Well found Putin & Zelensky's 1st meeting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du2DjJEtc0k

It's hard to have a face-saving way out of this, but something must be done. The sad truth is, the U.S. and Ukraine should have agreed to Ukraine being a neutral state a long time ago. But Russian hysteria, "Putin bad" thinking, and self-defeating U.S. delusions of hegemony kept that from happening. If they had simply dealt with Russia and engaged in the world of realpolitik, the invasion never would have happened. As far as admiring Zelensky, all I have to say, is that he is not going to defeat the Russians, and the U.S. and NATO are not going to directly fight the Russians. The U.S. encouraged Zelensky to play a dangerous game and it blew up in their faces. The U.S. never had any intentions of backing Ukraine up militarily.

The longer Zelensky holds out, the more his people are going to die. He may be trying to negotiate, but anything short of a promise to remain a neutral state will fail. Putin is not going to back down now. With some countries contemplating sending planes and Russia being on nuclear alert as well as stating that sanctions are tantamount to an act of war, the situation is getting more and more dangerous. Zelensky is frankly being selfish and self-defeating by asking the U.S. to establish a no-fly zone and not reading the handwriting on the wall.

If it were America under siege from a larger invading nation would you accept our capitulation? Or would you fight and possibly die for your sovereign independence. If you wouldn’t then that’s fine, if you would however in one breath be willing to fight for the United States right to govern itself democratically and in the last breath call Zelensky selfish for doing just that - then you you’re completely missing the point.

Our country was built on the blood of people who died for our sovereign independence. Expecting another nation to hide under the covers when their moment arises is cowardice.

Ukraine was ostensibly "free" although it is a very corrupt country and neo-Nazis groups are a force to be reckoned within the country. By declaring neutrality, Ukraine may not have become a part of NATO, but it would have actually safeguarded it's security. They have brought on the very thing they had hoped to keep from happening. That's why elected leaders should be learned in history and politics, actually having a background for leading. Zelensky was a comedian. At any rate, Zelensky should have acknowledged the reality of the situation and avoided trouble with his nuclear power neighbor. His people are dying for his mistake. His calls for a no-fly zone show how delusional and out of touch with reality he is.

I'll just add that negotiating a peace is not surrender or cowardice.

124 word response and you didn’t even come close to answering the question. If America’s sovereign right to govern itself was challenged by an invading force would you fight to defend (or expect those capable) it or would you accept an outside power dictating your governance? Don’t slyly evade the question like a corrupt politician. Answer it.

America is under siege - from within and abroad. That's a huge part of this discussion is recognizing the real enemy.

What if you weren't willing to die but you were banned from leaving by this so called "hero"? Is that a noble cause or corrupt politics? Prove Zelenskyy is fighting for Ukraine's sovereignty and not to protect a hidden agenda. Again, he's been posting propaganda left and right. Why falsify the number of Russian deaths within the first couple of days? Why allow people to say you're on the front lines when you're not? Question Zelenskyy. He could very well be full of integrity in this situation, but we don't know. And the fact that every single news outlet is reporting him as a hero - instantly - is extremely off to me.

I love this country (America) more than most. But I am sick and tired of it being destroyed, because this is the greatest damn country in the world. We lead by example - peace through strength. Ironically enough, the last president that exemplified that didn't see Russia grow its territory, nor did we have a single war started for 4 years. So when things don't add up, I'm going to ask questions. Facts don't care about your feelings.

You want to truly care about innocent people - Ukrainians and elsewhere? Figure out why the US is meddling in so many damn countries. Figure out why our president's son has a spot on a Ukrainian gas company's board, along with CIA, etc. Figure out why NATO still exists and is growing. Figure out why we have alliances with countries that are more pro-Russian than pro-America (Germany, Italy to name a couple). Figure out why we've stoked the flames with economic sanctions instead of taking military action against a country that is supposedly getting their asses handed to them by a bunch of under-manned, under-armed, and under-trained Ukrainians - or ask yourself if that's really happening based on those simple facts I laid out. Figure out why there are supposedly thousands of Russians dying, yet the vast majority of videos coming out are Russian attacks on Ukraine. Figure out why Russia had been staging their military for months prior to this conflict, and nobody did a damn thing about it. FIGURE OUT WHY GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S LITTLE BLACK BOOK HASN'T BEEN EXPOSED YET!

Saving lives starts with ridding the American government of as much corruption as we can - in both parties. I hate McConnell just as much as I hate Biden. I hate Ted Cruz just as much as I hate Obama. None of them give a damn about you and me - the average American citizen - so why shouldn't we be looking at every possible way to expose them?

Ask. The. Damn. Questions.

Hollywood is corruption's biggest ally. "I can't believe what I'm seeing, this is just like a movie. I never thought this would ever happen." Make reality fiction.

Sheep only say, "BAAAAAAA." Don't be a sheep.

Oh, and then do all of this questioning while paying $4+ - minimum - per gallon of gas because the person in charge right now, telling us that Putin/Russia are the enemy, cut our energy independence - only to buy 200k+ barrels of oil per day from Russia. Then ask who the real enemy is.

Bugger off. Russia doesn't have to remain an occupying force. Russia wants Ukraine to remain a neutral state.

Answer the question then.

Even more words. Not even gonna count them. Still didn’t answer it.

Here you go. Here's a link to go fight in Ukraine.

https://fightforua.org/

Still didn’t. I’m waiting. Or go away.

Lot’s of (I’m guessing) proud American’s can’t take the energy to say they’d fight for their nation’s sovereignty with their fingers on a message board got the gall to call out a nation and a leader willing to fight and die for their own. Pretty sure that’s not what we were founded on.

Whoa...


Well, you can keep waiting for all I care, lol.

To be honest, that’s exactly the response I expected. Cheers and Happy Collecting.

Ptomaine...

That Latin for “my forefathers shed their blood so I can sleep on a safe pillow, so I can critique someone else fighting for the same safe pillow?”

I’m just playing. I went to college. Sick burn. But you’re still not a patriot.

Glory, glory hallelujah!

These guys:



Someone: If you're nation was invaded by a larger force bent on removing your sovereign right to govern would you fight for your God given rights?

Also these guys:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e8cc4a4a_o.gif

Oh, a country lied about casualty totals... How... surprising?:rolleyes:

Russia themselves claimed 0 deaths for at least a couple days.

Perhaps we don't feel a need to brag about what we would do?
Perhaps, just perhaps we aren't that insecure in knowing what we would do.

The loudmouths are generally the first to slink away.

No....

You're just to chicken $h*t to answer the question, because it disproves your narrative (God ya'll love that word).

I'll ask again....


If it were America under siege from a larger invading nation would you accept our capitulation? Or would you fight and possibly die for your sovereign independence.

It's a pretty concise question, with really a one word answer. [The options are YES or NO. If you need my daughter to paste it out in crayola just tell me the colors you recognize.]

You've just been dancing around it like Ricky Martin. And by all means, Live La Vida Loca my friend.

While you debate how to dance around Yes or No - here is a young mother and father weeping over their dead 18 month child. A child dead because one country invaded another to overthrow their sovereign independence. The held a "Special Military Operation" to free Ukraine. To do so, they are shelling major metropolitan areas with medium range missiles and artillery. Because you know - the Ukrainian government is corrupt.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6d61bd55_c.jpg

Here's another of doctors trying desperately to save a young girl fatally injured because it's totally cool to invade with overwhelming military force and lob missiles, cluster bombs, and artillery into heavily populated areas in the name of "saving" a nation from corruption.


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...defaaa2f_c.jpg

She didn't make it.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...924a9d0a_c.jpg



I really hate doing this, but the fact that some of you so blatantly do not know RIGHT from WRONG sickens me as a father, a husband, and an American.

I'm still waiting. I'm waiting on the cowards calling Zelensky and the rest of Ukraine who are fighting for their sovereign right to govern themselves "selfish" to tell me whether they would or would not fight for their own

+1

Nobody anywhere in the world disputes the fact Russia invaded Ukraine with a large military force designed to kill people. Nobody disputes the fact that Russian forces, missiles, and tanks are killing (murdering) people.

Yet, there will always be those pseudo-intellectuals who will say "Well, we don't know all the details..." or "There must be some convoluted way to blame the USA because, well, we like to blame the USA..." or "This isn't really happening because all media is corrupt..."

As to Zelensky, if you respect what George Washington did, at great personal risk, to firmly found the concept of self-governance into reality, you have to also give this guy credit for putting his life on the line rather than accepting the invitation of a comfortable exile.

Yes. Without question. I tried to join the military and was denied for food allergies. I'm sorry I didn't realize this was the off-base question you were so distraught over not being answered.

Also, thank you for sharing those sad images. It gives us all something to pray for, if we didn't already.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to retire myself from this thread. Good discussion, fellas.

Project much?

As usual, another stimulating conversation with the "pot calling the kettle black" king.

I'm sure glad people don't think we are a "free" country with a recently stolen election. Also, I'm sure glad we don't have corruption in our country. Lastly, it's a blessing that we don't have neo-Nazis groups in this country, I don't know, holding rallies. Because if we did, people would think other countries would be justified in freeing us by military force.

Hey, what do you know? We agree on something! We should learn from history.

Let's make up a hypothetical situation and see if we can use history to help us formulate a way to react.

Let's assume there's a country ... let's make one up and call it Deutschdirt. Let's say they were really down on their luck and agreed to a treaty. But then later on, they got a leader that didn't like that treaty. He didn't think it was fair. So he decided to annex a bordering country because, I don't know, he claimed Deutschdirters who lived there weren't being treated properly. Let's say that no other country objected. That leader then decided to take over another country and all the other countries said, "Neville mind him taking that country. If we let him have that country, he'll stop."

Is there anything in world history that you can think of that might give us a hint at how this might play out?

You are a Fu***** idiot for thinking that. Someone needs to lob a nuke on Putin's head.
.

and since every thread needs a Card (...or a Ticket Stub).

Here is mine, note the date on the Ticket from this Washington Senators game (.....not the only thing going on in Washington DC that day).

July 16, 1945

"At precisely 5:30 a.m. on Monday, July 16, 1945, the nuclear age began."

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhatt...45/trinity.htm

First A-Bomb (might be time for another test....I know the perfect spot......................................HINT: it rhymes with Gremlin)

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...table-n1290831

"The fact that the NATO status question was not put on the table as Putin signaled that he was serious about an invasion — so plainly that the U.S. government was spelling it out with day-by-day updates — was an error, and potentially a catastrophic one. It may sound cruel to suggest that Ukraine could be barred, either temporarily or permanently, from entering a military alliance it wants to be in. But what’s more cruel is that Ukrainians might be paying with their lives for the United States’ reckless flirtation with Ukraine as a future NATO member without ever committing to its defense.

Analysts say it’s widely known that Ukraine had no prospect of entering NATO for many years, possibly decades, because of its need for major democracy and anti-corruption reforms and because NATO has no interest in going to war with Russia over Ukraine’s Donbas region, where Russia has meddled and backed armed conflict for years. But by dangling the possibility of Ukraine’s NATO membership for years but never fulfilling it, NATO created a scenario that emboldened Ukraine to act tough and buck Russia — without any intention of directly defending Ukraine with its firepower if Moscow decided Ukraine had gone too far."
_____________________________________

https://reason.com/2022/02/28/ukrain...urope-clinton/

"Let's start with the Clinton administration in the 1990s. As Reason's Eric Boehm pointed out, Clinton was the first U.S. president in decades to inherit a world that did not include the Soviet Union. Clinton could have completely revamped NATO now that its purpose—defending member nations against the expansion of the Soviet Union—was no longer applicable. Instead, Clinton, with the Republican Party's support, oversaw an expansion of NATO. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland all joined. Years later, Putin would cite this enlargement of NATO as one of the West's "broken promises" that justified his Ukraine policy.

Again, Putin is dead wrong. Nothing justifies his Ukraine policy. But the purpose of NATO was defensive: to protect the world from Russian aggression. If NATO policy is antagonizing Russia and being used as a pretext for invasion, it clearly isn't serving that goal.

With the Clinton administration's backing, NATO also intervened in Yugoslavia in 1999 to ensure an independent Kosovo. That military action never had the backing of the United Nations; it was a violation of international law, just like Putin's attack on Ukraine.

George Bush's foreign policy has not held up well, due to the U.S.'s horrendous misadventures in the Middle East, but Bush blundered in Europe as well. At a 2008 NATO summit—one attended by Putin—Bush staunchly supported Ukraine's eventual admittance to NATO, over the objections of France, the U.K., and Germany.

The Obama administration, of course, inflamed tensions with Russia when the U.S. took sides in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. And then came Donald Trump. Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media ceaselessly accused Trump of being a Russian stooge, even a pro-Putin plant, installed by Russia as president of the U.S. due to a subtle influence campaign on Facebook. This was of course ridiculous—and as evidence of how ridiculous the claims are, Trump's actual administration was just as foolishly tough on Russia as his predecessors. In 2017, Vice President Mike Pence even reiterated the 2008 Bucharest declaration.

The Biden administration maintained that same fiction. A clear declaration that the Ukraine would not be joining NATO might have deprived Putin of the intellectual ammo he required to move forward with this invasion. We don't know for sure. But it was incumbent on the U.S. to try. NATO is a means to an end—a more safe and secure Europe—not an end unto itself. If expansion is creating the very conditions that NATO's existence is supposed to prevent, it's not working. Yet every single U.S. president since the end of the Cold War has misunderstood this. And now here we are."
____________________________

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...year_2000.html

"VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will say one thing that I have never said before in public. I will say for the first time that in 2000 when President Bill Clinton was visiting Moscow at the end of his term, I asked him how would America see Russia joining NATO. I would not give you all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my conversation -- look, well, let me put it this way. How did Americans really look at this possibility? You can see it in their practical stance. Open support of the terrorists in North Caucusus, ignoring our demands and concerns, withdrawing from the arms limitation treaties, and so on."
____________________________

I don't think I'm a f'ing idiot, Leon. I'm 27. My first votable election was in 2012 between two POS. Maybe the generations before me can explain how they let the US government go unchecked with so much corruption for decades. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe, just maybe, if we can expose the corruption within our own government and clean it up, my kids/my grandkids/my great grankids/etc. won't grow up in a world with constant war involving the US.

I am not going to even read that diatribe. What Putin is doing now amounts to heinous war crimes regardless of anything else. Specifically shooting missiles at hospitals, schools and everything else will hopefully earn him a special place in Hell. I guess that is, unless you don't read unbiased reporting. But I respect your opinion and won't be changing mine on this subject. All of those kids and women just being killed. The whole country being demolished. So tragic.
.

Gee Mike, careful there. Using logic, reason, history, and supposed intelligence doesn't always work with everyone. LOL

The real problem is we're all humans, and it doesn't matter if you're red, white, black, yellow, brown, or green with purple polka dots, there are going to be a--holes among each and every group. Always have been and always will be. We can all imagine and believe we are so intelligent, sophisticated, and developed that we can rise above our often petty, self-absorbed, insecure and instinctual natures and be something other than our true selves. But that will never happen because the human animal (and yes, we are mammals) are really no different than any other creature on this planet, except for the extremely lucky situation where our brains and intelligence have developed to an un-before known level. That still doesn't change the fact that human nature and instincts will always be part of us, no matter what we say, do, or think, and we truly are no better or different from the other creatures on this planet.

As such, there is likely no country or society on this planet that does not have some level of corruption or evil in it and controlling it to some extent, and that includes the US, which has it's more than fair share of abominable acts and treatment of others in our relatively short history, to yet live down. The vast majority of common, everyday people (regardless of race or society) really wish no one else harm, or are criminally racist, and just want to live their lives as peacefully and happily as possible. But then human nature gets in the way again, and you will always have some people that for whatever reasons will never be satisfied, and always want more. Doesn't matter what it is, they'll just want more of it, and will stop at nothing to get it. These are the kinds of people that often rise to positions or levels of power, control, and authority because due to our "human nature" again, others will adopt their beliefs and thinking and follow them, because as a group, humans tend to not think for themselves so much. They'll most always think of themselves, just not for themselves.

Sadly, most all of the leaders of our world today have deficiencies and issues that helped to create and cause virtually all of the grief and problems we are suffering for as the human race, on a daily basis. And here's the big point, even if we were somehow able to suddenly remove every single politician, ruler, military leader, business leader, and so forth, behind and responsible for how the world is being run today, it really wouldn't matter. Likely within a year, six months, or even less time, an entirely new group of horrible humans will step in to take over and allow their greed, corruption, fears, biases, insecurities, megalomanias, and whatever else they have and may be harboring to end up running the world as badly as the current group has been doing, if not even making it worse.

And as for studying history so we don't repeat it, there are some monumental problems with that logic. First off being that we are human and have instincts, hormones, and emotions that rise above any knowledge and learning we may otherwise think gets us to ignore such human traits. But it ain't ever happening. People do things every single day that are bad for them or that they know they shouldn't do, yet no matter how smart they are, they still do them. Plus, however intelligent we humans think we are, we truly are still just dumb, and in the end really no better or more deserving of being on this planet than any other creature in the world. And as for history itself, don't forget the old adage that history is written by the victors. Just think if Washington had lost the Revolutionary War instead. Chances are he would have been shot/hanged as a traitor, and would likely be no more than a footnote in history today. Or what if Hitler had somehow prevailed in WWII? Who knows what the world would look like, and how people would think today. I know this all sounds pretty depressing and bleak for mankind, but look back at experiments of John Calhoun with mice and the development of his Behavioral Sink Theory. And then ask yourself if we are really any better or different than the mice. And all this arguing, insults, and going back and forth about all this stuff in this thread just helps to further prove true most of the points I'm making.

What needs to immediately stop is the stupidity of senseless killing, and infliction of pain and suffering, ON ALL SIDES!!!!!!!!! For supposedly being the most intelligent life form on this planet, or at least thinking we are, we are pretty f---ing stupid!!!!!!

I’m not sure dropping nuclear bombs on the Kremlin or Putin’s head would accomplish anything but eliminating most human life across the globe, if not all of it. However pro-Ukraine people might be right now, it seems to be in the practical interest of no nation to start the exchange of nukes that ends humanity as we know it.

Not sure how it’s Leon’s fault you had to chose between Putin and Zyuganov in your first election.

Calling someone a f'ing idiot while refusing to read information that supports the basis for their opinion, doesn't exactly scream "I respect your opinion."

Much like Michael Jordan, I will retire again from this thread. Good day, gentlemen, and God Bless.

You gotta admit this is hilarious!

Problem is.... it's not stupidity at all, if you're a psychopathic megalomaniac.

World War 2 doesn't happen if you could remove about 4 people before it all began: Tojo, Adolf, Joe, and Benny. Your average German and Brit would've rather played a friendly game of cards over a pint or two than try to kill each other, and the average Italian wanted nothing to do with that war in the first place. They weren't bad combatants - they just weren't killers (and I've been to Italy and believe me, they love Americans and everyone else generally.)

Japanese and American people had respect for each other before the war (baseball was becoming a huge part of Japanese life in the years before the war, and still is the basis of a strong cultural bond between that country and ours.)

Generally, populations don't hate each other and wouldn't choose war; it is governments. In the case of Russia, their government tends to consist of one man - the one brutal enough to eliminate his rivals.

So when Putin gives the order to bomb hospitals and kill women and children, it isn't a matter of stupidity. The problem is, he simply doesn't care.

I actually read this twice. I will set aside the fact that, over a span of 30 years, global dynamics have ebbed and flowed and are constantly changing. I will set aside the fact that you point out all of the "missteps" made by the corrupt US but nothing Russia has done over those 30 years, which tends to lead us to think we have been corrupt alone. Remember, your knowledge of the Clinton and Bush years comes from reading, and if your reading selections all stem from a common slant, your view will be slanted. (Very common in today's society.)

But I still don't see how "We teased you about Ukraine." or "We're using Ukraine as a tool against you." or even "We lied about Ukraine entering NATO." is EQUAL to bombing whole cities full of civilians.

KS

PS: Totally off topic, but why were both candidates in 2012 "SOB's?" I can understand not liking their politics or perhaps some decisions from their pasts, but SOB's? I didn't love the choice, but I thought both were decent human beings.

Ah, I see you stayed up almost an hour trying to come up with something!

Since you're college educated, maybe you'll understand that context has a bearing on the answer to your question. What I was trying to say was that the present conflict could have been avoided and right now the U.S. and NATO are fighting a proxy war down to the last Ukranian. If I were a citizen of Ukraine, I would be angry at Putin, but I would also be angry at my government for getting my country into an unnecessary conflict. Putin pulled the trigger, but the U.S. and Ukraine did everything they could to goad him. The Charter on Strategic Partnership which was signed between the U.S. and Ukraine on Nov. 10th of last year, which reiterated U.S. support Ukraine's right to join NATO, was the last straw for Putin who had been sternly warning both parties of the unacceptability Ukranian membership for years.

Does Putin have the right to keep Ukraine or any other nation out of NATO? The more accurate question would be, why was NATO not disbanded after Germany was reunified and the Soviet Union dissolved? You might say, because of exactly what is happening right now. But the early 90s were an opportunity for unprecedented cooperation and amity between the U.S. and Russia. Russia even wanted to join NATO for a time. The other question is, does Russia have a right to feel threatened as 14 of it's neighbors have been armed over the years, with some of those countries pointing missiles at them? Does allowing Ukraine which sits right on it's doorstep worsen that situation in Russia's eyes?

Did the United States have a responsibility to read the geopolitical tea leaves more accurately instead of pushing the little fella to wake the sleeping giant? There are some far-right ultra nationalists in Ukraine, who incidentally are part of the armed forces there who were also committing atrocities such as burning some Ukraninans alive in the east, who might be ecstatic about the situation. But of course, there are a lot of innocent people who are being victimized and dying because of the absolute fecklessness of the U.S. and the Ukrainian government.

So again, if I were a politically aware citizen living in Ukraine, I would be mad as hell at Russia, as well as mad as hell at my government for blundering into this. And the answer is, that I would not be ecstatic about fighting as a result of other people's absolute stupidity.

The idea of fighting for gas and oil in Afghanistan and Iraq was also repugnant to me.

How you doing AustinJoeMcCarthy?

Russia invaded Ukraine because of encirclement by NATO and the threat of the addition of Ukraine to that alliance. As far as neo-nazis go, in Ukraine they have committed atrocities in the east.

Exactly. Also, someone might give an answer to the kind of question being posed if it were asked in a civil and sincere way.

I've asked others before, maybe you know: if Russia takes over Ukraine, how does this lessen the encirclement by NATO?

Well if Puerto Rico and Cuba were aligned against us with weapons and missiles in those countries to potentially be used against us. Would we be wanting Haiti and the Dominican Republic to join on board?

It was a red line Putin drew a long time ago, back in 2007. He has been consistent on it. I do not support his invasion at all. But the U.S. and Ukraine were reckless and stupid.

Makes no sense. Now, he has Ukraine as a non-NATO buffer. If he reunifies Ukraine, he has NATO (Poland, primarily) on his western border. Had Ukraine joined NATO, he'd have NATO on his western border.

Regardless, you don't just decide you're unhappy with the politics of a neighbor and then roll tanks in to destroy their lives and buildings.

By the way, NATO is a defensive alliance. It is a joint defensive pact only, not a joint offensive agreement. The only reason Putin would feel threatened by a defensive alliance would be that it poses an obstacle to his offensive war plans.

Didn’t realize Net54 was still reachable in Moscow.

While NATO is a defensive alliance, the entire reason for it's existence and for the missile buildup for so many years during the Cold War was distrust. Both countries were aware of the balance of power regarding how many missiles each country had, as well as where they were deployed, which had a bearing on how quickly they could react to a potential nuclear attack.

If as you say, NATO is defensive, Russia may be asking why do they need to arm and deploy when we do not seek to attack them.

The U.S. also pulled out of treaties such as the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty. The U.S. pulled out of those, not Russia.

Lastly, missiles are deployed in Poland and being constructed in Romania. Russia doesn't see these as defensive actions, but provocative ones.

Let the eagle soar!!

Putin is not Hitler and is not seeking to invade other countries. He told me last night.

Anyway, since I have you on the line, I looked a little bit more into what we were talking about regarding the so-called promise that was made to Gorbachev. And I have an article, which I'll share below, where Gorbachev says that the promise was made in regard to Germany only, but he goes on to say that the expansion of NATO broke the spirit of the agreement.

I also have an article by an author, who is Republican, who I respect very much named Eric Margolis, who is an expert on military history and history in general. I'll share that because he makes other claims. You say you looked at the documents that were released and could not find any evidence of promises broken. Margolis seems to differ.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2...lls_40673.html

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ave-it-writing

Margolis also gives George H.W., and Baker, credit for not expanding NATO.

Absolutely agree with a lot of what you're saying Mark, but the bottom line is people were stupid for originally putting such psychopathic megalomaniacs into positions of power to do the crap they do in the first place. And even if they may not have started out being psychopathic megalomaniacs, once they started exhibiting the telltale signs, people were still too stupid to remove them from power, and still dumb enough to believe and follow them. So yes, it ultimately is our own overall stupidity that allows this to happen.

As I had said before, humans almost always think of themselves, but rarely for themselves. So when one crackpot comes along and says and does things a lot of people think will benefit them in some way, they generally go along to adopt similar beliefs and follow them, blindly in a lot of cases. And once they do make such a connection, another common human trait often kicks in, the one where we don't like to admit to others, and ourselves, that we were wrong about something or someone. So even if the person they were following starts to do things their followers may not think are that great, as long as those followers themselves aren't directly getting negatively hurt or impacted, they're likely to just dismiss, or even outright ignore, whatever not so great things the person they're following has done or is doing.

In the end, it all comes down to overall human stupidity for the majority of us allowing a select few to be able to tell us what to do, and then not doing something about it when we finally realize some of those select few leaders shouldn't be leading anymore. The only real differences between people like Trump, Putin, Biden, and the likes of Charles Manson, is the number of people they were able to sway and otherwise coerce into believing and following them. They've all had people following them go out and hurt and kill others for them and in their names. Except some are viewed as world leaders, whereas others are considered as crazy cult founders and insane criminals. Guess it just depends on how many people you can get to drink your own personal flavor of Kool-Aid as to which option such people end up falling under.

To me, the one thing that does make sense is the Golden Rule, it is an extreme pity that it seems to not be truly followed by many people on this planet. It would certainly be a lot better place if everyone did.

And Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country, and no NATO country has invaded Russia. NATO has helped keep the peace to everyones' benefit (besides Putin's expansionist desires that is.)

To remain prepared, as a deterrent, obviously. Why does Russia's army conduct exercises, missile tests, etc. if they are not a threat? And what's with "If, as you say...?" Are you uncertain regarding NATO's defensive charter?

According to Wiki, the USSR has the most nuclear warheads in the world, 700 more than the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...more%20rows%20

When Russia has more weapons already, and when they either don't comply with treaties or make verification difficult if not impossible, what good are treaties?

Don't you think some of Russia's 1,456 deployed nuclear warheads are pointed towards Poland, Romania, and all other NATO countries?

You sure do have a one-sided view of things.

1) Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country, but that doesn't mean it was comfortable with further encirclement by NATO. Ukraine brought about the very thing it hoped to avoid, as did the U.S. and NATO. I'm still not saying Putin should have invaded. They felt threatened by further encirclement.

2) They conducted them from what I understand as a warning to Ukraine and potential NATO membership.

3 and 4) Both the Russia and the U.S have the most nuclear weapons, with Russia yes, having more. The idea of detente back in the 70s and 80s was to pull back from the potential nuclear abyss. Our leaders at that time seemingly had a full understanding of mutually assured destruction, and signed these treaties and eliminated stockpiles. The U.S. has been thumbing it's nose at this concept for 30 years first taking advantage of Russia's weakened position after the Soviet Union broke up, and continuing on a bellicose path after 9/11 in general, and increasingly toward Russia specifically after Maidan and Trumps election. The United States actually has NO MORAL GROUND to tell anyone not to invade anyone else anyway. See: Iraq, Afghanistan (who did not attack us on 9/11), Libya, and Yemen.

I don't understand what the end goal here is for Putin and Russia. Let's assume that the stated reason for the attacks is true and that it is to prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO, creating an alliance sitting right on Russia's border to defend. Now, let's say Ukraine welcomed Russia in with open arms and flowers at soldiers' feet two weeks. Wouldn't that create the exact situation where NATO is right on Russia's new border? Does Putin plan on using Ukraine to create the world's largest moat or work with China to build a modern Great Wall? If not, then what good does usurping Ukraine do to release the perceived NATO threat to Russia? It is not like if the US just took over Mexico, where at least the new US border to defend would shrink by 80%.

At this stage, I worry about what graceful exit exists for Russia. If Russia just "gives up," it is a major embarrassment to a country who identifies itself by its military supremacy. Putin does not seem like someone willing to leave without a clear "win." But, it is going to be nearly impossible for him to take over, occupy and convert a country with 40 million people that seemingly are not excited to welcome Russian overlords. So, the past two weeks will drag on for months or years.

Call me short-sighted, but I don't know why we don't just create the Keystone pipeline as a public entity that the government can just tap whenever there is energy unrest in the world. Appease the environmentalists by shuddering the Pipeline when the world energy situation is in equilibrium (or at the point where natural energy eliminates the need for fossil fuels), and then fire it up when Russia and/or OPEC try a power play. The fear of energy supply disruption is having a far larger disruptive impact on NATO operations than the actual attack on Ukraine. If the US had the ability to flip a switch for a year to ramp up oil supply, OPEC countries still need to feed their citizens and create man-made islands in the desert. So, you could literally tell Putin, "one more bomb, bullet or dirty look on Ukrainian soil, and you will never live to see a drop of energy sold to the Western world." It sure seems cheaper to build the pipeline and not operate it than gifting untrained Ukranian military billions in defensive weapons, including back-door Polish warplanes (most of which will become Russian weapons as they overwhelm the Ukranian resistance).

I don't agree with the US getting involved in all those wars, or Vietnam either for that matter. But, did the USA annex any of those countries? Did we grant them statehood, insist they fly the US flag, or speak English?

Did we subjugate them, or try to stand them up as independent, self ruling democracies?

That's a big difference.

This is not an equal analogy. How about this: Russia is North Carolina, the Ukraine is South Carolina. Georgia would be Poland. So NC invades SC because they are worried about it joining NATO and it doesn't want another NATO country on it's doorstep. Now it's territory includes SC, and, well, shit, now we're next door to a NATO country!!

The whole "We invaded Ukraine because we're worried about NATO" excuse doesn't fly, sorry. How sure are you this is the real reason for this invasion??

I'm surprised that we & the allies haven't done more to stop this unprovoked killing in Ukraine.

When I hear & see of the "stalled" Russian convoy, I wonder why it hasn't been destroyed? I don't understand it.

I would like to point out that in the eyes of many commentators the whole question of NATO expanding east is a red herring, or at least not the most important part of the story. Putin believes that Ukraine should be part of Russia. He says so himself, more than once.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...pt-february-22

Here's a quote from his speech just before the invasion:

“Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space,” he said, per the Kremlin’s official translation. “Since time immemorial, the people living in the south-west of what has historically been Russian land have called themselves Russians.”

Ted

The Russians have air superiority in the area of the convoy, and probably anti-aircraft/SAM batteries protecting it. If the Ukrainians sent in strike aircraft or drones, they'd be sitting ducks. It's why they're making such a fuss about those Polish jets; if they can put the Russians on the back foot in the air, it will make their defense much easier.

You have any idea what we did to Iraq? Or Libya? Do you know what's going on in Yemen right now?

Unfortunately, many Americans don't know what their government does and there's a selective hysteria as to what to get upset about. This is the fault mainly of our abysmal media which intentionally keeps us uninformed.

Just seeing this. The whole thing is a slap in the face to Russia. Putin feels the West is using Ukraine for it's own purposes. Unfortunately, Ukraine is a pawn. To use your analogy, think of Russia occupying North Carolina even though North Carolina would ostensibly still be one of the 50 states with a governor etc. And then it begins arming it and installing missiles there. The U.S. wouldn't feel too good about it.

Yes. Just read this as I was dealing with the other comments. I would have to go back and review Yugoslavia, Kosovo, etc. But yeah, your analysis is spot on.

What Russia is doing to Ukraine is quite a bit worse than a slap in the face.

The Middle East has been a mess for decades and continues to be, but you avoided my point. When Putin (or Hitler, or Caesar, or Alexander, or Ghengis Khan) started wars, it was to capture, plunder, and subjugate. When the USA gets involved in wars, whether misguided or not, it is to try to return countries to their people, rebuild them and provide humanitarian relief like food and medical, with their own sovereignty intact, and rulers of their peoples' choosing.

Bob, I agree with most of what you wrote. Do I think we can solve all our problems by learning from history? Of course not. Firstly, take a thousand people and a single historical event and you will probably get nearly a thousand interpretations of how that event should be reflected in actions today. Secondly, societal norms and morals change through time. What was once accepted, may no longer be accepted today.

But, does that mean we shouldn't try to use historical events to provide some background to how we approach things today? Of course not.

I do take some exceptions with the part of your post that I quote above. I am tired of the bothsidesism that seems to permeate throughout any topical discourse today. In the current conflict, the one presently under discussion, there is only ONE side that is causing senseless killing and infliction of pain and suffering. Wouldn't you agree?

Could not agree with you more.

Ha ha, I am doing fine. Oh if Joe only called people stooges back in the day, he wouldn't be as well known as he is now, would he?

See Ted's (gawaintheknight) response above.

You mean like this:

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2...ines-war-camps

"‘Some stay, some die’: The horror of Ukraine’s war camps"

Now, I don't mean to be flippant or play the "both sides" game, because atrocities are not something to be casually dismissed. But it's just another one of Putin's excuses to invade. Again, see Ted's post.

Yep, I 100% agree.

That's what Hitler said. :D

Oh, so do you now agree that Irv, Dore, and you are wrong to say that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east? That that is just a lie perpetrated by Putin and his stooges.

For anyone who doesn't want to click on the link, this is in the article and quotes Gorbachev:

"M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."

Margolis claims:

"Ever since, I’ve been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO.

"All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand eastward by ‘one inch’ if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.

"The documents released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester, make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered ‘ironclad guarantees’ there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies."

Who do you believe more, Gorbachev or Margolis? Only one of them can be right. Do you believe the person who was actually a part of the negotiations or someone who claims you can read the shameless lies online without citing a single source for his claim?

In regards to documents, go back to my post where I provided a link to a site that seems to side with claim about the US lie AND provides links to documents (which Margolis DOES NOT do). Links to 30 documents are provided to support the claim. As I said, I looked at several documents (ones I thought most likely to contain proof of the promise) to find the smoking gun and did not find it. And no, I'm not going to look through all 30 documents to prove a negative (if I find nothing you'll claim that I missed it or it's in another document or something). You claim a promise to Russia was made, it is up to you to prove it. Look through those documents and find that proof. And no, citing an author you admire who happens to claim the same thing is not proof.

Think about it. Gorbachev was there. Reread what he said. Margolis was not there. Margolis says to read the documents. Which he DOES NOT provide. Who you gonna trust?

Slap in the face? Putin can't handle a slap to the face? This guy??: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/w...ussia-gru.html
When did Putin become a delicate flower, with the big bad US meanies pushing him around?

While esteemed Comrade Gannon is trying his best to justify his motherland’s corrupt dictatorship led assault on a free sovereign nation - here are the wonderful peace keepers firing heavy armored rounds at an elderly couple in what is obviously the most menacing looking Buick on the block.


It was this ���� armored vehicle that killed an elderly couple

#Ukraine https://t.co/CbsRxS66j9

Joe! I provided the link about Gorbachev, because I wanted to acknowledge that Gorbachev does tell the story differently. But maybe there is something in the documents which might support what Gorbachev does say about NATO expansion violating the spirit of the agreement. You yourself say you have not looked through all of the documents. Maybe there is something in there that you didn't read that might temper your viewpoint.

Regarding the Hitler and Putin comparison, just because Hitler continued to invade other countries, doesn't mean that is Putin's objective. I think if you read what he has said on the matter, you should agree. That doesn't make him a "beneficent" invader.

For the record, and this goes to everyone here - I am against the invasion. All I have tried to do is discuss why Putin might have made the move. I do think that it was a failure of U.S. policy to recognize how serious Putin was about the matter. All of this could have been averted.

Another aspect to this reminds me of what Harry Truman used to say, which is that after you defeat an enemy, you have to build them back up again, so as not to create a reason for revenge or retaliation. The U.S. won the Cold War. It completely had the upper hand while Russia went through a decade of internal chaos and weakness. The U.S. during this time proceeded to unnecessarily humiliate Russia and take advantage of their weakness by expanding NATO. Putin came along and was determined to reinstill Russian pride. He watched as NATO continued to expand and the U.S. pulled out of the ABM treaty. As early as 2007, he declared Ukranian membership in NATO unacceptable. Then U.S. was involved with the Ukranian coup in 2014. Then we unilaterally pulled out of the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty. Seven years of civil war in Ukraine and the agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine last November, it would seem finally pushed Putin over the line.

In my opinion, he lost any high ground or argument he had regarding Ukraine once he invaded it. Jingoistic protestations and lack of understanding about geopolitics by most of the crew here notwithstanding, the U.S. definitely incompetently contributed to the invastion.

Far from being unpatriotic, honest critique of one's country is one of the highest forms of patriotism, because if you love your country, you want to be honest with it and about it so it can be the best country it can be. And if it is a great country, one should also be able to freely discuss things without fear of censorship or intolerance. It's a shame that some people here have equated free speech and dissent from the mainstream line with lack of patriotism.

Gentlemen - a good day to you all. Let's hope there is a sane ending to what is going on in Ukraine. The quicker the better.

Hey Mike, The one thing you disagreed with me on is actually not supposed to just be about the current situation. My apologies if it didn't come across that way. That statement was made in regard to all the situations that have ever occurred in the history of mankind, what is going on right now, and what has yet to occur in the future, in which innocent people on all different sides of these issues always seem to end up being the ones paying the highest price. I'm not for both sides, I'm really more for no sides, unless you are counting ALL the common, ordinary, everyday people from ALL races and societies as one unified side. That is the side I am for, not the ones created and put out there by the various leaders in different countries/societies/religions around the world. I always think of the old Black Sabbath song, War Pigs, and tend to view most politicians and military leaders, and some religious leaders, in that light. If these people are supposed to be our leaders and speaking out and fighting for us (Or is it really more for them?), why do they always do it from the rear? If we made all these a--hole politicians, religious, and military leaders who keep getting us into all these conflicts actually have to go out and face one another in fights, instead of sending out young people that still have their whole lives ahead of them to kill and be killed on their behalf, I wonder how much more often they'd come up with peaceful, rational solutions to problems, as opposed to actually ever risking their own lives.

And granted, that won't work in deterring all political/military/religious leaders from still getting us into all kinds of conflicts because let's face it, some of them will always still be psychopathic megalomaniacs. But maybe we can at least start culling the herd of them if they want to kill each other off fighting among themselves. Just leave the rest of us out of it, please.

While some garbage want to justify this terrible invasion and it’s horrible cost to human lives and well being because Russia was threatened by NATO expansion: here are actual heroes threatened.

Today in the Ukrainian city of Melitopol, protestors in the city squared were threatened and told they would be shot if they exited the square. So they went for a stroll, and protested throughout the city. This is how real patriots face adversity, not fakriots justifying the slaughter and destruction of a neighbor state that wants to self govern.


https://www.mv.org.ua/news/264230-v_...qg3MMmd6sh4k7A

If Putin did take advice on net54 the world would be a far saner place though, that is for sure. OTOH, if somehow the comrades on here took to arms and overtook Moscow, what puppet would we install to rule over the East? Maybe Joe Orlando? I think his schedule is fairly open. Also, who cares about oil prices, what do you think could be done about TPA costs?

Who is comrade Archive and why is he trying to subvert the state with false propaganda. Bring the noize comrades.

Daily Post count 3 - Kremlin

We help out where we can.

This is spot on and something that really bothers me about the media and society all together. So quick to automatically declare someone is heroic because it just "feels right" so everyone just runs with it.

I was disgusted at a CNN headline today comparing Zelenskyy to Churchill... reminded me of some member of congress shouting at a member of Trump's cabinet, don't recall who or the particular matter, "Sir, do you not have any decency!" only to see all the cretins cheer on the cringeworthy imitation. It seems our culture relies on what might as well be thespians spewing cheesy lines and rhetoric for inspiration. I'm a conservative (I guess?), but this is pervasive across Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. and anyone who can't acknowledge that their preferred news source isn't just as biased is living in a fantasy world. It's all the same tomfoolery and I'm as ashamed of someone I probably agree with as much as the prima donnas I oppose for falling for the ruse.

I think we're already living in some type of satirical dystopia... Seems as though the likely outcome of this conflict will either take the humous part of that out of that equation or, hopefully, back to some version of a sane world.

BTW, I hope Zelenskyy does prove to be heroic but to me that's a very serious word to throw around... akin to labeling someone a HOF caliber player.