory inhabitants, and resources. I have no desire for a future like that. Do you?
You think the US would not invade in a second if Mexico joined a military alliance with China and China put forward bases and nuclear tipped misfiles on the Southern border? They already proved they would with Cuba. Spheres of influence keep the world safe by putting buffer zones between the Big Boys.
DeleteI certainly hope they wouldn’t invade. Thank god Kennedy didn’t. He blockaded instead and did a deal over withdrawal of US weapons from Turkey.
DeleteHistory is full of “big boys” behaving badly who lose their super power status when others rally against them. But Trump doesn’t read history.
DeleteWell, they did arm, train, and deliver a 1400 Cubans at the bay of pigs to topple Castro. There is that…
DeleteSo, I'm hearing you advocate for the "spheres of influence" idea then? If so, you are effectively also saying that the US should be allowed to dictate what Canada has the freedom to decide, under threat of military invasion, if they don't comply with US demands.
DeleteOr do I misunderstand what it is you mean?
Your question does not specify the degree to which Canada should be independent, and is disengenious for that reason. But if it’s a real, clear, unambiguous threat to US security, that’s what I’ll answer about.
DeleteI’m not taking a position on if it’s good or bad. I’m saying it exists. It’s real. If Canada decides to invite Chinese military bases into the country, I would expect a strong reaction from America, up to and including invasion. I would not be clutching my pearls and saying “US is the aggressor! We did nothing! We are within our rights!”
A "a real, clear, unambiguous threat to US security" isn't really interesting Julie. Most countries with the ability to do something in such a situation, would probably do that. The question I'm asking you, however, is where do you think the line should be drawn, if we adopt the spheres of interest world order? In that scenario, the threat of military invasion and land grab is effectively always on the table, for the larger country, and the threat of such is always hanging in the air, for the smaller one. With spheres of interest, the US would be within their right to ultimately engage in military invasion of i.e. Canada, if they felt that Canada was crossing some ill defined line. And with the US political system working like it does, such lines can effectively change massively from one President to the next one. Trump's proving that the US is effectively completely unreliable as a partner in all respects. Because treaties and decisions can be changed and ignored at a whim, apparently.
DeleteSo where do you personally draw the line for the US having the right to interfere in Canadian decisions?
Chinese or Russian nukes in Canada or Mexico?
How about Canada obtaining nukes or other weapons of mass destruction themselves?
A few normal Chinese or EU military bases, akin to what the US has in Germany, for instance?
Or how about Canada pivoting their economic interests towards EU and China, and deepening their economic integration with these regions, to the economic detriment of the US?
Where do you personally think the line should be drawn, when we adopt the spheres of interest world order? And just to be clear, I'm not asking what you think the US would do in these scenarios. I'm asking where you draw the line and say that "beyond this boundary, the US is within its right, as a major power, to engage in military action towards Canada, and potentially take over Canadian territory, and forcefully make it a part of the US".
Nowhere did I say US would be “within its right”. I said that would be a useless winge from Canada if they went too far.
DeleteLike many things, there is no well-defined line, but you know when you’re way over it!
Which is why I'm asking where YOU personally think the line should be drawn. At what point do you think the US is justified in engaging in military action and territorial occupation of Canada? Short of Canada first launching a military attack on the US.
DeleteAnd no, while you didn't argue that the US would be "within its right", you are defending Trump and the statements and actions coming from him and his administration. And they are more or less directly supporting the Russian and Chinese line of acknowledging a multi-polar world order where powerful countries are allowed to have "spheres of interest", and which to some ill defined extend gives them the right to interfere with the running of smaller countries in various ways, up to and including issuing military threats and engaging in outright military action and occupation of territory. Your defense of Trumps actions and statements, is a defense of that world view. At least that's how your statements come across to me.
I reject your framing. Words like “justified”, or its cousin “fair”, are for children. Perceived national self-interest governs this. Justified doesn’t enter it. Just being realistic here. Create a perceived threat, you’ll get a reaction. See Cuba, see Ukraine.
DeleteI support Trump’s approach because it’s the only practical way of ending the death and destruction. Do we really give a hoot that a handful of Russian-speaking ex-Ukrainian provinces are controlled by this set of corrupt oligarchs or that set of corrupt oligarchs? No. You seem more concerned that “letting Russia get away with it” will directly lead to China invading Taiwan and Russia invading NATO countries in Europe. I think that’s mind-reading paranoia influenced by an entire lifetime of anti-Chinese, anti-Russia propaganda.
Make peace now. If either of those things happen, which I doubt, deal with it. What other choice is there? Promote WW3 to stop WW3? Insane.
That's a cheap cop out Julie. I asked you about your personal opinion on a question, and you come up with an excuse not to have to define where you draw a line. Either that, or you are saying that you have no line, and the US is free to respond to Canada in whatever way the sitting US administration feel like at any given time. No limits should be imposed on the actions of nations based in morals or ethical considerations, because in the end it should all come down to a question of whether a country has the ability to project enough force to impose its will upon another country. On a smaller scale, that kind of rule is called anarchy, and generally means "rule of the psychopaths". Because with no moral, ethical or legal constraints on actions, only the threat of force remains. And if someone don't have enough power they are a serf to those that do.
DeleteYou say you support Trump, "because it's the only practical way of ending the death and destruction". Unfortunately nobody has a functional crystal ball, that can accurately predict the future, and hence nations are reduced to having to rely on planning for the worst. Russia is trying to establish a "security buffer zone", because it feels surrounded by enemies. The European countries are forced to expect a Russian military invasion, because not doing so invites the invasion. And the old East Block countries that have experienced life under Russian control, have zero desire to go back to that status, and will fight to the death to prevent it, because they know what will come, if they get reabsorbed by Russia, or put under their control.
There's no question that the destruction and killing is tragic. But unless a mutually acceptable, and long term stable solution can be found around a negotiating table, the only thing a "peace" will bring, is a short respite, before it breaks out again. And at that point, possibly at a larger, and far less containable, scale.
My original point, that you responded to, did not opine on the morality, it just spoke to the inevitability.
DeleteBut yes, I think it’s moral to invoke force to defend against an imminent threat to the country, such as for Russian missiles in Cuba, or the Israelis taking out tanks massing for invasion before they move. But it’s all judgment based in the imminence of the threat, and we can differ on our assessment of that.
I thought Russia was morally justified based on national security and the horrible mistreatment of ethnic Russians by the Ukrainian Banderas Nazis. The Russian operation has been much more limited in scope than it could have been. Russia could have taken out Kiev completely with its hypersonic missiles if it wanted to.
I don’t understand how peace in Ukraine, with Russia taking 1/3 of Ukraine, changes the European situation one whit from what it has always been.
That is because you believe that Russia will be content with taking that 1/3 of the Ukraine. Some people might agree with you, but you have others that have studied Russia and Putin for decades, who will tell you without hesitation, that the only language that Putin and Russia understands and accepts, is the equivalent of a boot on the throat. Force.
DeleteIf the war in Ukraine ends now, and ends with Putin getting everything, or most of what he wants, Russia is given breathing room to replenish its military forces and equipment. And if they reach combat strength before the EU reaches a credible military deterrence, Russia will look back at what happened when they took Crimea, and when they invaded Ukraine. They will look at the possible consequences of taking another slice out of the old East Block. And if/when they see a winnable conflict, they will launch another "special operation" somewhere. And then Europe and Russia will be at war.
Depending on the state of NATO and what the US government looks like at the time, the US and Canada may/will find itself dragged into that conflict, and then it's suddenly a much larger conflict. I don't like that risk. Hence, Putin needs to be stopped in the Ukraine now. And if peace has to come now, a peace deal can't be allowed to favor Putin. Maybe Russia gets to keep part of Ukraine, but the Ukraine can not be allowed to become demilitarized, all sanctions against Russia can not be lifted, and Russia will need to pay reparations to Ukraine. Either directly, or through the confiscation of the funds currently frozen within the European banking systems. Anything short of that will be an effective Russian victory, and mean that the peace will be nothing more than a pause before a new war.
Russia had a more than reasonable reason for what it did. They will not accept the terms you suggest as they’re winning this war. Take them at face value, respect their legitimate security concerns, and if in the future they do another invasion without such good reasons, THEN deal with it. No point escalating to WW3 now.
DeleteAs evidence, Russia signed off on the Turkey peace treaty at the start of the war which did not expand Russia’s border. It was the West that scuttled that.
Whether or not Russia is "winning" the war or not, seems to be a question that remains open to interpretation. And even if the ultimately "win", in the sense that the large scale military action stops, and the Ukrainian government is disbanded, and replaced with a group of Moscow puppets, do you really think that will be a "win"? Russia might no longer be in a hot shooting war, but they will be occupying a hostile country with millions of Ukrainians that want they gone or dead, and won't accept being subjected to Russian control again. Russia will be facing an insurrection, that will last for decades or more, and I doubt they have enough military to be able to clamp down hard enough on Ukraine, in order to suppress it, let alone defeat it.
DeleteAnd WW3 isn't about to start by letting the war continue. All it will do, is keep creating dead soldiers, cost money, and expend (old) and new equipment. Putin doesn't want this to go nuclear, neither tactically nor strategically, and as long as the EU or US isn't putting troops on the ground, Putin's not looking to escalate the conflict by opening a new front he'll have to try and defend or attack on. Russia's got enough on their plate fighting in Ukraine at the moment. According to one video I came across today, the number of vehicles are dropping, and you can see from satellite pics that the "back lots" of old (easily repaired/prepared) Soviet equipment is all but spent at this point.
As for ignoring a potential risk, like a likely war, on the assumption that "it can be dealt with at that point", is the equivalent of being told you have a critical fire hazard in your home, and blowing it off with the argument that "pft. If a fire breaks out, it can be dealt with at that point..."
The Turkey peace treaty broke down due to a number of disagreements on details, combined with the discovery of the Bucha massacre. Disagreements included questions of the exact limits on Ukraine's military forces and the issue that Russia effectively wanted a "veto" option that would effectively prevent the "guarantor" states from actually acting militarily and intervening, if Russia broke the treaty. The veto would be in the form of the guarantor states acting in agreement, and Russia being one of said guarantors, meaning that simply by disagreeing with an intervention against themself, they would be able to prevent a unanimous agreement, and thus prevent any action from being enacted by the guarantors. Logically enough Ukraine couldn't agree to that, and the UK didn't want to sign the agreement either.
We can then argue whether the West pushed Ukraine not to sign the deal, or if Russia just used an excuse of peace talks to "get a breather", so to speak.
And I agree that Russia won't agree to the terms I mentioned, but similarly I don't see Ukraine agreeing to the demands that Russia has kept putting forth, throughout the war. So I don't see a peace treaty ultimately happening at this point. It might be possible to drive Putin to the negotiating table, by applying enough pressure, i.e. by having allied nations begin to board and impound the Russian "shadow fleet" that is currently sailing the seas. Many of those ships don't meet the required standards, so it wouldn't be hard to find an excuse to do it, frankly.
I say they are winning because they have full military control over 1/3 of Ukraine. The pro-Russian bits. Russia does not seem to want the rest for the reasons you state.
DeleteYour history of the Istanbul agreement is off. All details were agreed upon and initialled by the negotiating parties. It was a surrender by Ukraine. The West came in and said don’t surrender, keep fighting, we’ll back you, with disastrous subsequent consequence for Ukraine.
I am skeptical of any claims of war crimes put forward by the opposing side, regardless.
Your fire analogy is silly.
We’ve been hearing that Russia is “actually losing” from day one. It’s propaganda.
The only way Ukraine can continue is with a fresh infusion of NATO state troops, which is a very dangerous escalation.
They are liable to get comparable problems with the territory they currently hold. But time will tell, I guess.
DeleteThe sources I looked over rgd. the Turkey agreement seems to disagree with you, but regardless of what the situation was, the fact is that the treaty wasn't signed and implemented.
My fire analogy might be silly, but your idea to just "deal with a new war, if it breaks out" is outright insane. But to be fair, you live in Canada. I live in Europe. What Moskow may or may not decide to do, is likely a rather more pressing concern for me than you.
We should probably agree on a closer definition of "Russia winning", because I'm not sure I agree with you. Yes, depending on what sources you look at, we've been hearing for three years that Russia is either winning or loosing. But what does a "victory" actually look like? Because at this point the fighting is still going on, and there's no immediate sign of either side being unable or unwilling to continue the fight.
Ukraine might still need help in various areas, but we are not at a point, where there's any talk of throwing NATO troops into the fight. Ukraine's economy and defense industry is now in a war footing, and they are producing a solid chunk of their military equipment themselves. US intelligence will be difficult to replace in short order, and the loss of that will likely be the most problematic. But it won't be impossible for them to continue the fight without it. You can argue that Musk can shut down Starlink, but realistically speaking, he's not likely going to do that, because it would be an absolutely horrible business decision for him to do. The amount of bad press it would give him, would be disastrous for his businesses.
I think it’s more insane to advocate that to stop a potential (not at all certain) future war, you must escalate the current war to WW3 levels by dropping in NATO troops. Without those troops, regardless of money or weapons, Ukraine is done. No choice.
Delete“Winning” means looking at a map, and seeing who has netly gained land, and who has lost land. Winning.
If Trump orders Starlink turned off, Elon will have no choice in the matter.
Several people with more in-depth knowledge of Russia and Russian politics than both of us, would seem to disagree with you on the potential risk of further armed conflict between Russia and Europe.
DeleteThere is no talks of inserting NATO troops in any other capacity then to try and enforce a possible peace deal. But that is basically a no-start solution, as Putin won't enter an agreement involving NATO troops in Ukraine, unless he has no other options left. We are not at that point yet.
You keep claiming that Ukraine is unable to continue fighting without an infusion of NATO troops. That's bollocks. Yes, Ukraine doesn't have infinite potential troops. But neither does Russia, and Russia is loosing troops at a higher rate than Ukraine, and has done so for 3 years by now. Russian inflation is rising, and the interest rate is above 20%. The Russian economy is not in a good place to sustain multiple years of continued fighting. On top of which there is the strategic question of just how reliant on China they can allow Russia to become. Right now, Russia's best way to get a favorable resolution to the conflict, is to offer Donald Trump a deal that favors him enough personally, that he will put enough pressure on Ukraine and Europe to accept a "peace deal", that favors Russia enough that Putin can present it as a victory to the Russian people, and his competitors for power. Without that, Russia remains stuck in a war that has no easy exit, and which is liable to destroy the country economically, before it can reach a point where Ukraine is unable to continue resisting. https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russias-weakness-offers-leverage
Your definition of "winning" is lacking. Winning means being able to continue fighting, when the other side is unable to do so. Or ending the "competition" with result that leaves you better off than you were at the beginning of the "game". If both you and your opponent is in a worse position than at the start of the game, it's probably a draw.
Neither Ukraine nor Russia are unable and unwilling to continue fighting at this point. Russia might have taken control of some ground, but if they can't break Ukraine's ability to contest it, they haven't won yet. And continuing to press further into the country, will involve increasing supply lines, which brings its own problems, not to mention just how much equipment and manpower such an endeavor will require, when you consider just how big a part of Ukraine still remains in Ukrainian control. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682
I'm not entirely sure that Trump actually has the legal right to "demand" that a private company exit an otherwise legal agreement with a foreign power. But that requires more in-depth legal knowledge of the US legal system than I have. And Musk can of course just willingly go along with such a command. But from a business perspective, I seriously doubt Musk has any particular interest in shutting down Starlink in Ukraine.
If you study the map, you see Russia has moved carefully foreward, establishing secure supply lines as they go, across a 2000km front. I think that once they get those Eastern provinces, possibly Odessa as well, they won’t be enticed to go further. If attacked, they might destroy the rest of Ukraine with missile strikes, not holding back.
DeleteOne cannot trust any casualty numbers at this point, from either side.
It is generally expected that an attacker will lose more than an entrenched defender, but Ukraine has done several militarily foolish things (such as the Kursk intrusion), resulting in a slow encirclement and trapping of the Ukrainians. Apparently this is happening in many places.
Russia has vastly more manpower available than Ukraine. Russia has not gone hard against the Eastern provinces because it’s their people.
I’ve been told by mainstream media and all and sundry here that the Ukrainians were definitely winning at every turn. It was transparent propaganda bullshit from the start, and still is.
I'm not sure how "carefully" Russia has advanced. The original plan involved engagements over a significantly larger area, and expectations that they would take the capital in a few days. Sure, there's a difference between a temporary "incursion" and "taking actual uncontested control" of an area. But all conquest starts as an incursion.
DeleteAs for how secure the Russian supply lines are, I think neither of us has enough reliable information to make any qualified statements on the topic.
As for Russia's ability to "destroy" the rest of the Ukraine with missile strikes, take a step back for a moment, and consider the scale of such an operation. Unless Russia employs nukes, they don't have enough missiles to "destroy" the rest of Ukraine. I doubt they'd have the capability, even if they took every single missile, rocket, and artillery grenade in all of Russia. And Russia can't allow themselves to completely clean out their stores of such ammunition, because there's a limit to how much they can deplete their defensive capabilities, in case they suddenly find themselves facing another military threat.
Casualty numbers are always unreliable, but we can agree that Russian casualties have been higher, and I doubt that Russia would be employing North Koreans, if they had plenty of troops in reserve. Yes, the Russian population is significantly larger than the Ukrainian one, and thus their potential recruitment pool is similarly larger. But there's a reason that Putin hasn't gone ahead with another round of general conscription yet, and is trying to willingly entice people to sign up for service through economic incentives. The first round of general conscription was VERY unpopular with the population, and a LOT of Russians fled the country to avoid being dragged into the military.
Realistically speaking, neither of us has any actual good intel on just what happens within the Russian controlled territories of Ukraine. How the population is being treated, and whether there is any significant difference between how "native" Ukrainians and "Ukrainian Russians" are being treated. But to my understanding, there hasn't been much heavy fighting in much of the area, because the active "front" of the fighting hasn't been moving through most of the area.
Whether or not the Kursk incursion was a good idea or not, I doubt either of us can really say with any particular authority. But just like the Ukraine has diverted manpower and resources into the area, so too has Russia been forced to divert manpower and resources on their side, into trying to retake control of the area. I can see potential good reasons for Ukraine going into Kursk, but whether it has ultimately been an overall positive or negative "campaign" is beyond me to make any reliable determination of. And the encirclement statements made by the Russians are about as reliable as their statements on their casualty numbers and the state of the Russian economy. The Ukrainians refute it, and it's basically unreliable information.
All mainstream news is biased, as are bloggers etc. There's an element of propaganda in all of the news we hear. In the West we get news that Ukraine is "winning", and I guarantee that in Russia the news is the same, just with Russia winning. Ultimately we don't have the full picture, and can thus only make guesses, based on the biased sources we hear/read.
You seem to be in denial that Russia has clearly won this conflict.
DeleteThe areas they absorbed are strongly under their control with broad supply lines (just look at the map, no military knowledge required).
Their longer term goals were to stop the Ukrainian Nazis from terrorizing Russians in Ukraine, and to keep Ukraine out of NATO. They seem to have achieved both those things and grabbed a valuable land with friendly residents to pay for it.
Since the conflict remains ongoing, nobody's "won" anything yet. We can discuss which side seems to be better positioned, but the ultimate outcome remains uncertain.
DeleteNeither of us has any actual knowledge of how firm the Russian control over the conquered areas actually is, and the width of the territory isn't the same as solid supply lines. Supply lines are a question of logistics, and having the ability to move men and material to the place they are needed.
And I wonder how friendly the Ukrainian Russians are towards Russia today? At the beginning of the war you had reports citing a significant "change of heart" amongst Ukrainian Russians, regarding their opinions on Russia, and their desire for Russia to take control of Ukraine. So depending on how Russia is keeping control of the conquered regions, the actual support for their takeover of the regions might well range from "Welcome!" to "Fuck off!".
The "Ukrainian nazis" story is a Russian excuse which has yet to be reliably documented by neutral 3rd parties. Simply the fact that the story comes from the Russians makes it suspect, and while you can probably find some Nazi's in Ukraine, that is not the same as said Nazi's having any actual influence on anything. You have Nazi's in the US as well. I assume we can agree that the US isn't a Nazi regime for that reason?
Whether Ukraine ends up as a part of NATO or not remains to be seen. If Trump withdraws the US from NATO, US opinion on the issue will no longer matter. and if NATO collapses, who's to say what might replace it. I suspect that the non-US NATO countries might well see a point in creating a NATO replacement including Ukraine.
The NAZI problem was very well documented before it suddenly transformed to “Russian propaganda”.
DeleteE.g., the Amnesty International letter to Ukraine (https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/14/joint-letter-ukraines-minister-interior-affairs-and-prosecutor-general-concerning). I’d say that’s a reliable 3rd party and it documents many examples from 2018. And, of course, the entire Azov battalion and the reverence for Banderas. The Canadian parliament, I’m ashamed to say, famously honoured an SS member because
… Ukraine.
When I discuss “winning” it’s primarily in the context of this current military conflict.
In terms of the longer goals, of course Britain and Western Europe may continue being suicidal, but Russia is in a good internal military and economic position with strong international allies (likely the US and China both, although either one would do). I don’t believe Britain and Western Europe have the strength to go it alone.
The source you reference does not refer to any specific NAZI groups. The four groups mentioned, are not outright NAZI groups, even though some of them contains/-ed members with neo-NAZI sympathies. Some of the groups had ideologies that bordered or overlapped with some aspects of the NAZI ideology. But that's is not the same. Similarly the Azov Battalion was originally formed to fight in the Donbas region, following Russia's annexation of Crimea. I can't say I'm surprised if a group of volunteers with anti-Russian and Ukrainian nationalist views showed up to fight in an armed conflict that had one side backed by Russia. But said Battalion has changed markedly over the past years, and is now a part of the official armed forces, and can no longer be accused of similar extreme right-wing ideals.
DeleteChatGPT concluded this, when I asked for its input about the four groups Amnesty mentioned in the letter you linked to:
"Summary:
C14: Accused of neo-Nazi ideologies, especially white nationalism and anti-Semitism.
Right Sector: Contains neo-Nazi elements but is more focused on Ukrainian nationalism and anti-communism.
Traditsii i Poryadok: Incorporates fascist and nationalist ideologies that overlap with Nazi ideals.
Karpatska Sich: Promotes Ukrainian nationalism, with some members linked to neo-Nazi views.
None of these groups explicitly identify themselves as Nazi organizations, but several have been linked to neo-Nazi or fascist ideologies through their actions, rhetoric, and symbolism."
As to the question of how extensive NAZI groups were in the Ukraine, ChatGPT concluded this:
"Conclusion:
Russian claims of extensive neo-Nazi influence within Ukraine are exaggerated and largely unfounded. While there are small far-right groups in Ukraine, including some with neo-Nazi ideologies, these groups are not representative of the Ukrainian government or society as a whole. The Ukrainian government, including its current leadership, is largely opposed to neo-Nazi ideologies. Furthermore, international observers, including Western governments, reject the idea of Ukraine as a neo-Nazi state.
In summary, while neo-Nazi and far-right elements do exist in Ukraine, they are a minority and have limited influence compared to the broader political landscape in Ukraine, which is democratic and pro-European. Russian claims, therefore, have not been confirmed or substantiated by independent investigations or credible international sources."
(Violent) Opposition to LGBTQetc. groups and nationalistic ideals seem to exist within various factions of Trump's supporters too. ChatGPT concluded this, when asked about Trump supporters with confirmed NAZI or NAZI adjacent views:
"While Donald Trump himself and his official campaign did not embrace neo-Nazi ideology, several fringe groups that supported him, such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, white nationalist factions, and QAnon followers, have been associated with Nazi-adjacent or far-right extremist ideologies. These groups share common themes with neo-Nazi thought, such as white nationalism, anti-Semitism, and authoritarianism. Trump's rhetoric, especially regarding immigration, national identity, and law and order, has been criticized for aligning with the values of some of these far-right groups."
For the record, I acknowledge that Trump officially has distanced himself from such views, so I'm not calling him an NAZI sympathizer. And I assume we can agree that despite the existence of neo-NAZI's and extremist right-wing individuals and groups within the US, the US administration is not a NAZI sympathizing regime.
One needs to take ChatGPT with a grain of salt. It’s trained on mainstream media, and garbage in, garbage out. Bandera has a complex history with Nazis. Whatever you label him as, his group’s acts were absolutely reprehensible then and now, and targeted with terrorism the ethnic Russians in Donbas.
Delete“have been associated with” - ha ha!
Just as all other sources need to be taken with variable amounts of salt. However, ChatGPT aggregates a number of different sources, so let's assume there's reasonable odds it might not be completely off the mark here. I also find it more likely that you'd have variations of right-wing nationalist groups operating, rather than outright (neo-)Nazi groups. But since it disagrees with you and the Russian narrative here, I guess you'll write it off as mainstream propaganda. Though I seem to recall you referencing a ChatGPT result yourself somewhere in the discussions pertaining to your original post here...
DeleteIt’s a useful tool, but you have to use it knowing it regurgitates whatever it was trained with. On heavily political subjects where there has been a concerted western propaganda effort, that needs to be factored in.
DeleteAs I say, the important point is not how the Banderas ultra-nationalist Russian haters are labelled, or that they brandish Nazi symbols, it’s what they do. And what they did to the Russian speaking minorities is dreadful, however you label it.
I love a good Trump post. Most everyone I know (except the proverbial drunk uncle) loathes Trump so it’s fun to sneak on here for a guilty peak at the far right. Keep up the work.
ReplyDeleteI think you can’t call it “far right” anymore when over half the US voted for it, and the other half are rabid progressive lefties!
DeleteTrump received less than half of the votes and only 63 percent voters showed up to vote. So depending on how you want to count, he either was voted by less than half or around 30% of the population. No matter how you look at it, over half of the US did definitely not vote for Trump. And yes, the views here are far right and not representative of average Republicans.
DeleteHa ha! Nice try. True he only got 49.8% of the votes, but Harris only got 48.3%, Trump beating her by 2.3 million votes. Clutching at straws much?
DeleteThe majority of US citizens want to see an end to the war.
You need to get out of your bubble more often.
Has nothing to do with a bubble, when you are stating wrong facts. 49,8% of 30% is not more than half of the population. Everybody wants to end the war, only the views differ regarding the acceptable aims, conditions and losses of such a peace. Some want to sell the sacrifice of Ukraine and it's people as peace-loving, others are brandished as war-mongers because they support a country under attack and want to deter future invasions. Neither is the truth and the reality is much more complex.
DeleteWhen I say “half the US voted for it”, it was implicit that I meant “amongst those who vote”.
DeleteThere is no reliable poll that speaks to the leanings of those who don’t vote, so it’s pretty pointless discussing it.
But to satisfy your pedantry, “the plurality of US voters voted for it”.
Or “over half the people who voted for a mainstream candidate voted for it.”
Satisfied? 😉
To your second point, I actually don’t think it’s all that nuanced.
DeleteRussia repeatedly said NATO membership was a red line that would trigger a vigorous response. When it became clear that the west was moving to bring Ukraine into NATO, Putin was forced to react before that happened.
The idea that Russia continue and take on NATO countries unprovoked unless they are pushed back to the pre 2014 borders is pure fantasy sold by propagandists.
It’s also clear that Russia has now won the territory they inhabit and Ukraine is now out of men. It’s either settle now or be completely overrun.
If you propose starting a war between NATO and Russia by sending NATO troops in, that will likely result in a nuclear exchange.
It’s actually quite clear.
On my “peeking at the far right”comment I dare say you’re correct that these views are pretty mainstream in the US. But I’m not from the US and “Planet America” is a deliciously shocking show.
DeleteWell, a lot of Europe is coming around, too.
DeleteThis post is the gift that keeps on giving! I wish there was an alert about new comments. I don’t want to miss any of the fun. I’ll have to think of something to disagree with you on, so you can give me a verbal spanking here. I feel LEFT out! - david
ReplyDeleteSigh..!
DeleteBefore the social media filters got a handle on it, I saw clips of some of the videos that were posted by Russian soldiers doing horrible things to the Ukrainian people. Some of those videos could probably get a person jailed given the content, if they were to be downloaded. No “professional” army should act like that. Even if they were “right” to invade, the country itself lost a lot moral authority in the conflict. And before I get a whataboutism, I have a hard time believing that Russia will prosecute any of those soldiers despite them posting video and photo evidence of them doing the crimes. If you did that in a western military, your own mates might make sure you die in the fighting.
ReplyDeleteAs I’ve said previously, it’s hard to generalize from any such clips. In war, both sides do terrible things. You get fed the terrible things from the side your propagandists dislike, and are shielded from the terrible things from the side they work for. Assigning moral superiority to any large collection of people over another large set of people based on carefully curated anecdotes is fraught.
DeleteThe Chaos that is 47 (or CHAOS 47) continues.
ReplyDelete“Donald Trump on eggs and other high-priced groceries: August 2024: ‘When I win, I will immediately bring prices down on Day One.’
March 2025: ‘Shut up about egg prices,”
Meanwhile, he's spent a RECORD amount of money golfing at HIS resorts EVERY weekend since being elected.
And so many foolishly voted for this person because they were mad about the economy. How do ya all feel about him now?
We feel great. How do you Dems feel about the fact that Trump closed the border without a bill, as Dems insisted there needed to be?
DeleteHow do you feel about all the Democrat waste, fraud, abuse, and censorship revealed by Trump?
It took Biden 4 years to wreck the economy, it will take a bit of time for Trump to fix it. Reduced govt spending, reduced taxes, reduced regulations, attracting more investment, will take a couple of years to kick in. MAGA is patient.
Fix the economy? What a joke! It didn't need fixed nor was it wrecked! TWO Consecutive years of 20 percent GAINS in the stock market under Biden. That. Is. A. fact. Go ahead, look it up. Unheard of! One year is amazing, let alone two in two consecutive years! I bet you the spanking of my life versus the spanking of your life that there are not 20 percent gains in the stock market in 2025. BTW, I am a centralist. I hate the Dems just as much as Rs, BUT I am a realist that he wants to turn the US into a dictatorship and Canada is up next and I will fight his wanting to be king until my dying breath. And save the he's only joking rhetoric. That man does not know how to joke. Everything out of his mouth is serious.
DeleteDriven by govt spending and inflation, and now the US is $36T in debt and barely able to pay the interest. Great job, there, Joe.
DeleteI get the spending in the first year of COVID, but to not scale back spending to pre COVID levels after that was INSANE!