.@BenShapiro details his takeaways from his interview with President Zelensky and what it would take for Russia to come to the table pic.twitter.com/fnl0uUjieB

— The Ben Shapiro Show (@BenShapiroShow) April 25, 2025

Time to end the slaughter pic.twitter.com/ndrMIMxfm3

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 25, 2025

Assassin said:

---

Time to end the slaughter pic.twitter.com/ndrMIMxfm3

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 25, 2025

---

*Putin and Zelensky both looking at each other and rolling their eyes*

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

Unbelievable, these benevolent autocrat stories. Yeltsin had oligarch issues, but Yeltsin wasn't an oligarch. Putin is. Where Yeltsin tolerated their rise, Putin subsumed them. Early in his tenure, he consolidated power within the Kremlin by surrounding himself with a loyal circle of siloviki and began muscling into Russia's strategic industries. The turning point was the takedown of Yukos and the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, signaling to the business elite that loyalty not legality would determine survival.

Putin systematically placed trusted confidants atop Russia's key sectors, energy, defense, banking blurring the lines between state power and personal enrichment. But controlling Russia wasn't enough. Realizing that economic expansion required navigating inconvenient international legal frameworks, Putin shifted gears. In his 2007 Munich speech, he threw down the gauntlet to the West. NATO was his rhetorical target, but the real threat was the European Union and its rules based economic order, one incompatible with the authoritarian crony capitalism he was constructing.

Putin has long sought control over Europe's energy gateways, recognizing that oil and gas are potent weapons for his aspirations. His playbook has involved everything from Gazprom backed leverage to Nord Stream entanglements, gas cutoffs, price wars, all designed to make select (and more vulnerable) European economies reliant and politically hesitant. You believe the invasions of Georgia and Crimea were NATO resistance, but they weren't just military operations, they were extensions of this strategic doctrine to dominate the near abroad, fracture the West, and erode democracy from the edges inward.

You can try to minimize it all you want, but domestically he's choked off any flicker of dissent. Independent media have been shuttered, opposition leaders jailed or assassinated, and Russian society ground under the weight of surveillance and propaganda. Rule of law has been replaced with rule by loyalty.
And now nearly 25 years in, Putin doesn't merely govern, he reigns. And we're just now understanding how far he will go, and the cost of having looked the other way for two decades.

---

Yeltsin did a lot more than just tolerate the oligarchs. Enormous volumes of state assets were privatized and awarded to his friends. It was the economic "shock therapy" advocated by the West that enabled this kind of thing. Khodorkovsky became the wealthiest man in Russia as a result of his corrupt deals with Yeltsin. Men like him were already deeply entrenched in the political system by the time Putin took power. Those who pledged loyalty were allowed to keep their wealth in exchange for supporting Putin and his agenda, or at least staying out of his way.

The agenda was basically to tap the brakes on privatization, save companies like Gazprom from rampant corruption and asset-stripping, and stop the hemorrhaging of profit from Russian resources. The only energy gateways Putin really controls are those coming from Russia itself. Of course selling Europe the energy it needs at a price it can afford is an intolerable offense from our point of view. We want Russia to join the free world economy, but only on our terms. Anything else is subversion of the "rules-based" order.

---

I won't deny the West has inconsistencies and has overreached at times. But what Putin is doing isn't a principled "Pro-Russia"alternative, it's a system where state power serves personal wealth, dissent is crushed, borders are optional, and the law is whatever the regime needs it to be. Invading neighbors, jailing opponents, and assassinating critics abroad aren't acts of defiance against Western overreach, they're textbook authoritarianism with expansionist objectives.

---

This is where we disagree. What he's doing has improved Russia's economic and security situation. Living standards have improved, unlike Ukraine for example, which has stagnated under its agreements with the West. Putin's conduct as a domestic leader is no more a sign of expansionism than Yeltsin's -- or the Saudi Arabian ally you mentioned, one of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes on earth. What's textbook is the pattern of demonizing foreign leaders that we want to get rid of. First they nationalize their industry or take some other action that we don't like. Then we hear relentless, sometimes dubious accusations of "totalitarianism" and human rights abuses, leading inevitably to the conclusion that they are the new Hitler and will invade the world if we don't attack them first. It's a big non sequitur based on a stereotype, and it's belied by Russia's efforts to make peace and coexist for several decades now.

---

I'm not sure we're dealing from the same deck of facts. While he may have moved away from the Wild West days of early privatization, Russia has definitely been less secure as a nation, and their economic success, what little there has been, has typically revolved around sporadic oil booms, and has been focused on certain urban or resource areas and not to the broader population.

"Security" under Putin has seen the past two decades edging closer and closer to conflict with the West not away from it through a multitude of extra national excursions and a rise in cyber attacks and economic coercion, not to mention the assassinations and sanction regimes they've been under for well over a decade now. None of that added to Russia's security, it made Russia increasingly isolated, economically fragile, diplomatically toxic, and heavily reliant on coercive power rather than partnership.

And I'm not suggesting Putin is "the new Hitler." I'm saying he's a kleptocratic authoritarian who systematically uses force, economic coercion, and disinformation to expand his personal and regime power at the expense of Russia's own long term stability, and at the expense of neighboring states' sovereignty. Recognizing that doesn't require hysteria or moral panic. It just requires an honest look at the track record.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

"As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages."

This kind of says all we need to know right here. Wow.

Certainly, we've made some mistakes, no question. But the idea that Putin's authoritarian policies - of which there are many - were a direct response to NATO hostility is revisionist history at best. It's actually more the other way around - NATO hostility increased as it learned Putin was not the reformer we hoped for, and as he began to gradually rid Russia of the democratic reforms instituted after Yeltsin took office. Let's not pretend at this point Russia is any semblance of a democracy. It is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

There was a way for Putin to chart a course that could have led to much better relations with the West. But his desire for power, and Cold War beliefs, led Russia in another direction. In short, there was plenty of blame to go around.

But there's no question to any reasonable observer that Putin is, in fact, an authoritarian and dictator. Your inability to say that without caveats or hedging, speaks volumes. It also takes away what little credibility you have when you call Trump an authoritarian, or claim Russia is fighting a just war at this point.

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify

---

Seems we have different definitions of ally. I don't consider allies merely countries that meet whatever random criteria you've come up with.

---

"random criteria".....buddy you do realize there is a process laid out in our laws about how a country becomes a legal ally right?

The Senate and Congress have to be involved and it has to be official.

Just not what ever tin pot country the spooks at the CIA or State Department deem worthy

[An ally is a state that a first state has made a formal defense commitment to defend via treaty..

The United States has signed and ratified seven defense treaties that remain active today: the Rio Treaty (1947); NATO (1949); and bilateral defense commitments with Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS) (1951), the Philippines (1951), Korea (1953), and Japan (1960).-all create real allies the United States is obligated
on paper to defend: 51 countries and more than 1.4 billion people]

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

[The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ''the supreme Law of the Land.'']

---

You don't have to have a defense treaty to be an ally. We run joint naval exercises with India, but have no formal defense treaty. They are an ally. Prior to Sweden and Finland joining NATO they were also allies. And then I'll toss the hand grenade and say…Israel. Saudi Arabia too.

Strategic interest plays a huge part. You arguing against Ukraine's strategic interest to the U.S is fair game.

---

America has no strategic interests east of the Bug river.....never have

American policy planners have know that for decades and were advising against it.

It invites conflict with Russia, exposes our real allies to danger, and opens up the prospect of classic overextension of our resources and capabilities

["Bluntly stated...expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … "- Excerpt from George F. Kennan, "A Fateful Error," New York Times, 05 Feb 1997]

---

As I said, making the strategic interest argument is fair game. That's the debate on Ukraine. I just wanted it understood that we have allies that we don't have defense agreements with that we support and would support militarily even without one.

---

We have countries that certain American political factions view as allies. But who are not official allies

India for instance is open to debate

We trade with india…are not openly hostile with India…but does that make India an ally?

That is why we have a political process and a legal process to determine who is an official ally of the USA.

https://time.com/6288459/india-ally-us-modi-biden-visit/
[India Is Not a U.S. Allyand Has Never Wanted to Be]

---

The idea that "treaty = ally" and "no treaty = not ally" is cartoonishly simplistic. International relationships aren't a multiple choice quiz, they're complex, evolving partnerships based on shared interests, not just paperwork.

By that logic, I guess Israel isn't an ally either? Or Brazil, or half the countries we routinely coordinate with on defense, intelligence, and economic security? We have no formal defense treaties with them, and yet we share technology, conduct joint military exercises, collaborate on strategy, and have standing military to military relationships. We even have an official designation for a number of them as MNNA, Major non-NATO Allies.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

"As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages."

This kind of says all we need to know right here. Wow.

Certainly, we've made some mistakes, no question. But the idea that Putin's authoritarian policies - of which there are many - were a direct response to NATO hostility is revisionist history at best. It's actually more the other way around - NATO hostility increased as it learned Putin was not the reformer we hoped for, and as he began to gradually rid Russia of the democratic reforms instituted after Yeltsin took office. Let's not pretend at this point Russia is any semblance of a democracy. It is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

There was a way for Putin to chart a course that could have led to much better relations with the West. But his desire for power, and Cold War beliefs, led Russia in another direction. In short, there was plenty of blame to go around.

But there's no question to any reasonable observer that Putin is, in fact, an authoritarian and dictator. Your inability to say that without caveats or hedging, speaks volumes. It also takes away what little credibility you have when you call Trump an authoritarian, or claim Russia is fighting a just war at this point.

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify

---

Seems we have different definitions of ally. I don't consider allies merely countries that meet whatever random criteria you've come up with.

---

"random criteria".....buddy you do realize there is a process laid out in our laws about how a country becomes a legal ally right?

The Senate and Congress have to be involved and it has to be official.

Just not what ever tin pot country the spooks at the CIA or State Department deem worthy

[An ally is a state that a first state has made a formal defense commitment to defend via treaty..

The United States has signed and ratified seven defense treaties that remain active today: the Rio Treaty (1947); NATO (1949); and bilateral defense commitments with Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS) (1951), the Philippines (1951), Korea (1953), and Japan (1960).-all create real allies the United States is obligated
on paper to defend: 51 countries and more than 1.4 billion people]

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

[The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ''the supreme Law of the Land.'']

---

You don't have to have a defense treaty to be an ally. We run joint naval exercises with India, but have no formal defense treaty. They are an ally. Prior to Sweden and Finland joining NATO they were also allies. And then I'll toss the hand grenade and say…Israel. Saudi Arabia too.

Strategic interest plays a huge part. You arguing against Ukraine's strategic interest to the U.S is fair game.

---

America has no strategic interests east of the Bug river.....never have

American policy planners have know that for decades and were advising against it.

It invites conflict with Russia, exposes our real allies to danger, and opens up the prospect of classic overextension of our resources and capabilities

["Bluntly stated...expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … "- Excerpt from George F. Kennan, "A Fateful Error," New York Times, 05 Feb 1997]

---

As I said, making the strategic interest argument is fair game. That's the debate on Ukraine. I just wanted it understood that we have allies that we don't have defense agreements with that we support and would support militarily even without one.

---

We have countries that certain American political factions view as allies. But who are not official allies

India for instance is open to debate

We trade with india…are not openly hostile with India…but does that make India an ally?

That is why we have a political process and a legal process to determine who is an official ally of the USA.

https://time.com/6288459/india-ally-us-modi-biden-visit/
[India Is Not a U.S. Allyand Has Never Wanted to Be]

---

The idea that "treaty = ally" and "no treaty = not ally" is cartoonishly simplistic. International relationships aren't a multiple choice quiz, they're complex, evolving partnerships based on shared interests, not just paperwork.

By that logic, I guess Israel isn't an ally either? Or Brazil, or half the countries we routinely coordinate with...

---

Well when you don't go by treaties decided by Congress it does indeed get complicated

You have people on a Baylor fan site arguing that India is even an ally of the USA (just because we do a lot of business with them and they are not an enemy)

Let's stick to treaties and Senate enrolled allies….its easier that way…and is actually supported by law

Ironically enough, the US has officially defined Ukraine's status as neutral, i.e. not an ally.

Look how triggered John Kerry gets when MSNBC's Chris Jansing reminds him that he was Secretary of State when Russia annexed Crimea. pic.twitter.com/eCbbu5lgdH

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) April 25, 2025

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

"As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages."

This kind of says all we need to know right here. Wow.

Certainly, we've made some mistakes, no question. But the idea that Putin's authoritarian policies - of which there are many - were a direct response to NATO hostility is revisionist history at best. It's actually more the other way around - NATO hostility increased as it learned Putin was not the reformer we hoped for, and as he began to gradually rid Russia of the democratic reforms instituted after Yeltsin took office. Let's not pretend at this point Russia is any semblance of a democracy. It is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

There was a way for Putin to chart a course that could have led to much better relations with the West. But his desire for power, and Cold War beliefs, led Russia in another direction. In short, there was plenty of blame to go around.

But there's no question to any reasonable observer that Putin is, in fact, an authoritarian and dictator. Your inability to say that without caveats or hedging, speaks volumes. It also takes away what little credibility you have when you call Trump an authoritarian, or claim Russia is fighting a just war at this point.

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify

---

Seems we have different definitions of ally. I don't consider allies merely countries that meet whatever random criteria you've come up with.

---

"random criteria".....buddy you do realize there is a process laid out in our laws about how a country becomes a legal ally right?

The Senate and Congress have to be involved and it has to be official.

Just not what ever tin pot country the spooks at the CIA or State Department deem worthy

[An ally is a state that a first state has made a formal defense commitment to defend via treaty..

The United States has signed and ratified seven defense treaties that remain active today: the Rio Treaty (1947); NATO (1949); and bilateral defense commitments with Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS) (1951), the Philippines (1951), Korea (1953), and Japan (1960).-all create real allies the United States is obligated
on paper to defend: 51 countries and more than 1.4 billion people]

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

[The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ''the supreme Law of the Land.'']

---

You don't have to have a defense treaty to be an ally. We run joint naval exercises with India, but have no formal defense treaty. They are an ally. Prior to Sweden and Finland joining NATO they were also allies. And then I'll toss the hand grenade and say…Israel. Saudi Arabia too.

Strategic interest plays a huge part. You arguing against Ukraine's strategic interest to the U.S is fair game.

---

America has no strategic interests east of the Bug river.....never have

American policy planners have know that for decades and were advising against it.

It invites conflict with Russia, exposes our real allies to danger, and opens up the prospect of classic overextension of our resources and capabilities

["Bluntly stated...expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … "- Excerpt from George F. Kennan, "A Fateful Error," New York Times, 05 Feb 1997]

---

As I said, making the strategic interest argument is fair game. That's the debate on Ukraine. I just wanted it understood that we have allies that we don't have defense agreements with that we support and would support militarily even without one.

---

We have countries that certain American political factions view as allies. But who are not official allies

India for instance is open to debate

We trade with india…are not openly hostile with India…but does that make India an ally?

That is why we have a political process and a legal process to determine who is an official ally of the USA.

https://time.com/6288459/india-ally-us-modi-biden-visit/
[India Is Not a U.S. Allyand Has Never Wanted to Be]

---

The idea that "treaty = ally" and "no treaty = not ally" is cartoonishly simplistic. International relationships aren't a multiple choice quiz, they're complex, evolving partnerships based on shared interests, not just paperwork.

By that logic, I guess Israel isn't an ally either? Or Brazil, or half the countries we routinely coordinate with...

---

Well when you don't go by treaties decided by Congress it does indeed get complicated

You have people on a Baylor fan site arguing that India is even an ally of the USA (just because we do a lot of business with them and they are not an enemy)

Let's stick to treaties and Senate enrolled allies….its easier that way…and is actually supported by law

---

You want to be legally beholden to defend Jordan? Strategic interests can evolve, and we can choose how we want to support them. Treaties are what actually complicate matters.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States
True but irrelevant. It is a neighbor of 4 countries which are "enrolled allies" and a highly relevant regional interest to 7 more. So what happens there matters to us a lot. And when the raison d'etre for Nato invades a country adjacent or important to 11 member states, it is very much in our interest to have engaged policy.

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....
yet another true but irrelevant fact? Same is true for Russia, yet we formed a large alliance to contain its predictable territorial aggression.
until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv.
Highly disingenuous to suggest that Ukraine was an afterthought to Europe until the Maidan. Ukraine has always mattered to Europe, and its independence from Russia only made it moreso.

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify.
Flatly, patently untrue.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48195I

---

Another terribly weak argument. In fairness, opponents to a policy supporting Ukraine have a very difficult case to make. The fate/status of Ukraine does matter to the USA, a LOT. No amount of emotive spin can change that.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States
True but irrelevant. It is a neighbor of 4 countries which are "enrolled allies" and a highly relevant regional interest to 7 more. So what happens there matters to us a lot. And when the raison d'etre for Nato invades a country adjacent or important to 11 member states, it is very much in our interest to have engaged policy.

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....
yet another true but irrelevant fact? Same is true for Russia, yet we formed a large alliance to contain its predictable territorial aggression.
until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv.
Highly disingenuous to suggest that Ukraine was an afterthought to Europe until the Maidan. Ukraine has always mattered to Europe, and its independence from Russia only made it moreso.

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify.
Flatly, patently untrue.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48195I

---

Another terribly weak argument. In fairness, opponents to a policy supporting Ukraine have a very difficult case to make. The fate/status of Ukraine does matter to the USA, a LOT. No amount of emotive spin can change that.

---

Congress has never even negotiated a security treaty with Ukraine.

The country was run by pro-Moscow politicians until 2014

We have never had a historic relationship with Ukraine of any kind…so how could it be of vital interest to the American people?

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

"As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages."

This kind of says all we need to know right here. Wow.

Certainly, we've made some mistakes, no question. But the idea that Putin's authoritarian policies - of which there are many - were a direct response to NATO hostility is revisionist history at best. It's actually more the other way around - NATO hostility increased as it learned Putin was not the reformer we hoped for, and as he began to gradually rid Russia of the democratic reforms instituted after Yeltsin took office. Let's not pretend at this point Russia is any semblance of a democracy. It is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

There was a way for Putin to chart a course that could have led to much better relations with the West. But his desire for power, and Cold War beliefs, led Russia in another direction. In short, there was plenty of blame to go around.

But there's no question to any reasonable observer that Putin is, in fact, an authoritarian and dictator. Your inability to say that without caveats or hedging, speaks volumes. It also takes away what little credibility you have when you call Trump an authoritarian, or claim Russia is fighting a just war at this point.

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify

---

Seems we have different definitions of ally. I don't consider allies merely countries that meet whatever random criteria you've come up with.

---

"random criteria".....buddy you do realize there is a process laid out in our laws about how a country becomes a legal ally right?

The Senate and Congress have to be involved and it has to be official.

Just not what ever tin pot country the spooks at the CIA or State Department deem worthy

[An ally is a state that a first state has made a formal defense commitment to defend via treaty..

The United States has signed and ratified seven defense treaties that remain active today: the Rio Treaty (1947); NATO (1949); and bilateral defense commitments with Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS) (1951), the Philippines (1951), Korea (1953), and Japan (1960).-all create real allies the United States is obligated
on paper to defend: 51 countries and more than 1.4 billion people]

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

[The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ''the supreme Law of the Land.'']

---

You don't have to have a defense treaty to be an ally. We run joint naval exercises with India, but have no formal defense treaty. They are an ally. Prior to Sweden and Finland joining NATO they were also allies. And then I'll toss the hand grenade and say…Israel. Saudi Arabia too.

Strategic interest plays a huge part. You arguing against Ukraine's strategic interest to the U.S is fair game.

---

America has no strategic interests east of the Bug river.....never have

American policy planners have know that for decades and were advising against it.

It invites conflict with Russia, exposes our real allies to danger, and opens up the prospect of classic overextension of our resources and capabilities

["Bluntly stated...expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … "- Excerpt from George F. Kennan, "A Fateful Error," New York Times, 05 Feb 1997]

---

As I said, making the strategic interest argument is fair game. That's the debate on Ukraine. I just wanted it understood that we have allies that we don't have defense agreements with that we support and would support militarily even without one.

---

We have countries that certain American political factions view as allies. But who are not official allies

India for instance is open to debate

We trade with india…are not openly hostile with India…but does that make India an ally?

That is why we have a political process and a legal process to determine who is an official ally of the USA.

https://time.com/6288459/india-ally-us-modi-biden-visit/
[India Is Not a U.S. Allyand Has Never Wanted to Be]

---

The idea that "treaty = ally" and "no treaty = not ally" is cartoonishly simplistic. International relationships aren't a multiple choice quiz, they're complex, evolving partnerships based on shared interests, not just paperwork.

By that logic, I guess Israel isn't an ally either? Or Brazil, or half the countries we routinely coordinate with...

---

Well when you don't go by treaties decided by Congress it does indeed get complicated

You have people on a Baylor fan site arguing that India is even an ally of the USA (just because we do a lot of business with them and they are not an enemy)

Let's stick to treaties and Senate enrolled allies….its easier that way…and is actually supported by law

---

You want to be legally beholden to defend Jordan? Strategic interests can evolve, and we can choose how we want to support them. Treaties are what actually complicate matters.

---

Jordan is more strategicly important to us than Ukraine and we have had a multi-decades long relationship with the Hashemite Monarchy there

It's Ukraine that seemly popped up out of no where and you guys act like we have this deep relationship with the country and some kind of responsibility to protect it and fight proxy wars on its behalf

[The United States and Jordan have a 1996 Status of Forces Agreement, a 2006 Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement, and a 2021 Defense Cooperation Agreement, reflecting the strategic importance of Jordan to U.S. foreign policy in the region]

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

Unbelievable, these benevolent autocrat stories. Yeltsin had oligarch issues, but Yeltsin wasn't an oligarch. Putin is. Where Yeltsin tolerated their rise, Putin subsumed them. Early in his tenure, he consolidated power within the Kremlin by surrounding himself with a loyal circle of siloviki and began muscling into Russia's strategic industries. The turning point was the takedown of Yukos and the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, signaling to the business elite that loyalty not legality would determine survival.

Putin systematically placed trusted confidants atop Russia's key sectors, energy, defense, banking blurring the lines between state power and personal enrichment. But controlling Russia wasn't enough. Realizing that economic expansion required navigating inconvenient international legal frameworks, Putin shifted gears. In his 2007 Munich speech, he threw down the gauntlet to the West. NATO was his rhetorical target, but the real threat was the European Union and its rules based economic order, one incompatible with the authoritarian crony capitalism he was constructing.

Putin has long sought control over Europe's energy gateways, recognizing that oil and gas are potent weapons for his aspirations. His playbook has involved everything from Gazprom backed leverage to Nord Stream entanglements, gas cutoffs, price wars, all designed to make select (and more vulnerable) European economies reliant and politically hesitant. You believe the invasions of Georgia and Crimea were NATO resistance, but they weren't just military operations, they were extensions of this strategic doctrine to dominate the near abroad, fracture the West, and erode democracy from the edges inward.

You can try to minimize it all you want, but domestically he's choked off any flicker of dissent. Independent media have been shuttered, opposition leaders jailed or assassinated, and Russian society ground under the weight of surveillance and propaganda. Rule of law has been replaced with rule by loyalty.
And now nearly 25 years in, Putin doesn't merely govern, he reigns. And we're just now understanding how far he will go, and the cost of having looked the other way for two decades.

---

Yeltsin did a lot more than just tolerate the oligarchs. Enormous volumes of state assets were privatized and awarded to his friends. It was the economic "shock therapy" advocated by the West that enabled this kind of thing. Khodorkovsky became the wealthiest man in Russia as a result of his corrupt deals with Yeltsin. Men like him were already deeply entrenched in the political system by the time Putin took power. Those who pledged loyalty were allowed to keep their wealth in exchange for supporting Putin and his agenda, or at least staying out of his way.

The agenda was basically to tap the brakes on privatization, save companies like Gazprom from rampant corruption and asset-stripping, and stop the hemorrhaging of profit from Russian resources. The only energy gateways Putin really controls are those coming from Russia itself. Of course selling Europe the energy it needs at a price it can afford is an intolerable offense from our point of view. We want Russia to join the free world economy, but only on our terms. Anything else is subversion of the "rules-based" order.

---

I won't deny the West has inconsistencies and has overreached at times. But what Putin is doing isn't a principled "Pro-Russia"alternative, it's a system where state power serves personal wealth, dissent is crushed, borders are optional, and the law is whatever the regime needs it to be. Invading neighbors, jailing opponents, and assassinating critics abroad aren't acts of defiance against Western overreach, they're textbook authoritarianism with expansionist objectives.

---

This is where we disagree. What he's doing has improved Russia's economic and security situation. Living standards have improved, unlike Ukraine for example, which has stagnated under its agreements with the West. Putin's conduct as a domestic leader is no more a sign of expansionism than Yeltsin's -- or the Saudi Arabian ally you mentioned, one of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes on earth. What's textbook is the pattern of demonizing foreign leaders that we want to get rid of. First they nationalize their industry or take some other action that we don't like. Then we hear relentless, sometimes dubious accusations of "totalitarianism" and human rights abuses, leading inevitably to the conclusion that they are the new Hitler and will invade the world if we don't attack them first. It's a big non sequitur based on a stereotype, and it's belied by Russia's efforts to make peace and coexist for several decades now.

---

I'm not sure we're dealing from the same deck of facts. While he may have moved away from the Wild West days of early privatization, Russia has definitely been less secure as a nation, and their economic success, what little there has been, has typically revolved around sporadic oil booms, and has been focused on certain urban or resource areas and not to the broader population.

"Security" under Putin has seen the past two decades edging closer and closer to conflict with the West not away from it through a multitude of extra national excursions and a rise in cyber attacks and economic coercion, not to mention the assassinations and sanction regimes they've been under for well over a decade now. None of that added to Russia's security, it made Russia increasingly isolated, economically fragile, diplomatically toxic, and heavily reliant on coercive power rather than partnership.

And I'm not suggesting Putin is "the new Hitler." I'm saying he's a kleptocratic authoritarian who systematically uses force, economic coercion, and disinformation to expand his personal and regime power at the expense of Russia's own long term stability, and at the expense of neighboring states' sovereignty. Recognizing that doesn't require hysteria or moral panic. It just requires an honest look at the track record.

---

It's not necessarily a different deck of facts, but you're only dealing with about half the deck. You talk about economic "coercion," but you don't mention Russia's efforts to negotiate over Ukraine or the West's even more coercive conduct over the EU deal. You talk about extra-national excursions, but you don't mention the various forms of pressure from the US and its allies (despite our treaty agreements, it is true that Ukraine is a de facto ally) or the gradual and restrained nature of Russia's response. You describe Russia as increasingly isolated, but you don't mention their relations with the global majority or the increasing importance of BRICS. Between the policies of Biden and Trump, we're effectively trying to isolate the whole world. At some point we have to realize that it's ourselves we're isolating. I would guess you of all people would be sensitive to that.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

"As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages."

This kind of says all we need to know right here. Wow.

Certainly, we've made some mistakes, no question. But the idea that Putin's authoritarian policies - of which there are many - were a direct response to NATO hostility is revisionist history at best. It's actually more the other way around - NATO hostility increased as it learned Putin was not the reformer we hoped for, and as he began to gradually rid Russia of the democratic reforms instituted after Yeltsin took office. Let's not pretend at this point Russia is any semblance of a democracy. It is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

There was a way for Putin to chart a course that could have led to much better relations with the West. But his desire for power, and Cold War beliefs, led Russia in another direction. In short, there was plenty of blame to go around.

But there's no question to any reasonable observer that Putin is, in fact, an authoritarian and dictator. Your inability to say that without caveats or hedging, speaks volumes. It also takes away what little credibility you have when you call Trump an authoritarian, or claim Russia is fighting a just war at this point.

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify

---

Seems we have different definitions of ally. I don't consider allies merely countries that meet whatever random criteria you've come up with.

---

"random criteria".....buddy you do realize there is a process laid out in our laws about how a country becomes a legal ally right?

The Senate and Congress have to be involved and it has to be official.

Just not what ever tin pot country the spooks at the CIA or State Department deem worthy

[An ally is a state that a first state has made a formal defense commitment to defend via treaty..

The United States has signed and ratified seven defense treaties that remain active today: the Rio Treaty (1947); NATO (1949); and bilateral defense commitments with Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS) (1951), the Philippines (1951), Korea (1953), and Japan (1960).-all create real allies the United States is obligated
on paper to defend: 51 countries and more than 1.4 billion people]

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

[The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ''the supreme Law of the Land.'']

---

You don't have to have a defense treaty to be an ally. We run joint naval exercises with India, but have no formal defense treaty. They are an ally. Prior to Sweden and Finland joining NATO they were also allies. And then I'll toss the hand grenade and say…Israel. Saudi Arabia too.

Strategic interest plays a huge part. You arguing against Ukraine's strategic interest to the U.S is fair game.

---

America has no strategic interests east of the Bug river.....never have

American policy planners have know that for decades and were advising against it.

It invites conflict with Russia, exposes our real allies to danger, and opens up the prospect of classic overextension of our resources and capabilities

["Bluntly stated...expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … "- Excerpt from George F. Kennan, "A Fateful Error," New York Times, 05 Feb 1997]

---

As I said, making the strategic interest argument is fair game. That's the debate on Ukraine. I just wanted it understood that we have allies that we don't have defense agreements with that we support and would support militarily even without one.

---

We have countries that certain American political factions view as allies. But who are not official allies

India for instance is open to debate

We trade with india…are not openly hostile with India…but does that make India an ally?

That is why we have a political process and a legal process to determine who is an official ally of the USA.

https://time.com/6288459/india-ally-us-modi-biden-visit/
[India Is Not a U.S. Allyand Has Never Wanted to Be]

---

The idea that "treaty = ally" and "no treaty = not ally" is cartoonishly simplistic. International relationships aren't a multiple choice quiz, they're complex, evolving partnerships based on shared interests, not just paperwork.

By that logic, I guess Israel isn't an ally either? Or Brazil, or half the countries we routinely coordinate with...

---

Well when you don't go by treaties decided by Congress it does indeed get complicated

You have people on a Baylor fan site arguing that India is even an ally of the USA (just because we do a lot of business with them and they are not an enemy)

Let's stick to treaties and Senate enrolled allies….its easier that way…and is actually supported by law

---

You want to be legally beholden to defend Jordan? Strategic interests can evolve, and we can choose how we want to support them. Treaties are what actually complicate matters.

---

Jordan is more strategicly important to us than Ukraine and we have had a multi-decades long relationship with the Hashemite Monarchy there

It's Ukraine that seemly popped up out of no where and you guys act like we have this deep relationship with the country and some kind of responsibility to protect it and fight proxy wars on its behalf

[The United States and Jordan have a 1996 Status of Forces Agreement, a 2006 Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement, and a 2021 Defense Cooperation Agreement, reflecting the strategic importance of Jordan to U.S. foreign policy in the region]

---

You keep making this about Ukraine. That isn't my point. But to address your tangent, the strategic importance is as much about Russia as it is Ukraine, and the interrelated strategic interests throughout the region.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.

I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:

• within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
• restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
• amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
• cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
• putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
• jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
• passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
• invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.

I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.

Perhaps if Putin were American...

---

But again, this is all beside the point.

---

LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.

---

There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.

---

I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.

To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?

---

I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.

---

So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?

---

I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.

---

Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/

The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?

What a telling admission.

---

What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.

---

There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?

To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?

Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?

---

Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.

I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).

Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.

Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.

For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.

I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.

I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.

---

"As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages."

This kind of says all we need to know right here. Wow.

Certainly, we've made some mistakes, no question. But the idea that Putin's authoritarian policies - of which there are many - were a direct response to NATO hostility is revisionist history at best. It's actually more the other way around - NATO hostility increased as it learned Putin was not the reformer we hoped for, and as he began to gradually rid Russia of the democratic reforms instituted after Yeltsin took office. Let's not pretend at this point Russia is any semblance of a democracy. It is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

There was a way for Putin to chart a course that could have led to much better relations with the West. But his desire for power, and Cold War beliefs, led Russia in another direction. In short, there was plenty of blame to go around.

But there's no question to any reasonable observer that Putin is, in fact, an authoritarian and dictator. Your inability to say that without caveats or hedging, speaks volumes. It also takes away what little credibility you have when you call Trump an authoritarian, or claim Russia is fighting a just war at this point.

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify

---

Seems we have different definitions of ally. I don't consider allies merely countries that meet whatever random criteria you've come up with.

---

"random criteria".....buddy you do realize there is a process laid out in our laws about how a country becomes a legal ally right?

The Senate and Congress have to be involved and it has to be official.

Just not what ever tin pot country the spooks at the CIA or State Department deem worthy

[An ally is a state that a first state has made a formal defense commitment to defend via treaty..

The United States has signed and ratified seven defense treaties that remain active today: the Rio Treaty (1947); NATO (1949); and bilateral defense commitments with Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS) (1951), the Philippines (1951), Korea (1953), and Japan (1960).-all create real allies the United States is obligated
on paper to defend: 51 countries and more than 1.4 billion people]

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

[The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ''the supreme Law of the Land.'']

---

You don't have to have a defense treaty to be an ally. We run joint naval exercises with India, but have no formal defense treaty. They are an ally. Prior to Sweden and Finland joining NATO they were also allies. And then I'll toss the hand grenade and say…Israel. Saudi Arabia too.

Strategic interest plays a huge part. You arguing against Ukraine's strategic interest to the U.S is fair game.

---

America has no strategic interests east of the Bug river.....never have

American policy planners have know that for decades and were advising against it.

It invites conflict with Russia, exposes our real allies to danger, and opens up the prospect of classic overextension of our resources and capabilities

["Bluntly stated...expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … "- Excerpt from George F. Kennan, "A Fateful Error," New York Times, 05 Feb 1997]

---

As I said, making the strategic interest argument is fair game. That's the debate on Ukraine. I just wanted it understood that we have allies that we don't have defense agreements with that we support and would support militarily even without one.

---

We have countries that certain American political factions view as allies. But who are not official allies

India for instance is open to debate

We trade with india…are not openly hostile with India…but does that make India an ally?

That is why we have a political process and a legal process to determine who is an official ally of the USA.

https://time.com/6288459/india-ally-us-modi-biden-visit/
[India Is Not a U.S. Allyand Has Never Wanted to Be]

---

The idea that "treaty = ally" and "no treaty = not ally" is cartoonishly simplistic. International relationships aren't a multiple choice quiz, they're complex, evolving partnerships based on shared interests, not just paperwork.

By that logic, I guess Israel isn't an ally either? Or Brazil, or half the countries we routinely coordinate with...

---

Well when you don't go by treaties decided by Congress it does indeed get complicated

You have people on a Baylor fan site arguing that India is even an ally of the USA (just because we do a lot of business with them and they are not an enemy)

Let's stick to treaties and Senate enrolled allies….its easier that way…and is actually supported by law

---

You want to be legally beholden to defend Jordan? Strategic interests can evolve, and we can choose how we want to support them. Treaties are what actually complicate matters.

---

Jordan is more strategicly important to us than Ukraine and we have had a multi-decades long relationship with the Hashemite Monarchy there

It's Ukraine that seemly popped up out of no where and you guys act like we have this deep relationship with the country and some kind of responsibility to protect it and fight proxy wars on its behalf

[The United States and Jordan have a 1996 Status of Forces Agreement, a 2006 Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement, and a 2021 Defense Cooperation Agreement, reflecting the strategic importance of Jordan to U.S. foreign policy in the region]

---

You keep making this about Ukraine. That isn't my point. But to address your tangent, the strategic importance is as much about Russia as it is Ukraine, and the interrelated strategic interests throughout the region.

---

So the area is strategically important to Russia (but not us)

And you want to deprive Russia of their Black Sea naval base and vital strategic area. (By spending billions on a bloody proxy war)

When again did the American people sign up for perpetual conflict with Russia?

They are not some kind of eternal enemy of ours…

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

I have to hang much this on Obama. When Russia invaded Crimea, he drew a red line and did absolutely nothing about it! Hence, here we are.

J.R. said:

---

I have to hang much this on Obama. When Russia invaded Crimea, he drew a red line and did absolutely nothing about it! Hence, here we are.

---

It started with George. The moron said Putin had a good soul. Biden was the first president to realize appeasement doesn't work. Unfortunately he wasn't willing to do anything but send Ukraine just enough weapons and money to not get overrun

J.R. said:

---

I have to hang much this on Obama. When Russia invaded Crimea, he drew a red line and did absolutely nothing about it! Hence, here we are.

---

Obama used the "redline" statement on Syria and it related to using poison gas weapons during the civil war

The Baathists used them and Obama did nothing

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

Please tell me you are really not this stupid?

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

Please tell me you are really not this stupid?

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

Please tell me you are really not this stupid?

---

---

Besides the obvious sharing of a border your image shows two cities that are about a quarter of the planet away. Do you get pleasure in being so obviously wrong about things?

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

Bull ****.

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

Please tell me you are really not this stupid?

---

---

Besides the obvious sharing of a border your image shows two cities that are about a quarter of the planet away. Do you get pleasure in being so obviously wrong about things?

---

The shortest distance (air line) between Washington, D.C. and Moscow is approximately 4,860.37 miles

So in fact it's far from us.

But even if it was located where Mexico is it does not mean we have to be locked in some kind of eternal struggle

I am still shocked you think Russia and the USA have any real long term interests that would put us at odds

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States
True but irrelevant. It is a neighbor of 4 countries which are "enrolled allies" and a highly relevant regional interest to 7 more. So what happens there matters to us a lot. And when the raison d'etre for Nato invades a country adjacent or important to 11 member states, it is very much in our interest to have engaged policy.

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....
yet another true but irrelevant fact? Same is true for Russia, yet we formed a large alliance to contain its predictable territorial aggression.
until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv.
Highly disingenuous to suggest that Ukraine was an afterthought to Europe until the Maidan. Ukraine has always mattered to Europe, and its independence from Russia only made it moreso.

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify.
Flatly, patently untrue.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48195I

---

Another terribly weak argument. In fairness, opponents to a policy supporting Ukraine have a very difficult case to make. The fate/status of Ukraine does matter to the USA, a LOT. No amount of emotive spin can change that.

---

Congress has never even negotiated a security treaty with Ukraine.

The country was run by pro-Moscow politicians until 2014

We have never had a historic relationship with Ukraine of any kind…so how could it be of vital interest to the American people?

---

Your argument is obtuse in the extreme.

AS LONG AS WE ARE A MEMBER OF NATO, OUR INTERESTS IN UKRAINE ARE EQUAL TO THE INTERESTS OF NATO MEMBER STATES like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Your argument completely ignores the implications associated with US membership in Nato. It is patently absurd to argue that we would have an interest in belonging to an alliance which exists for the explicit purpose of resisting expansion of Russian influence or control in Europe, yet have no interest in the expansion of Russian influence/control into Europe.

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

We are their eternal enemy. You have to have an extreme level of gullibility to think otherwise. They choose self harm and conflict with us instead of prosperity

---

The American people and the Russian people have never even fought a war against each other

They are literally on the other side of the planet from us

I honestly can not understand this extreme hawkish ideology

---

Please tell me you are really not this stupid?

---

I'm afraid isolationism really is that stupid.

It's like the Cold War never happened. (or that it would never have happened if it not had been for those evil Americans trying to destroy noble mother Russia.)

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States
True but irrelevant. It is a neighbor of 4 countries which are "enrolled allies" and a highly relevant regional interest to 7 more. So what happens there matters to us a lot. And when the raison d'etre for Nato invades a country adjacent or important to 11 member states, it is very much in our interest to have engaged policy.

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....
yet another true but irrelevant fact? Same is true for Russia, yet we formed a large alliance to contain its predictable territorial aggression.
until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv.
Highly disingenuous to suggest that Ukraine was an afterthought to Europe until the Maidan. Ukraine has always mattered to Europe, and its independence from Russia only made it moreso.

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify.
Flatly, patently untrue.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48195I

---

Another terribly weak argument. In fairness, opponents to a policy supporting Ukraine have a very difficult case to make. The fate/status of Ukraine does matter to the USA, a LOT. No amount of emotive spin can change that.

---

Congress has never even negotiated a security treaty with Ukraine.

The country was run by pro-Moscow politicians until 2014

We have never had a historic relationship with Ukraine of any kind…so how could it be of vital interest to the American people?

---

Your argument is obtuse in the extreme.

AS LONG AS WE ARE A MEMBER OF NATO, OUR INTERESTS IN UKRAINE ARE EQUAL TO THE INTERESTS OF NATO MEMBER STATES like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Your argument completely ignores the implications associated with US membership in Nato. It is patently absurd to argue that we would have an interest in belonging to an alliance which exists for the explicit purpose of resisting expansion of Russian influence or control in Europe, yet have no interest in the expansion of Russian influence/control into Europe.

---

So because we allowed NATO to expand east we. now have to be locked in an eternal conflict with Russia?


I guess we should have listen to the policy planners in the USA who for decades warned that expansion east of the bug river would be a major mistake

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States
True but irrelevant. It is a neighbor of 4 countries which are "enrolled allies" and a highly relevant regional interest to 7 more. So what happens there matters to us a lot. And when the raison d'etre for Nato invades a country adjacent or important to 11 member states, it is very much in our interest to have engaged policy.

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....
yet another true but irrelevant fact? Same is true for Russia, yet we formed a large alliance to contain its predictable territorial aggression.
until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv.
Highly disingenuous to suggest that Ukraine was an afterthought to Europe until the Maidan. Ukraine has always mattered to Europe, and its independence from Russia only made it moreso.

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify.
Flatly, patently untrue.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48195I

---

Another terribly weak argument. In fairness, opponents to a policy supporting Ukraine have a very difficult case to make. The fate/status of Ukraine does matter to the USA, a LOT. No amount of emotive spin can change that.

---

Congress has never even negotiated a security treaty with Ukraine.

The country was run by pro-Moscow politicians until 2014

We have never had a historic relationship with Ukraine of any kind…so how could it be of vital interest to the American people?

---

Your argument is obtuse in the extreme.

AS LONG AS WE ARE A MEMBER OF NATO, OUR INTERESTS IN UKRAINE ARE EQUAL TO THE INTERESTS OF NATO MEMBER STATES like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Your argument completely ignores the implications associated with US membership in Nato. It is patently absurd to argue that we would have an interest in belonging to an alliance which exists for the explicit purpose of resisting expansion of Russian influence or control in Europe, yet have no interest in the expansion of Russian influence/control into Europe.

---

So because we allowed NATO to expand east we. now have to be locked in an eternal conflict with Russia?


I guess we should have listen to the policy planners in the USA who for decades warned that expansion east of the bug river would be a major mistake

---

100% no. A mostly free world, including Europe, has worked out quite well for us. Had Russia expanded instead of NATO the world would be a very different place. Cheers to freedom, liberty, peace and prosperity!

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States
True but irrelevant. It is a neighbor of 4 countries which are "enrolled allies" and a highly relevant regional interest to 7 more. So what happens there matters to us a lot. And when the raison d'etre for Nato invades a country adjacent or important to 11 member states, it is very much in our interest to have engaged policy.

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....
yet another true but irrelevant fact? Same is true for Russia, yet we formed a large alliance to contain its predictable territorial aggression.
until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv.
Highly disingenuous to suggest that Ukraine was an afterthought to Europe until the Maidan. Ukraine has always mattered to Europe, and its independence from Russia only made it moreso.

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify.
Flatly, patently untrue.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48195I

---

Another terribly weak argument. In fairness, opponents to a policy supporting Ukraine have a very difficult case to make. The fate/status of Ukraine does matter to the USA, a LOT. No amount of emotive spin can change that.

---

Congress has never even negotiated a security treaty with Ukraine.

The country was run by pro-Moscow politicians until 2014

We have never had a historic relationship with Ukraine of any kind…so how could it be of vital interest to the American people?

---

Your argument is obtuse in the extreme.

AS LONG AS WE ARE A MEMBER OF NATO, OUR INTERESTS IN UKRAINE ARE EQUAL TO THE INTERESTS OF NATO MEMBER STATES like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Your argument completely ignores the implications associated with US membership in Nato. It is patently absurd to argue that we would have an interest in belonging to an alliance which exists for the explicit purpose of resisting expansion of Russian influence or control in Europe, yet have no interest in the expansion of Russian influence/control into Europe.

---

So because we allowed NATO to expand east we. now have to be locked in an eternal conflict with Russia?


I guess we should have listen to the policy planners in the USA who for decades warned that expansion east of the bug river would be a major mistake

---

100% no. A mostly free world, including Europe, has worked out quite well for us. Had Russia expanded instead of NATO the world would be a very different place. Cheers to freedom, liberty, peace and prosperity!

---

Moscow retreated from Europe in 1991….they have not expanded their military alliance network toward us…while DC has spent decades expanding it's military alliance network towards Moscows borders


[Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored

-Ted Galen Carpenter]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States
True but irrelevant. It is a neighbor of 4 countries which are "enrolled allies" and a highly relevant regional interest to 7 more. So what happens there matters to us a lot. And when the raison d'etre for Nato invades a country adjacent or important to 11 member states, it is very much in our interest to have engaged policy.

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....
yet another true but irrelevant fact? Same is true for Russia, yet we formed a large alliance to contain its predictable territorial aggression.
until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv.
Highly disingenuous to suggest that Ukraine was an afterthought to Europe until the Maidan. Ukraine has always mattered to Europe, and its independence from Russia only made it moreso.

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify.
Flatly, patently untrue.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48195I

---

Another terribly weak argument. In fairness, opponents to a policy supporting Ukraine have a very difficult case to make. The fate/status of Ukraine does matter to the USA, a LOT. No amount of emotive spin can change that.

---

Congress has never even negotiated a security treaty with Ukraine.

The country was run by pro-Moscow politicians until 2014

We have never had a historic relationship with Ukraine of any kind…so how could it be of vital interest to the American people?

---

Your argument is obtuse in the extreme.

AS LONG AS WE ARE A MEMBER OF NATO, OUR INTERESTS IN UKRAINE ARE EQUAL TO THE INTERESTS OF NATO MEMBER STATES like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

---

Wow.

Tell us without telling us you don't understand alliances.

Redbrickbear said:
Well when you don't go by treaties decided by Congress it does indeed get complicated


You have people on a Baylor fan site arguing that India is even an ally of the USA (just because we do a lot of business with them and they are not an enemy)

Let's stick to treaties and Senate enrolled allies….its easier that way…and is actually supported by law

Interests are interests. Some are perennial. Some are not. Some are more important than others Treaties can help deal with threats to one's interests, and are typically executed to deal with longer and/or more long-term interests. It is novice frivolity to assert that the existence or not of a treaty is a dispositive indicator that any country is a threat or an ally.

Have we ever had an alliance treaty with China? Nope.
Did Nixon's "great opening" to China help win the Cold War? Yep.
Did we need a mutual defense agreement to make the "great opening" to China a threat to Russia? Nope.
In fact, we continued a soft policy of containment of China by maintaining close relationships with countries in the first island chain, one of which was Taiwan. We actually formally severed a mutual defense pact with Taiwan as part of our "great opening" to China. Yet we have always maintained "support" for Taiwan....military sales, diplomatic contacts, military relationships, etc....within an overall policy of "strategic ambiguity" about our response to a Chinese strike on Taiwan. China knows we will not stand idly by and let them roll over Taiwan, but does not know what exactly are the limits of our support. We MIGHT come to direct aid of Taiwan, in open combat with Chinese forces. Our military planning, purchases, diplomatic relations, training, joint exercises with allies, etc......all suggest that we have both the will and ability to directly engage. The lack of a treaty stating what we will or won't do allows us to have the implicit threat of a direct response without the provocation of detailing how far that response might go. That complicates Chinese calculations. They cannot assume we will not respond. They have to assume we will. That dynamic is so broadly understood in the foreign policy community that most war gaming scenarios of a Chinese assault on Taiwan open with a direct Chinese attack on US bases in SoKo, Japan, Guam, and Philippines to degrade US an allied forces and delay a forceful response. All that despite not having a formal treaty of alliance with Taiwan.

We see that kind of dynamic all over the world.
Does warmer US relations with India threaten China? Yep.
Must we have a formal alliance treaty with India to make those threats materialize? Nope.
The India card is obvious. China has to assume that if it goes to war with India, America will be a strong supporter of India, one way or the other. How far would that support go? China can't be sure, so must prepare for worst case (which will greatly complicate Chinese preparations).

Chinese threats to US interests in the Asia/Pacific theater almost alone make India a strategic interest of the USA. Same dynamic applies to Ukraine. Ukraine itself....meh. But Ukraine as the flag tied to the middle of a rope being tugged on by Russia on one end and Nato on the other? Huge deal. Existence of treaties with Ukraine, or not, does not change that dynamic in the slightest.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:
Well when you don't go by treaties decided by Congress it does indeed get complicated


You have people on a Baylor fan site arguing that India is even an ally of the USA (just because we do a lot of business with them and they are not an enemy)

Let's stick to treaties and Senate enrolled allies….its easier that way…and is actually supported by law

Interests are interests. Some are perennial. Some are not. Some are more important than others Treaties can help deal with threats to one's interests, and are typically executed to deal….

---

We have perennial interests in the Western Hemisphere

What are the perennial interests of the USA in Ukraine and far off Eastern European borderlands that touch Russia?

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:
Well when you don't go by treaties decided by Congress it does indeed get complicated


You have people on a Baylor fan site arguing that India is even an ally of the USA (just because we do a lot of business with them and they are not an enemy)

Let's stick to treaties and Senate enrolled allies….its easier that way…and is actually supported by law

Interests are interests. Some are perennial. Some are not. Some are more important than others Treaties can help deal with threats to one's interests, and are typically executed to deal….

---

We have perennial interests in the Western Hemisphere.
...that Europe not be dominated by an autocratic Russia.

What are the perennial interests of the USA in Ukraine and far off Eastern European borderlands that touch Russia?
That Ukraine not be used as a springboard for destabilization and subsequent domination of major parts of Europe.

---

Poland is a ally with whom we have a formal mutual defense agreement. Ergo, whatever threatens Poland threatens us.

This is so simple. Why do you work so hard to deny the bloody friggin' obvious.

Your arguments only apply if we are not a member of Nato. So why don't you argue that we have no interests in belonging to Nato? I would disagree, but the assertion itself is rational. What's not rational is suggesting that we do have an interest in belonging to Nato to counter Russian threats to Nato members, then assert we have no interests whatsoever in countering threats to Nato members. A Russian invasion of Ukraine is a dire national security threat to 4 Nato members, and a reasonable cause for alarm with 7 others. The only way we can divorce ourselves from sharing that threat, is to leave Nato.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say we do have an interest in belonging to Nato, then not have any interest in things that threaten Nato members.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're thought policing instead of thinking.

It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.

Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.

---

It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.

But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.

Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.

---

So then you admit this is NOT our business

Ukraine is not and has never been an enrolled ally of the United States
True but irrelevant. It is a neighbor of 4 countries which are "enrolled allies" and a highly relevant regional interest to 7 more. So what happens there matters to us a lot. And when the raison d'etre for Nato invades a country adjacent or important to 11 member states, it is very much in our interest to have engaged policy.

Its never been in the EU, never been in NATO, never had any sort of security or close relationship with the USA at all.....never.....
yet another true but irrelevant fact? Same is true for Russia, yet we formed a large alliance to contain its predictable territorial aggression.
until a street coup/protest toppled the last pro-Moscow government in Kyiv.
Highly disingenuous to suggest that Ukraine was an afterthought to Europe until the Maidan. Ukraine has always mattered to Europe, and its independence from Russia only made it moreso.

The American people and the American Congress never got a robust debate and vote on this matter.....we were all sucked in with little discussion into a vicious bloody proxy war with russia over one of its ex-satellite states.....by factions in our Federal government and security services we can barely identify.
Flatly, patently untrue.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48195I

---

Another terribly weak argument. In fairness, opponents to a policy supporting Ukraine have a very difficult case to make. The fate/status of Ukraine does matter to the USA, a LOT. No amount of emotive spin can change that.

---

Congress has never even negotiated a security treaty with Ukraine.

The country was run by pro-Moscow politicians until 2014

We have never had a historic relationship with Ukraine of any kind…so how could it be of vital interest to the American people?

---

Your argument is obtuse in the extreme.

AS LONG AS WE ARE A MEMBER OF NATO, OUR INTERESTS IN UKRAINE ARE EQUAL TO THE INTERESTS OF NATO MEMBER STATES like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Your argument completely ignores the implications associated with US membership in Nato. It is patently absurd to argue that we would have an interest in belonging to an alliance which exists for the explicit purpose of resisting expansion of Russian influence or control in Europe, yet have no interest in the expansion of Russian influence/control into Europe.

---

So because we allowed NATO to expand east we. now have to be locked in an eternal conflict with Russia?


I guess we should have listen to the policy planners in the USA who for decades warned that expansion east of the bug river would be a major mistake

---

100% no. A mostly free world, including Europe, has worked out quite well for us. Had Russia expanded instead of NATO the world would be a very different place. Cheers to freedom, liberty, peace and prosperity!

---

Moscow retreated from Europe in 1991….they have not expanded their military alliance network toward us…while DC has spent decades expanding it's military alliance network towards Moscows borders


[Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored

-Ted Galen Carpenter]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine

---

And I'm saying there would have been more and bigger wars had freedom not expanded. Coinciding with NATO expansion, we've enjoyed unprecedented peace (compared to world history) and prosperity, and more have enjoyed the miracle of freedom. Russia was always going to go on the attack. But fortunately they are limited in whom they are willing to attack. So they try to pick off a couple and align with other world pariahs. We almost could not have planned this any better. Of course that assumes Trump doesn't ruin our alliances.