Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

We aren't perfect that's for dang sure. I just don't think it makes us always wrong like others do. Of course, I don't see how this is an occupation versus an unnecessary presence, which I disagree with. The Syrians are crazies who we just need to let sort it out internally.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

Also NATO invaded Ukraine in 2014, way ahead of Russia.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

Also NATO invaded Ukraine in 2014, way ahead of Russia.

---

What?

---

I think he meant to say that the USA-NATO got involved with Ukraine back in 2014 trying to pull off regime change.

We interfered (not invaded).

---

They didn't even do that. The EU maybe?

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

Also NATO invaded Ukraine in 2014, way ahead of Russia.

---

What?

---

I think he meant to say that the USA-NATO got involved with Ukraine back in 2014 trying to pull off regime change.

We interfered (not invaded).

---

They didn't even do that. The EU maybe?

---

Victoria Nuland and the State department (along with our intelligence agencies) were very involved in Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957.amp


https://truthout.org/articles/the-ukraine-mess-that-nuland-made/

"Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine's regime change without weighing the likely consequences."

---

And that relates to NATO how?

China is waging a proxy war in Ukraine against the United States. An endless regional conflict that siphons off US arms stockpiles is a prelude to China conquering Taiwan and establishing hegemony over the region. The US won't be able to fight a prolonged war in the Far East because of the aforementioned weapons shortages. Logistically, it's not a war we can win.

We can however inflict much damage in the first 96 hours of the campaign. For instance: China's submarine fleet is entirely diesel powered, (WW2 technology) and can be targeted and sent to the bottom; The US front line Corps commanders are the best in the world and can sink carriers and escorts and do much damage to the Air Force and critical infrastructure with the armaments they have on hand.

Japan and South Korea are not in a position to render aid to Taiwan either. Both militaries are decidedly defensive by design and in Japan's case, they only have armament stockpiles for 3 sorties per jet in their Air Force

Back in the European Theater the Russians can withdraw troops from Ukraine and settle in for a long term economic strangulation of the EU/NATO countries, which has been their goal all along. By suckering Biden and the Neo-Cons into expending US conventional arms stockpiles into a useless war of attrition, both China and Russia can establish spherical hegemony over the major economies of the world.

A militarily depleted and leaderless US won't be in a position to save anybody. Unable to fight a two-front war either militarily or economically the US will have terms dictated to it rather than by it. Even after rearming our military (which will take years) our former allies and trading partners will be blackmailed into refusing our overtures for economic and military alliances.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

How do you think the current leader of Ukraine got there under your boy Obama?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

How do you think the current leader of Ukraine got there under your boy Obama?

---

With the help of CIA fronts or stand-ins like USAID and the NED. Why do you ask?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

How do you think the current leader of Ukraine got there under your boy Obama?

---

With the help of CIA fronts or stand-ins like USAID and the NED. Why do you ask?

---

I'm sure it was that and 13.5 million votes. I find this almost hilarious since his opponents during the election thought he was too close to Russia.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

How do you think the current leader of Ukraine got there under your boy Obama?

---

With the help of CIA fronts or stand-ins like USAID and the NED. Why do you ask?

---

And who was instrumental in squeezing out the guy before the ***** playing pianist? Come on. You can do this. Sound it out. Who meddled? Which country? Which leaders?

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

How do you think the current leader of Ukraine got there under your boy Obama?

---

With the help of CIA fronts or stand-ins like USAID and the NED. Why do you ask?

---

I'm sure it was that and 13.5 million votes. I find this almost hilarious since his opponents during the election thought he was too close to Russia.

---

Because he promised to carry out the Minsk agreement, for which the Ukrainian people elected him with an overwhelming mandate. Instead the agreement was sabotaged by the West, leading to war and what may be the irreparable destruction of their country. Some might call this tragic. I guess hilarious is one word for it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

How do you think the current leader of Ukraine got there under your boy Obama?

---

With the help of CIA fronts or stand-ins like USAID and the NED. Why do you ask?

---

I'm sure it was that and 13.5 million votes. I find this almost hilarious since his opponents during the election thought he was too close to Russia.

---

Because he promised to carry out the Minsk agreement, for which the Ukrainian people elected him with an overwhelming mandate. Instead the agreement was sabotaged by the West, leading to war and what may be the irreparable destruction of their country. Some might call this tragic. I guess hilarious is one word for it.

---

Wrong, but keep making stuff up.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

How do you think the current leader of Ukraine got there under your boy Obama?

---

With the help of CIA fronts or stand-ins like USAID and the NED. Why do you ask?

---

I'm sure it was that and 13.5 million votes. I find this almost hilarious since his opponents during the election thought he was too close to Russia.

---

Because he promised to carry out the Minsk agreement, for which the Ukrainian people elected him with an overwhelming mandate. Instead the agreement was sabotaged by the West, leading to war and what may be the irreparable destruction of their country. Some might call this tragic. I guess hilarious is one word for it.

---

Wrong, but keep making stuff up.

---

Zelensky certainly ran for office as the "peace" candidate.


[On Sunday, Ukrainians overwhelmingly threw their support behind a political newcomer, actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, to become the country's next President.
After popping the champagne, Zelensky faces some serious tasks. Ukraine has been locked in a proxy war with Russia for five years, and the conflict has claimed around 13,000 lives in the country's east.
The Kremlin saw Zelensky's predecessor, outgoing President Petro Poroshenko, as representing the "party of war," and the election results in Ukraine were greeted by official Russia with what could be described as cautious hope for a reboot in relations...

Zelensky's landslide victory does give him the mandate. But beyond offering Ukrainians an outlet for a protest vote, it's not yet clear what policies he will pursue. ]


https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/europe/ukraine-zelensky-win-russia-relations-intl/index.html

Foreign Policy magazine said after his election:

"When Ukraine's comedian-turned-presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky swept the election a year ago, he vowed to uproot corruption, jail the country's top crooks, stop the war in Donbas, and attract billions of dollars in foreign direct investment. "

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

How do you think the current leader of Ukraine got there under your boy Obama?

---

With the help of CIA fronts or stand-ins like USAID and the NED. Why do you ask?

---

I'm sure it was that and 13.5 million votes. I find this almost hilarious since his opponents during the election thought he was too close to Russia.

---

Because he promised to carry out the Minsk agreement, for which the Ukrainian people elected him with an overwhelming mandate. Instead the agreement was sabotaged by the West, leading to war and what may be the irreparable destruction of their country. Some might call this tragic. I guess hilarious is one word for it.

---

Wrong, but keep making stuff up.

---

Zelensky certainly ran for office as the "peace" candidate.


[On Sunday, Ukrainians overwhelmingly threw their support behind a political newcomer, actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, to become the country's next President.
After popping the champagne, Zelensky faces some serious tasks. Ukraine has been locked in a proxy war with Russia for five years, and the conflict has claimed around 13,000 lives in the country's east.
The Kremlin saw Zelensky's predecessor, outgoing President Petro Poroshenko, as representing the "party of war," and the election results in Ukraine were greeted by official Russia with what could be described as cautious hope for a reboot in relations...

Zelensky's landslide victory does give him the mandate. But beyond offering Ukrainians an outlet for a protest vote, it's not yet clear what policies he will pursue. ]


https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/europe/ukraine-zelensky-win-russia-relations-intl/index.html

Foreign Policy magazine said after his election:

"When Ukraine's comedian-turned-presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky swept the election a year ago, he vowed to uproot corruption, jail the country's top crooks, stop the war in Donbas, and attract billions of dollars in foreign direct investment. "

---

Sam said the West sabotaged the Minsk agreement, which is straight out of Kremlin propaganda just like the article he originally posted for this thread.

Most candidates wanted peace in Donbas. But Zelensky was thought to be too close to Russia because of his relationship with one of the powerful oligarchs.

---

None of us know the truth of the behind closed door meetings around Minsk.

The USA of course says it did not sabotage those agreements.

Russia of course says it did.

Will we ever know the truth?

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

How do you think the current leader of Ukraine got there under your boy Obama?

---

With the help of CIA fronts or stand-ins like USAID and the NED. Why do you ask?

---

I'm sure it was that and 13.5 million votes. I find this almost hilarious since his opponents during the election thought he was too close to Russia.

---

Because he promised to carry out the Minsk agreement, for which the Ukrainian people elected him with an overwhelming mandate. Instead the agreement was sabotaged by the West, leading to war and what may be the irreparable destruction of their country. Some might call this tragic. I guess hilarious is one word for it.

---

Wrong, but keep making stuff up.

---

Zelensky certainly ran for office as the "peace" candidate.


[On Sunday, Ukrainians overwhelmingly threw their support behind a political newcomer, actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, to become the country's next President.
After popping the champagne, Zelensky faces some serious tasks. Ukraine has been locked in a proxy war with Russia for five years, and the conflict has claimed around 13,000 lives in the country's east.
The Kremlin saw Zelensky's predecessor, outgoing President Petro Poroshenko, as representing the "party of war," and the election results in Ukraine were greeted by official Russia with what could be described as cautious hope for a reboot in relations...

Zelensky's landslide victory does give him the mandate. But beyond offering Ukrainians an outlet for a protest vote, it's not yet clear what policies he will pursue. ]


https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/europe/ukraine-zelensky-win-russia-relations-intl/index.html

Foreign Policy magazine said after his election:

"When Ukraine's comedian-turned-presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky swept the election a year ago, he vowed to uproot corruption, jail the country's top crooks, stop the war in Donbas, and attract billions of dollars in foreign direct investment. "

---

Sam said the West sabotaged the Minsk agreement, which is straight out of Kremlin propaganda just like the article he originally posted for this thread.

Most candidates wanted peace in Donbas. But Zelensky was thought to be too close to Russia because of his relationship with one of the powerful oligarchs.

---

None of us know the truth of the behind closed door meetings around Minsk.

The USA of course says it did not sabotage those agreements.

Russia of course says it did.

Will we ever know the truth?

---

We don't even need to know what was said behind closed doors. We openly supported right-wing nationalists who opposed the agreement. We funded and encouraged the Ukrainian government's shelling of the Donbas and military build-up along the border. Western leaders are now on record as having used the agreement for just that purpose.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

How do you think the current leader of Ukraine got there under your boy Obama?

---

With the help of CIA fronts or stand-ins like USAID and the NED. Why do you ask?

---

I'm sure it was that and 13.5 million votes. I find this almost hilarious since his opponents during the election thought he was too close to Russia.

---

Because he promised to carry out the Minsk agreement, for which the Ukrainian people elected him with an overwhelming mandate. Instead the agreement was sabotaged by the West, leading to war and what may be the irreparable destruction of their country. Some might call this tragic. I guess hilarious is one word for it.

---

Wrong, but keep making stuff up.

---

Zelensky certainly ran for office as the "peace" candidate.


[On Sunday, Ukrainians overwhelmingly threw their support behind a political newcomer, actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, to become the country's next President.
After popping the champagne, Zelensky faces some serious tasks. Ukraine has been locked in a proxy war with Russia for five years, and the conflict has claimed around 13,000 lives in the country's east.
The Kremlin saw Zelensky's predecessor, outgoing President Petro Poroshenko, as representing the "party of war," and the election results in Ukraine were greeted by official Russia with what could be described as cautious hope for a reboot in relations...

Zelensky's landslide victory does give him the mandate. But beyond offering Ukrainians an outlet for a protest vote, it's not yet clear what policies he will pursue. ]


https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/europe/ukraine-zelensky-win-russia-relations-intl/index.html

Foreign Policy magazine said after his election:

"When Ukraine's comedian-turned-presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky swept the election a year ago, he vowed to uproot corruption, jail the country's top crooks, stop the war in Donbas, and attract billions of dollars in foreign direct investment. "

---

Sam said the West sabotaged the Minsk agreement, which is straight out of Kremlin propaganda just like the article he originally posted for this thread.

Most candidates wanted peace in Donbas. But Zelensky was thought to be too close to Russia because of his relationship with one of the powerful oligarchs.

---

None of us know the truth of the behind closed door meetings around Minsk.

The USA of course says it did not sabotage those agreements.

Russia of course says it did.

Will we ever know the truth?

---

We don't even need to know what was said behind closed doors. We openly supported right-wing nationalists who opposed the agreement. We funded and encouraged the Ukrainian government's shelling of the Donbas and military build-up along the border. Western leaders are now on record as having used the agreement for just that purpose.

---

Because the Russians violated the ceasefire. But you're right about one thing. We weren't in the meetings because we weren't part of the Paris Summits that led to the longest ceasefires. Zelensky started flirting with the EU again on an economic deal, and suddenly more Russian mercenaries started arriving into Eastern Ukraine and the shells started flying again.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)%85but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

How do you think the current leader of Ukraine got there under your boy Obama?

---

With the help of CIA fronts or stand-ins like USAID and the NED. Why do you ask?

---

I'm sure it was that and 13.5 million votes. I find this almost hilarious since his opponents during the election thought he was too close to Russia.

---

Because he promised to carry out the Minsk agreement, for which the Ukrainian people elected him with an overwhelming mandate. Instead the agreement was sabotaged by the West, leading to war and what may be the irreparable destruction of their country. Some might call this tragic. I guess hilarious is one word for it.

---

Wrong, but keep making stuff up.

---

Zelensky certainly ran for office as the "peace" candidate.


[On Sunday, Ukrainians overwhelmingly threw their support behind a political newcomer, actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, to become the country's next President.
After popping the champagne, Zelensky faces some serious tasks. Ukraine has been locked in a proxy war with Russia for five years, and the conflict has claimed around 13,000 lives in the country's east.
The Kremlin saw Zelensky's predecessor, outgoing President Petro Poroshenko, as representing the "party of war," and the election results in Ukraine were greeted by official Russia with what could be described as cautious hope for a reboot in relations...

Zelensky's landslide victory does give him the mandate. But beyond offering Ukrainians an outlet for a protest vote, it's not yet clear what policies he will pursue. ]


https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/europe/ukraine-zelensky-win-russia-relations-intl/index.html

Foreign Policy magazine said after his election:

"When Ukraine's comedian-turned-presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky swept the election a year ago, he vowed to uproot corruption, jail the country's top crooks, stop the war in Donbas, and attract billions of dollars in foreign direct investment. "

---

Sam said the West sabotaged the Minsk agreement, which is straight out of Kremlin propaganda just like the article he originally posted for this thread.

Most candidates wanted peace in Donbas. But Zelensky was thought to be too close to Russia because of his relationship with one of the powerful oligarchs.

---

None of us know the truth of the behind closed door meetings around Minsk.

The USA of course says it did not sabotage those agreements.

Russia of course says it did.

Will we ever know the truth?

---

We don't even need to know what was said behind closed doors. We openly supported right-wing nationalists who opposed the agreement. We funded and encouraged the Ukrainian government's shelling of the Donbas and military build-up along the border. Western leaders are now on record as having used the agreement for just that purpose.

---

Because the Russians violated the ceasefire. But you're right about one thing. We weren't in the meetings because we weren't part of the Paris Summits that led to the longest ceasefires. Zelensky started flirting with the EU again on an economic deal, and suddenly more Russian mercenaries started arriving into Eastern Ukraine and the shells started flying again.

---

There were many violations on both sides. That's not necessarily an impediment to peace unless one is determined to make it so. Our militia friends were most definitely determined.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

The common thread in Syria, as always, is regime change. Compared to forcible annexation, I would argue there's not much difference. Both are hostile acts and violations of sovereignty.

---

Also NATO invaded Ukraine in 2014, way ahead of Russia.

---

What?

---

I think he meant to say that the USA-NATO got involved with Ukraine back in 2014 trying to pull off regime change.

We interfered (not invaded).

---

They didn't even do that. The EU maybe?

---

"**** the EU."
- Victoria Nuland

In reference to which party, the EU or the US, got to choose the next leader of Ukraine.

Redbrickbear said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

A century later, we are sleepwalking into World War III. Americans should ignore the state-sponsored propaganda (eerily similar to that which led up to WWI), wake up, look at what their leaders have wrought, and do all they can to end support for this cruel war before we face a Great War-like conflagration or worse.


We're not sleepwalking into WW3; we've given inept leadership permission to take us there by any means they deem acceptable. Not only is current action similar to pre-WW1, it is strikingly similar to pre-WW2, especially to the history in England. Ending our involvement in Ukraine only gives Putin open gates to expanding into eastern Europe, posing a worse threat than Hitler did in the '30's. And we are less prepared now than then to respond. Make no mistake, a great conflagration is coming, uncontested by the U.S. government leadership.

It does not appear that we have a Churchill to lead when he is most needed.

---

Germany was a competent State ruled by very competent people in 1938.

Russia is not...its corrupt, incompetent, and not that powerful of a military.

They can't even beat Ukraine...much less march into the rest of Europe.

And in 1938 Germany did not face off with a large united military bloc like NATO.

If Russia tried to attack a NATO nation it would face a 30 nation military alliance. An alliance that includes the largest military on earth (USA) and some of the largest economies on earth (USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, etc.)

That alliance has 900+ million people vs Russia's 144 million

---

which makes Russia's decision to invade Ukraine all the more insane...irresponsible, irrational, highly provocative. Dumbest policy move by a major state in my lifetime.

You play in the shatterzone with diplomats, spies, proxies. You take your lumps. You give them back. You ride out the ups & downs. One day/week/month/year/decade you're up, the next you're down. but you keep playing the game, and it's the constant engagement in it which, over time, which delivers balance. Your goal is not to dominate, but to ensure no one else dominates. Everything else is small potatoes.

But if you invade the shatterzone with your armies to incorporate it into your realm, you get alliances standing up to make your life miserable. That is intolerable to everyone. Which is where Russia finds itself. Defeat a near certainty. It's only allies either irrelevant or a continent away.

Skeptics of US support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukraine War are so incredibly out of touch.

I'm not a skeptic of the war. I'm an opponent.

There are no direct American interests involved.

There are costs involved, funded by more debt. Dollar printer goes whoosh.

quash said:

---

I'm not a skeptic of the war. I'm an opponent.

There are no direct American interests involved.

There are costs involved, funded by more debt. Dollar printer goes whoosh.

---

Budget concerns are valid.

Assertion we have no interest in outcome is not.

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

I'm not a skeptic of the war. I'm an opponent.

There are no direct American interests involved.

There are costs involved, funded by more debt. Dollar printer goes whoosh.

---

Budget concerns are valid.

Assertion we have no interest in outcome is not.

---

I didn't say that.

But since you replied tell me the direct American interest at play.

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The US never promised or negotiated any agreement to not expand NATO. The US can't negotiate on behalf of NATO anyway.

---

That of course is not the issue.

NATO can expand or retract as it wants.

But it just looks ridiculous for the Western corporate media to spin a narrative that it is Russia that is prime expansionist and aggressive power about to put tanks in Berlin...when what it views as a hostile alliance is moving right up to its borders....and has been doing so since the 1990s.

---

I would take issue with the idea that alliance expansion and invading and taking land are equivalent. If you want a nation to move away from being a competitor, economically or militarily, be a better partner, diplomat, and/or option.

---

You are right....NATO recruiting members and Russia invading Ukraine are not the same.

But Russia's increasingly unhinged military actions are a direct result of the leadership in Moscow feeling that they are being surrounded by a hostile force.

If you keep poking the Bear...it will lash out.

The same as if we had an Asian NATO that was getting closer to China...the Red Dragon would lash out.

If we really desire peace...why are we pushing a military alliance closer and closer to a potential flash point? We are playing with a powder keg and with matches.

---

Russia has been as active in war and expansion (moreso) as the US if not more. From Chechnya, to Georgia, to Crimea, to Donbas, now Ukraine. Let's not forget Syria and their North Pole excursions. We haven't been the only one playing with matches around a powder keg. Once the oil money started flowing, Putin started looking toward a greater Russia.

We missed a prime shot at a different relationship in 2001/2002. Putin went rogue a couple years later, and alas we've been at odds since, despite the awesome Clinton "reset" button and Obama "I'll have more flexibility" efforts (sarc).

---

I think you know well that Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

If you want to condemn Russia for fighting a war to keep a break away region from getting its independence.

You have to condemn Ukraine for fighting a war to keep Donbass from getting its independence.

(And Lincoln for making war on the Southern States to keep them from getting independence)

And of course Chechnya was under the sway of Islamic Jihadists so they were no freedom fighters in the sense most people mean.


But in general you are right that Russia has consistently show a willingness to use violence in areas inside its territory (Chechnya) and right on its borders (Georgia, Ukraine)

So why provoke them by letting the US intelligence services get mixed up in bordering countries or try to expand NATO up to its borders?

It's like people want to get a nuclear war started with Russia.

They have show you time and time again they will react violently to protect their near abroad and local sphere of influence.

---

It's culminating in Ukraine and I'm hopeful at the end of this the lessons will be learned by all. A Russian loss (without American or NATO boots) is a good outcome/signal. A Russian "tie" (gets Donbas or some Eastern parts) is not a good outcome/signal, but in exchange for peace ends up an ok message. Letting them roll Ukraine as the world stands by is a terrible outcome/approach.

---

That makes us hypocrites.

Congress just voted to continue occupying part of a sovereign nation (Syria)…but denounces Russia for occupying part of a sovereign nation.

---

Reminder that we have troops in combat in Syria, a country we are not at war with, using the legal pretext of force authorizations that were drawn up for Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars we are no longer fighting. https://t.co/ON5zhKkxCG

— American Solidarity Party 🧡 (@AmSolidarity) March 24, 2023

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

I'm not a skeptic of the war. I'm an opponent.

There are no direct American interests involved.

There are costs involved, funded by more debt. Dollar printer goes whoosh.

---

Budget concerns are valid.

Assertion we have no interest in outcome is not.

---

I didn't say that.

But since you replied tell me the direct American interest at play.

---

I've stated them here many times.

First, there are textbook balance of power issues. Ukraine is the shatterzone between Russia and Nato...the buffer between two great powers. Yes, Russia has interests in what happens in Ukraine. Nato also has interests in what happens in Ukraine. Those concerns are mirror images of one another: for the same reason that Russia does not want Nato troops/bases stationed in Ukraine, NATO does not want Russian troops stationed in Ukraine. The importance of this consideration should be obvious to any rational observer. If you do not maintain equilibrium or better in the shatterzone, your security position is sharply degraded.

Second, are the consequences of Russian consolidation over Ukraine. Russian armies and weapon systems are now poised 800m closer to Nato. That creates a "gunboat diplomacy" dynamic that will have a chilling effect on countries in the eastern flank of Nato. It will sharpen the "EU vs Russia" argument in each country, which means these nations will swing more sharply on that question as administrations come & go in the democratic process. Even the staunchly pro-EU/Nato nations/administrations will have to temper their policies with the reality that a Russian army is right there across the border (as opposed to some future threat 800m away). Bottom line, the Nato alliance gets more unwieldy. Yes, it is obvious Nato would win a war against Russia. But the costs of winning the war are so great that they increase the power of the arguments of the doves, and that dynamic empowers Russia. Russia knows this. That's why they leave scorched earth wherever their armies encamp. Russia does not need to win wars via shock and awe to be powerful. They just have to threaten their opponents with a 25-round cage match that will leave blood, teeth, chunks of hair, and parts of ears, lips & noses on the canvas. Very few people are willing to lose every round of a savage beathing but keep going until their opponent quits. Russia is. Proudly. Bloody toothed grinning thru stringy snotty blood hanging in long tendrils from split lips proudly. That is the real source of Russian power - the fear that Russia will destroy you whether they win the war or not.

Third, proximity gives Russia a far easier time meddling in the democratic processes of those nations. Russia will have an easier time destabilizing the regimes themselves. Little green men did the dirty work in Crimea. Putin actually denied they were Russian. Little green men are already at work in Moldova. How will Nato deal with them in Romania? What happens when a coup occurs in any of the eastern rim of Nato....and the new govt announces unilateral withdrawal from Nato & invites in the Russian army? That is only possible at the moment in the Baltic states. The number more than doubles if Ukraine goes the way of Belarus, or worse. Russia will never invade Nato. Russia will destabilize it. Ukraine is instructive. Look what the TRIED to do. And look at the consequences.

The direct interest is Nato. Nato is a strategic American interest. Thanks to Nato, we are obligated to go to war WITH RUSSIA to protect Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania. Allowing Russia to advance their armies 800m to the borders of more of those countries is a direct threat to Nato.....a direct threat to our girls and boys in uniform, who do rotate thru temporary military assignments to those countries....who are as we have this discussion are doing combat patrols on air land and sea to deter further Russian aggression. MY daughter was on the ramparts for us for the first 5 months of this war.....80 hour weeks, 600x normal fuel consumption, expanding a logistical base to support not 1 airfame but 4 (in a couple of weeks)....
History is instructive on this: WWII started over western treaty obligations to Poland.

The myopia of the critics of the war about what is happening and what is at stake is profound, to the point of detachment from reality, in no small part due to a massive cause-effect error in perception: we did not escalate Nato operations because of our support for Ukraine in the war. We did it because the Russian advance into Ukraine was a a direct threat to Nato Support for Ukrainian govt flows from that.

Russia has no rights in Ukraine. only interests.
Nato has interests, too.
An independent Ukraine is not a threat to either Russia or Nato.
But Russia could not tolerate an independent Ukraine building greater ties to the west. Russia wanted a Ukraine dependent on Russia. And then there's the real cause of the war - Russian nationalism, Russian patriarchy over East Slav nations. Russia frankly does not consider Ukraine a "real country" but rather part of greater Russia. They got tired of the great game in the Ukrainian shatterzone (which has been going badly for them for the last 10 years) and decided they didn't have to put up with it any more. They could just retake Ukraine, easily, and be done with the nonsense. Boy were they wrong about that.

Our task here is simple: we have to put great big clumps of Russian blood, teeth, chunks of hair, and parts of ears, lips & noses on the canvas....to make THEM holler uncle. To let them know that they have miscalculated....that Nato will not wait to be invaded to fight back. That Nato will play in the shatterzone as earnestly as Russia will, only better.....and yes, we can go 50 rounds if we need to.

You want to avoid major power conflict between Russia and Nato? Best way to do that is to teach Russia that a miscalculation in the shatterzone is an existential threat to Russia.

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

I'm not a skeptic of the war. I'm an opponent.

There are no direct American interests involved.

There are costs involved, funded by more debt. Dollar printer goes whoosh.

---

Budget concerns are valid.

Assertion we have no interest in outcome is not.

---

I didn't say that.

But since you replied tell me the direct American interest at play.

---

But Russia could not tolerate an independent Ukraine building greater ties to the west. Russia wanted a Ukraine dependent on Russia.

---

IMF staff reaches agreement with Ukraine for $15.6bn loan

If approved, as expected, the Ukraine programme would be the IMF's biggest loan to a country involved in an active conflict.

22 Mar 2023

The International Monetary Fund says it has reached a staff-level agreement with Ukraine for a four-year financing package worth about $15.6bn, offering funds the country needs as it continues to defend against Russia's invasion.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who paid a surprise visit to Ukraine last month, welcomed the deal after months of pushing for the IMF to move forward with a new financing package for Ukraine.

"An ambitious and appropriately conditioned IMF program is critical to underpin Ukraine's reform efforts, including to strengthen good governance and address risks of corruption, and provide much needed financial support," she said in a statement.

The United States is the IMF's largest shareholder.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/22/imf-staff-reaches-agreement-with-ukraine-for-15-6bn-loan

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

I'm not a skeptic of the war. I'm an opponent.

There are no direct American interests involved.

There are costs involved, funded by more debt. Dollar printer goes whoosh.

---

Budget concerns are valid.

Assertion we have no interest in outcome is not.

---

I didn't say that.

But since you replied tell me the direct American interest at play.

---

But Russia could not tolerate an independent Ukraine building greater ties to the west. Russia wanted a Ukraine dependent on Russia.

---

IMF staff reaches agreement with Ukraine for $15.6bn loan

If approved, as expected, the Ukraine programme would be the IMF's biggest loan to a country involved in an active conflict.

22 Mar 2023

The International Monetary Fund says it has reached a staff-level agreement with Ukraine for a four-year financing package worth about $15.6bn, offering funds the country needs as it continues to defend against Russia's invasion.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who paid a surprise visit to Ukraine last month, welcomed the deal after months of pushing for the IMF to move forward with a new financing package for Ukraine.

"An ambitious and appropriately conditioned IMF program is critical to underpin Ukraine's reform efforts, including to strengthen good governance and address risks of corruption, and provide much needed financial support," she said in a statement.

The United States is the IMF's largest shareholder.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/22/imf-staff-reaches-agreement-with-ukraine-for-15-6bn-loan

---

This is a pretty clear sign on what the outcome of the war will be. IMF would not make this loan if Ukrainian defeat was deemed to be possible.

also shows that wise nations will understand the wisdom of choosing to belong to the EU order rather than the Russian order. Russia would not do a loan like this.

This loan will not go unnoticed in Belarus, who is being beggared by its policy choice to join the Russian orbit. It of course will not by itself cause Belarus to break with Russia, but it will remind them they have better options elsewhere.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

I'm not a skeptic of the war. I'm an opponent.

There are no direct American interests involved.

There are costs involved, funded by more debt. Dollar printer goes whoosh.

---

Budget concerns are valid.

Assertion we have no interest in outcome is not.

---

I didn't say that.

But since you replied tell me the direct American interest at play.

---

But Russia could not tolerate an independent Ukraine building greater ties to the west. Russia wanted a Ukraine dependent on Russia.

---

IMF staff reaches agreement with Ukraine for $15.6bn loan

If approved, as expected, the Ukraine programme would be the IMF's biggest loan to a country involved in an active conflict.

22 Mar 2023

The International Monetary Fund says it has reached a staff-level agreement with Ukraine for a four-year financing package worth about $15.6bn, offering funds the country needs as it continues to defend against Russia's invasion.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who paid a surprise visit to Ukraine last month, welcomed the deal after months of pushing for the IMF to move forward with a new financing package for Ukraine.

"An ambitious and appropriately conditioned IMF program is critical to underpin Ukraine's reform efforts, including to strengthen good governance and address risks of corruption, and provide much needed financial support," she said in a statement.

The United States is the IMF's largest shareholder.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/22/imf-staff-reaches-agreement-with-ukraine-for-15-6bn-loan

---

also shows that wise nations will understand the wisdom of choosing to belong to the EU order rather than the Russian order. Russia would not do a loan like this.

---

The Loan That Launched A Crisis

By Jamila Trindle
February 21, 2014, 2:55 AM

As the carnage continues in Ukraine -- with scenes of wounded protesters, raging fires, and armed police in full riot gear -- it's easy to forget the whole crisis was set off by a disagreement over a loan.

Late last year, with Ukraine's state coffers running low because of overspending on political priorities like subsidizing natural gas and increasing the wages of government workers, President Viktor Yanukovych faced a choice. The European Union offered a trade deal that promised to boost Ukraine's sluggish economy in exchange for harsh and politically unpopular austerity measures. Russia offered $15 billion and didn't ask Yanukovych to change much of anything. Unsurprisingly, he rejected the EU deal and opted for Moscow's bailout instead. Thousands of angry Ukrainians took to the streets in protest, and they haven't left.

Those early demonstrations were peaceful, but Ukraine has seen a spasm of bloodshed in recent days. Yanukovych called for a truce Wednesday and said he was ready for negotiations with opposition leaders. The deal collapsed almost immediately, and security personnel and protesters engaged in running battles throughout the day Thursday.

Snipers shot into crowds, and firebombs came flying back. At least 70 people were killed, bringing the weekly death toll to at least 101, according to the Associated Press.

In response, European officials moved to sanction Ukrainian leaders. After an emergency meeting in Brussels, EU foreign ministers said that they would freeze the assets and revoke the visas of officials they consider responsible for the violence.The United States issued a similar visa ban on Wednesday.

European officials turned toward sanctions after months of trying to cobble together a competing financial deal for Ukraine. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew reminded Ukrainian leaders Wednesday that they could still get a deal from the West in exchange for "steps to fix their economy."

While Kiev is still burning, it seems unlikely that Ukrainian officials would sit down with a bunch of bureaucrats at the IMF to talk about economic reforms. But if Yanukovych steps down or agrees to share power with opposition leaders, a new interim government could reopen those negotiations. That, in turn, could clear the way for Kiev to receive desperately needed funds.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/21/the-loan-that-launched-a-crisis/

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

I'm not a skeptic of the war. I'm an opponent.

There are no direct American interests involved.

There are costs involved, funded by more debt. Dollar printer goes whoosh.

---

Budget concerns are valid.

Assertion we have no interest in outcome is not.

---

I didn't say that.

But since you replied tell me the direct American interest at play.

---

But Russia could not tolerate an independent Ukraine building greater ties to the west. Russia wanted a Ukraine dependent on Russia.

---

IMF staff reaches agreement with Ukraine for $15.6bn loan

If approved, as expected, the Ukraine programme would be the IMF's biggest loan to a country involved in an active conflict.

22 Mar 2023

The International Monetary Fund says it has reached a staff-level agreement with Ukraine for a four-year financing package worth about $15.6bn, offering funds the country needs as it continues to defend against Russia's invasion.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who paid a surprise visit to Ukraine last month, welcomed the deal after months of pushing for the IMF to move forward with a new financing package for Ukraine.

"An ambitious and appropriately conditioned IMF program is critical to underpin Ukraine's reform efforts, including to strengthen good governance and address risks of corruption, and provide much needed financial support," she said in a statement.

The United States is the IMF's largest shareholder.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/22/imf-staff-reaches-agreement-with-ukraine-for-15-6bn-loan

---

also shows that wise nations will understand the wisdom of choosing to belong to the EU order rather than the Russian order. Russia would not do a loan like this.

---

The Loan That Launched A Crisis

By Jamila Trindle
February 21, 2014, 2:55 AM

As the carnage continues in Ukraine -- with scenes of wounded protesters, raging fires, and armed police in full riot gear -- it's easy to forget the whole crisis was set off by a disagreement over a loan.

Late last year, with Ukraine's state coffers running low because of overspending on political priorities like subsidizing natural gas and increasing the wages of government workers, President Viktor Yanukovych faced a choice. The European Union offered a trade deal that promised to boost Ukraine's sluggish economy in exchange for harsh and politically unpopular austerity measures. Russia offered $15 billion and didn't ask Yanukovych to change much of anything. Unsurprisingly, he rejected the EU deal and opted for Moscow's bailout instead. Thousands of angry Ukrainians took to the streets in protest, and they haven't left.

Those early demonstrations were peaceful, but Ukraine has seen a spasm of bloodshed in recent days. Yanukovych called for a truce Wednesday and said he was ready for negotiations with opposition leaders. The deal collapsed almost immediately, and security personnel and protesters engaged in running battles throughout the day Thursday.

Snipers shot into crowds, and firebombs came flying back. At least 70 people were killed, bringing the weekly death toll to at least 101, according to the Associated Press.

In response, European officials moved to sanction Ukrainian leaders. After an emergency meeting in Brussels, EU foreign ministers said that they would freeze the assets and revoke the visas of officials they consider responsible for the violence.The United States issued a similar visa ban on Wednesday.

European officials turned toward sanctions after months of trying to cobble together a competing financial deal for Ukraine. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew reminded Ukrainian leaders Wednesday that they could still get a deal from the West in exchange for "steps to fix their economy."

While Kiev is still burning, it seems unlikely that Ukrainian officials would sit down with a bunch of bureaucrats at the IMF to talk about economic reforms. But if Yanukovych steps down or agrees to share power with opposition leaders, a new interim government could reopen those negotiations. That, in turn, could clear the way for Kiev to receive desperately needed funds.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/21/the-loan-that-launched-a-crisis/

---

What Yanokovych didn't get then, and Putin completely missed in 2022-23, was the deep-set anger of the Ukrainian people against the Russian Regime. The annexation of Crimea did more to solidify Ukrainian nationalism than any event since Chernobyl.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Death of a Myth

Americans need to wake up to the realities of a post-unipolar world before it's too late.

George D. O'Neill Jr.
Mar 9, 2023 12:03 AM

As we witness the collapse of various mainstream narratives, especially those surrounding the U.S./NATO war with Russia in Ukraine, Americans should begin to reassess their understanding of U.S. national leadership. Most American citizens have no notion of the great disparity between what their government does overseas and the stories they hear from its mouthpieces. As a result, Americans unwittingly support all sorts of foreign operations with little or no understanding of what is actually going on. For years, they have been misled by a non-stop propaganda campaign that is only now beginning to crumble.

We are experiencing the death throes of the United States' unipolar hegemony over large parts of world. Until citizens begin to realize the magnitude of their government's policy deceptions, it will become increasingly difficult to understand the United States' changing global position and adjust to the effects of the growing negative perception of our country held by many people around the world.

Since World War II, and particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the dominant and unrivaled world power. Instead of being a peacekeeper and honest "world's policeman," the U.S. has increasingly been a destabilizing bully. Many leaders worldwide have been reluctant to speak up about the increasingly destructive nature of U.S. foreign policy for fear of being punished. But as U.S. stature and power declines, large parts of the world have been seeking arrangements to protect themselves from U.S. predation.

Most Americans do not understand why such realignments are occurring, thanks to a constant stream of propaganda about America being the "most generous," the "exceptional nation," a "nation that sets aside its interests for the benefit of the world," an "important source of good" around the globe as the "protector of the rules based order," always shouldering the heavy responsibility to protect the international system and weak nations from bad actors, ad nauseam. According to a number of sources U.S.-caused wars have been directly responsible for the deaths of more than 10 million people since World War II. The neoconservatives will scoff at these facts and their sources, but most of the rest of the world believes this to be true.

Most Americans cannot accept these observations because they contradict the narrative given them by the omnipresent state propaganda machine. While the ever growing list of American misdeeds abroad has for years been largely unchallenged at home, it has become increasingly obvious to many across the globe. Americans should take note. For example, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has just published an overview of what they see as U.S. misbehavior. The U.S. establishment and well-meaning patriots may dismiss the Chinese observations, but they ring true to many who live outside of the neoconservative propaganda bubble.

Contrary to establishment mythology, the U.S. is famous for breaking its promises, violating treaties, and abandoning agreements. The list is long: the U.S.'s 1990 promise not to move NATO east into former Warsaw Convention countries, the abrogation of the ABM, INF, Open Skies, START treaties, the JCPOA, the agreement with Libya, and others. The U.S. has also repeatedly flouted nternational law by invading countries that do not bow to U.S. hegemony.

There are a number of U.S. agencies that covertly fund NGO election interference operations. Most Americans have no idea that the Cold War-era National Endowment for Democracy was created to influence elections in countries around the world, and has interfered in many (The National Endowment for Democracy was spending money in Russia until the Russians expelled them.) Then there are the famous "Color Revolutions" sponsored by various U.S. agencies. Some estimate the U.S. has interfered in as many as fifty countries.

The days of pretending to ignore this destructive behavior are drawing to a close. We are entering a period in which the populations of many countries may decide that being subject to American hegemony is not in their interests. Increasing numbers of countries have joined and formed alternative alliances outside U.S. influence. SCO, BRICS+, OPEC+, and others have experienced growing membership as countries that believe their interests are better protected by these non-U.S. affiliated alliances sign on.

The fallout of the tragic and unnecessary Ukraine war has accelerated this movement to seek other cooperative associations. As America's European allies are learning, there can be huge political and economic costs to being associated with the U.S. The populations of Europe have watched their own economies suffer and paid dearly for energy because of the ten rounds of self-destructive sanctions imposed on Russia.

The purveyor and protector of the "rules-based order" decided that Germany should not import cheap Russian natural gas. America's president and a senior State Department official threatened to cut off the pipeline supplying Russian natural gas if Russia did not bow to Washington's wishes. Coincidentally, the Nord Stream gas pipelines were blown up not long after. The U.S. Secretary of State said the sabotage was an "opportunity," and the assistant secretary of State appeared to be satisfied. The neoconservatives lauding this act of terrorism against an ally of the U.S. may believe pretending Washington was not responsible will reassure America and Europe, but the rest of the world believes otherwise.

Many will ignore or diminish the consequences of a possible U.S. role in the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines. But this addition to the list of callous acts believed abroad to be perpetrated by the U.S. further would undermine the narrative of America as the "generous nation," "leader of the free world," "protector of the rules-based order." For years, these contradictions were skillfully finessed and ignored by a compliant press and complicit institutions that profited from these deceptions. But as the U.S. appears less powerful, the rest of the world is beginning to take notice and are moving to seek other protective friendships.

Less than two years ago, the "most powerful military in the history of man" was chased out of Afghanistan by a group of ragtag militants armed with small arms and mounted on donkeys, bicycles, and motor scooters. The Taliban now has $80 billion worth of U.S. military equipment our leaders left behind. The excuses may have been convincing to the Washington elites and were sold strenuously by regime-aligned media outlets. The rest of the world knows better. The old post-Vietnam collapse tropes, claiming "we would have won if only we were really allowed to fight," ring hollow after twenty years, hundreds of thousands killed and made homeless, and several trillion dollars spent on that disaster.

Contrary to the many assertions that the Russians would collapse from the shock and awe of the "sanctions from Hell," the ruble has not turned into rubble as Joe Biden predicted. The U.S. and its NATO clients are running out of ammunition and arms to send to Ukraine, which is being bled white at their behest. It appears that Russia will steadily grind down the Ukrainian military. All of this is reminiscent of World War I. The proto-neoconservatives sold that war as a quick engagement that would be over by Christmas 1914. Four years later, 20 million were dead and many more were wounded or displaced; subsequently most of the European Christian monarchies collapsed, Russia descended into communism's seventy-year nightmare, and the "War to End all Wars" to make the world "safe for democracy" set the stage for the even more horrific World War II.

A century later, we are sleepwalking into World War III. Americans should ignore the state-sponsored propaganda (eerily similar to that which led up to WWI), wake up, look at what their leaders have wrought, and do all they can to end support for this cruel war before we face a Great War-like conflagration or worse.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/death-of-a-myth/

---

Interesting how the writer totally makes up stuff, like Biden said Russia would quickly collapse from massive sanctions. He never said that.

Sam, it appears you're good with Putin reestablishing the Soviet Union through raping and conquering the former "Soviet Satellites."

Biden and others always said this would be slow grind, as it has been.

The wrong predictions were that Ukraine would fold quickly before the Soviet onslaught. It didn't.

How you would be in favor of abandoning such people and think this somehow helps America is baffling.

That you would suggest that the West is somehow at fault for Putin's aggression is sickening.

C. Jordan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Death of a Myth

Americans need to wake up to the realities of a post-unipolar world before it's too late.

George D. O'Neill Jr.
Mar 9, 2023 12:03 AM

As we witness the collapse of various mainstream narratives, especially those surrounding the U.S./NATO war with Russia in Ukraine, Americans should begin to reassess their understanding of U.S. national leadership. Most American citizens have no notion of the great disparity between what their government does overseas and the stories they hear from its mouthpieces. As a result, Americans unwittingly support all sorts of foreign operations with little or no understanding of what is actually going on. For years, they have been misled by a non-stop propaganda campaign that is only now beginning to crumble.

We are experiencing the death throes of the United States' unipolar hegemony over large parts of world. Until citizens begin to realize the magnitude of their government's policy deceptions, it will become increasingly difficult to understand the United States' changing global position and adjust to the effects of the growing negative perception of our country held by many people around the world.

Since World War II, and particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the dominant and unrivaled world power. Instead of being a peacekeeper and honest "world's policeman," the U.S. has increasingly been a destabilizing bully. Many leaders worldwide have been reluctant to speak up about the increasingly destructive nature of U.S. foreign policy for fear of being punished. But as U.S. stature and power declines, large parts of the world have been seeking arrangements to protect themselves from U.S. predation.

Most Americans do not understand why such realignments are occurring, thanks to a constant stream of propaganda about America being the "most generous," the "exceptional nation," a "nation that sets aside its interests for the benefit of the world," an "important source of good" around the globe as the "protector of the rules based order," always shouldering the heavy responsibility to protect the international system and weak nations from bad actors, ad nauseam. According to a number of sources U.S.-caused wars have been directly responsible for the deaths of more than 10 million people since World War II. The neoconservatives will scoff at these facts and their sources, but most of the rest of the world believes this to be true.

Most Americans cannot accept these observations because they contradict the narrative given them by the omnipresent state propaganda machine. While the ever growing list of American misdeeds abroad has for years been largely unchallenged at home, it has become increasingly obvious to many across the globe. Americans should take note. For example, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has just published an overview of what they see as U.S. misbehavior. The U.S. establishment and well-meaning patriots may dismiss the Chinese observations, but they ring true to many who live outside of the neoconservative propaganda bubble.

Contrary to establishment mythology, the U.S. is famous for breaking its promises, violating treaties, and abandoning agreements. The list is long: the U.S.'s 1990 promise not to move NATO east into former Warsaw Convention countries, the abrogation of the ABM, INF, Open Skies, START treaties, the JCPOA, the agreement with Libya, and others. The U.S. has also repeatedly flouted nternational law by invading countries that do not bow to U.S. hegemony.

There are a number of U.S. agencies that covertly fund NGO election interference operations. Most Americans have no idea that the Cold War-era National Endowment for Democracy was created to influence elections in countries around the world, and has interfered in many (The National Endowment for Democracy was spending money in Russia until the Russians expelled them.) Then there are the famous "Color Revolutions" sponsored by various U.S. agencies. Some estimate the U.S. has interfered in as many as fifty countries.

The days of pretending to ignore this destructive behavior are drawing to a close. We are entering a period in which the populations of many countries may decide that being subject to American hegemony is not in their interests. Increasing numbers of countries have joined and formed alternative alliances outside U.S. influence. SCO, BRICS+, OPEC+, and others have experienced growing membership as countries that believe their interests are better protected by these non-U.S. affiliated alliances sign on.

The fallout of the tragic and unnecessary Ukraine war has accelerated this movement to seek other cooperative associations. As America's European allies are learning, there can be huge political and economic costs to being associated with the U.S. The populations of Europe have watched their own economies suffer and paid dearly for energy because of the ten rounds of self-destructive sanctions imposed on Russia.

The purveyor and protector of the "rules-based order" decided that Germany should not import cheap Russian natural gas. America's president and a senior State Department official threatened to cut off the pipeline supplying Russian natural gas if Russia did not bow to Washington's wishes. Coincidentally, the Nord Stream gas pipelines were blown up not long after. The U.S. Secretary of State said the sabotage was an "opportunity," and the assistant secretary of State appeared to be satisfied. The neoconservatives lauding this act of terrorism against an ally of the U.S. may believe pretending Washington was not responsible will reassure America and Europe, but the rest of the world believes otherwise.

Many will ignore or diminish the consequences of a possible U.S. role in the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines. But this addition to the list of callous acts believed abroad to be perpetrated by the U.S. further would undermine the narrative of America as the "generous nation," "leader of the free world," "protector of the rules-based order." For years, these contradictions were skillfully finessed and ignored by a compliant press and complicit institutions that profited from these deceptions. But as the U.S. appears less powerful, the rest of the world is beginning to take notice and are moving to seek other protective friendships.

Less than two years ago, the "most powerful military in the history of man" was chased out of Afghanistan by a group of ragtag militants armed with small arms and mounted on donkeys, bicycles, and motor scooters. The Taliban now has $80 billion worth of U.S. military equipment our leaders left behind. The excuses may have been convincing to the Washington elites and were sold strenuously by regime-aligned media outlets. The rest of the world knows better. The old post-Vietnam collapse tropes, claiming "we would have won if only we were really allowed to fight," ring hollow after twenty years, hundreds of thousands killed and made homeless, and several trillion dollars spent on that disaster.

Contrary to the many assertions that the Russians would collapse from the shock and awe of the "sanctions from Hell," the ruble has not turned into rubble as Joe Biden predicted. The U.S. and its NATO clients are running out of ammunition and arms to send to Ukraine, which is being bled white at their behest. It appears that Russia will steadily grind down the Ukrainian military. All of this is reminiscent of World War I. The proto-neoconservatives sold that war as a quick engagement that would be over by Christmas 1914. Four years later, 20 million were dead and many more were wounded or displaced; subsequently most of the European Christian monarchies collapsed, Russia descended into communism's seventy-year nightmare, and the "War to End all Wars" to make the world "safe for democracy" set the stage for the even more horrific World War II.

A century later, we are sleepwalking into World War III. Americans should ignore the state-sponsored propaganda (eerily similar to that which led up to WWI), wake up, look at what their leaders have wrought, and do all they can to end support for this cruel war before we face a Great War-like conflagration or worse.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/death-of-a-myth/

---

Interesting how the writer totally makes up stuff, like Biden said Russia would quickly collapse from massive sanctions. He never said that.

Sam, it appears you're good with Putin reestablishing the Soviet Union through raping and conquering the former "Soviet Satellites."

Biden and others always said this would be slow grind, as it has been.

The wrong predictions were that Ukraine would fold quickly before the Soviet onslaught. It didn't.

How you would be in favor of abandoning such people and think this somehow helps America is baffling.

That you would suggest that the West is somehow at fault for Putin's aggression is sickening.

---

"The value of the Russian ruble tumbled 30% after the U.S., European Union and U.K. first issued sanctions in response to the nation's war on Ukraine. That plunge -- which in early March lowered the ruble's value against the U.S. dollar to less than 1 cent -- prompted President Biden last month to mock the currency as 'rubble.'

"But the ruble has bounced back, almost doubling its value from its low point on March 7. The recent gains mean the currency is now back to its level before sanctions were imposed by the U.S. and other nations."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ruble-rebound-price-after-sanctions/

Well, Whiterock is right about one thing. "Wise" leaders will definitely think twice before interfering with US hegemony and ending up like Yanukovych.