Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

There's that inability to understand nuance. Putin is a former KGB officer and a killer. You do realize that, correct? You do realize he's responsible for numerous political assassinations, do you not? Or is that all made up, in your opinion, by the "globalists" who want to besmirch his reputation? Individuals who are pro-sovereign nation states don't invade and annex portions of other countries. They don't try to kill the leadership of other countries, and stage bombing campaigns against innocent civilians. That is something despots do.

Putin saw an opportunity in Crimea for a land grab. He used the political upheaval (which you call a coup, like the Russians, and the Ukrainians call a revolution) to take large swaths of real estate. Then he saw an opportunity to take the entirety of the country a couple of years ago. Were his motivations mixed? Yes. But the idea that his only motivation was mere security is one of the more ridiculous and gullible positions.

Let's hope Trump isn't Putin, or God help us - our democracy truly is in trouble, as the Dems repeatedly allege. Let's hope Trump doesn't invade Mexico and start killing off his political rivals. Let's hope he doesn't do away with elections.

Edit: It amazes me that three idiots actually agreed with your ridiculous assessment. We truly do have some RWNJs on this board.

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

There's that inability to understand nuance. Putin is a former KGB officer and a killer. You do realize that, correct? You do realize he's responsible for numerous political assassinations, do you not? Or is that all made up, in your opinion, by the "globalists" who want to besmirch his reputation? Individuals who are pro-sovereign nation states don't invade and annex portions of other countries. They don't try to kill the leadership of other countries, and stage bombing campaigns against innocent civilians. That is something despots do.

Putin saw an opportunity in Crimea for a land grab. He used the political upheaval (which you call a coup, like the Russians, and the Ukrainians call a revolution) to take large swaths of real estate. Then he saw an opportunity to take the entirety of the country a couple of years ago. Were his motivations mixed? Yes. But the idea that his only motivation was mere security is one of the more ridiculous positions.

Let's hope Trump isn't Putin, or God help us - our democracy truly is in trouble, as the Dems repeatedly allege. Let's hope Trump doesn't invade Mexico and start killing off his political rivals. Let's hope he doesn't do away with elections.

Edit: It amazes me that three idiots actually agreed with your ridiculous assessment. We truly do have some RWNJs on this board.

---

I needed to read this. Thank you. Now I can stop wasting my time. You are speaking about things you don't understand.

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

There's that inability to understand nuance. Putin is a former KGB officer and a killer. You do realize that, correct? You do realize he's responsible for numerous political assassinations, do you not? Or is that all made up, in your opinion, by the "globalists" who want to besmirch his reputation? Individuals who are pro-sovereign nation states don't invade and annex portions of other countries. They don't try to kill the leadership of other countries, and stage bombing campaigns against innocent civilians. That is something despots do.

Putin saw an opportunity in Crimea for a land grab. He used the political upheaval (which you call a coup, like the Russians, and the Ukrainians call a revolution) to take large swaths of real estate. Then he saw an opportunity to take the entirety of the country a couple of years ago. Were his motivations mixed? Yes. But the idea that his only motivation was mere security is one of the more ridiculous positions.

Let's hope Trump isn't Putin, or God help us - our democracy truly is in trouble, as the Dems repeatedly allege. Let's hope Trump doesn't invade Mexico and start killing off his political rivals. Let's hope he doesn't do away with elections.

Edit: It amazes me that three idiots actually agreed with your ridiculous assessment. We truly do have some RWNJs on this board.

---

I needed to read this. Thank you. Now I can stop wasting my time. You are speaking about things you don't understand.

---

I appreciate that the nutty tinfoil hat crowd (of which you appear to be a member) doesn't respond well to facts that don't fit their narrative. It's better for them to believe some unidentified bogeyman (see "globalists") are in control of everything, as they lack the ability of introspection.

The truth is, you've stopped responding because you can't. You don't know how. Let me know if you work up the nerve to support your positions.

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

There's that inability to understand nuance. Putin is a former KGB officer and a killer. You do realize that, correct? You do realize he's responsible for numerous political assassinations, do you not? Or is that all made up, in your opinion, by the "globalists" who want to besmirch his reputation? Individuals who are pro-sovereign nation states don't invade and annex portions of other countries. They don't try to kill the leadership of other countries, and stage bombing campaigns against innocent civilians. That is something despots do.

Putin saw an opportunity in Crimea for a land grab. He used the political upheaval (which you call a coup, like the Russians, and the Ukrainians call a revolution) to take large swaths of real estate. Then he saw an opportunity to take the entirety of the country a couple of years ago. Were his motivations mixed? Yes. But the idea that his only motivation was mere security is one of the more ridiculous positions.

Let's hope Trump isn't Putin, or God help us - our democracy truly is in trouble, as the Dems repeatedly allege. Let's hope Trump doesn't invade Mexico and start killing off his political rivals. Let's hope he doesn't do away with elections.

Edit: It amazes me that three idiots actually agreed with your ridiculous assessment. We truly do have some RWNJs on this board.

---

I needed to read this. Thank you. Now I can stop wasting my time. You are speaking about things you don't understand.

---

Wrong. You have clearly shown you don't.

I am amazed at the inability of some people to admit what used to be basic truths in this country, such as invading a country unprovoked and killing it's civilians is morally reprehensible. Or that killing and jailing political opponents is a terrible thing.

But alas, here we are, saying Trump is like Putin - as if that is a good thing - and believing the guy who kills his political opponents is the sympathetic figure here.

Remarkable.

Bear8084 said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

There's that inability to understand nuance. Putin is a former KGB officer and a killer. You do realize that, correct? You do realize he's responsible for numerous political assassinations, do you not? Or is that all made up, in your opinion, by the "globalists" who want to besmirch his reputation? Individuals who are pro-sovereign nation states don't invade and annex portions of other countries. They don't try to kill the leadership of other countries, and stage bombing campaigns against innocent civilians. That is something despots do.

Putin saw an opportunity in Crimea for a land grab. He used the political upheaval (which you call a coup, like the Russians, and the Ukrainians call a revolution) to take large swaths of real estate. Then he saw an opportunity to take the entirety of the country a couple of years ago. Were his motivations mixed? Yes. But the idea that his only motivation was mere security is one of the more ridiculous positions.

Let's hope Trump isn't Putin, or God help us - our democracy truly is in trouble, as the Dems repeatedly allege. Let's hope Trump doesn't invade Mexico and start killing off his political rivals. Let's hope he doesn't do away with elections.

Edit: It amazes me that three idiots actually agreed with your ridiculous assessment. We truly do have some RWNJs on this board.

---

I needed to read this. Thank you. Now I can stop wasting my time. You are speaking about things you don't understand.

---

Wrong. You have clearly shown you don't.

---

Assuming you don't believe any of the following nonsense, I'm open to your feedback:
1) Crimea:Russia::Mexico:United States
2) The coup in Ukraine was a populist uprising revolution.
3) The fact that Putin is a former KGB who has assassinated his political opponents means he cannot defend his country from globalist aggression via NATO.

Mafia Bear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?

---

I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:

Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?

I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.

---

I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?

---

My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?

---

I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.

---

Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.

Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).

---

lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

---

There's that inability to understand nuance. Putin is a former KGB officer and a killer. You do realize that, correct? You do realize he's responsible for numerous political assassinations, do you not? Or is that all made up, in your opinion, by the "globalists" who want to besmirch his reputation? Individuals who are pro-sovereign nation states don't invade and annex portions of other countries. They don't try to kill the leadership of other countries, and stage bombing campaigns against innocent civilians. That is something despots do.

Putin saw an opportunity in Crimea for a land grab. He used the political upheaval (which you call a coup, like the Russians, and the Ukrainians call a revolution) to take large swaths of real estate. Then he saw an opportunity to take the entirety of the country a couple of years ago. Were his motivations mixed? Yes. But the idea that his only motivation was mere security is one of the more ridiculous positions.

Let's hope Trump isn't Putin, or God help us - our democracy truly is in trouble, as the Dems repeatedly allege. Let's hope Trump doesn't invade Mexico and start killing off his political rivals. Let's hope he doesn't do away with elections.

Edit: It amazes me that three idiots actually agreed with your ridiculous assessment. We truly do have some RWNJs on this board.

---

I needed to read this. Thank you. Now I can stop wasting my time. You are speaking about things you don't understand.

---

Wrong. You have clearly shown you don't.

---

Assuming you don't believe any of the following nonsense, I'm open to your feedback:
1) Crimea:Russia::Mexico:United States
2) The coup in Ukraine was a populist uprising revolution.
3) The fact that Putin is a former KGB who has assassinated his political opponents means he cannot defend his country from globalist aggression via NATO.

---

Since, again, you have a difficult time with anything beyond binary thinking, let me help out:

1) The comparison of Crimea to Mexico was merely a geographical comparison. Don't let it trigger you, and try not to think of the comparison in such binary terms.

2) I offered no opinion on whether the coup was a populist revolution. Instead I said that Russians by and large view it as a coup, while Ukrainians by and large view it as a revolution (in which a few hundred of the revolutionaries died, just FYI) wherein they occupied a few govt. buildings for a few days. Given what I suspect to be your stance on Jan. 6th, I am surprised you disagree with this assessment.

3) The fact you would describe the attack on Ukraine as a mere "defense" of Russia says all one needs to know about you. Most reasonable people see invading a country, bombing its cities, and attempting to overthrow its govt. because that govt. is friendly with the U.S. as at best, a disproportionate response, and at worst a war crime.

Edit: Oh, BTW, your boy Trump continued to sanction Russia for the Crimea invasion, just FYI.

This Taylor Lorenz tweet did not age well… pic.twitter.com/3joFfOwhki

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 9, 2024

The low hanging fruit is just too tempting. Using 10% of what Putin said to claim he is a rational leader with conservative values and ignoring the other 90% that shows that he is a mass murderer that will stop at nothing to improve his legacy and Russian expansionism.

I'm not sure Putin will live long enough to pose a legitimate threat to the west but if his successor is anything like him we will surely be facing Russia in the coming decades in WW3.

“So in the midsummer of 77AD, Agricola arrived in Wales to find the Ordovices had destroyed the Roman Cavalry stationed in their Territory”

“How does this relate to the new bill?”

“Let me finish- this was the first of Agricola’s campaigns, his most famous in 83AD to Caledonia-” pic.twitter.com/t9gYJd5fZ4

— ɖʀʊӄքǟ ӄʊռʟɛʏ 🇧🇹🇹🇩 (@kunley_drukpa) February 9, 2024

“Okay, but what does that have to do with Gandalf sending a hobbit into Mordor?”

“I am just coming to that. You said you wanted a serious conversation, not a talk show. You see in the beginning, all the creations of Illuvatar, the Ainur, sang harmoniously, but not Melkor…” pic.twitter.com/0IxkuFpc1S

— Banished Kent (@kentbanishearl) February 9, 2024

Bear8084 said:

---

“Okay, but what does that have to do with Gandalf sending a hobbit into Mordor?”

“I am just coming to that. You said you wanted a serious conversation, not a talk show. You see in the beginning, all the creations of Illuvatar, the Ainur, sang harmoniously, but not Melkor…” pic.twitter.com/0IxkuFpc1S

— Banished Kent (@kentbanishearl) February 9, 2024

---

Tucker: Why did you invade Ukraine?

Putin: Between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis, and the rise of the sons of Aryas, there was an age undreamed of. And onto this, Conan, destined to wear the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow. It is I, his chronicler,… pic.twitter.com/PopCd8Oh3V

— Tired Meme Clown (@TiredMemeClown) February 9, 2024

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

Crimeans would disagree with you. They supported annexation overwhelmingly. I just think you misconstrued the history lesson and it colored the rest of what you heard.

---

Just curious, in the future when California is majority Hispanic and say they support annexation. Will you support a Mexican invasion of California?

---

It depends on a lot of things. Does the US have a legitimate regime at this point, or has it been taken over in a J6-type scenario where the insurrectionists succeeded and began packing the government with right-wing xenophobes who hate Mexican-Americans? Is a foreign superpower influencing the events, and if so why? Are they trying to use California as a platform to destabilize and potentially attack Mexico? Has California agreed to remain neutral as between the US and Mexico, and are they in violation of that agreement? And so on.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

So exactly what would you suggest the US does going forward ?

Continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops ?

---

Read my post again. I answered your question in the post you quoted.

---

Sorry to be dense .

All I see is a general make peace with Russia
Security assurance.



Is there something else ?

---

I am not sure how specific I need to get. I said we shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia, and suggested we should be looking for an agreement to end the conflict.

What I didn't say or even infer is that we should "continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops," etc. I said (or inferred) just the opposite.

---

Agree we should not be in this proxy war.

Any agreement to end the war will most likely require Ukraine to give up some of its territory to Russia and distance itself from the West both economically and militarily. Doubt the US will allow such terms to be signed.

Didn't infer that you said such things as a no fly zone. Merely curious how any peace process resumes when Ukraine refuses a ceasefire that requires losing territory.

Wars are far easier to begin than end. Especially if your defacto ally doesn't want it to end.



Personally I see the war only ending when the Ukrainian people get tired of seeing their loved ones getting slaughtered .

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mafia Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.

I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.

---

Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:

Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview

Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024

---

The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.

But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.

Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.

---

Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.

---

The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.

Serious questions:

1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?

2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?

3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?

I will hang up and listen.

---

Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:

#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.

• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”

#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”

• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024

---

A few things...

1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?

2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.

3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.

4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.

In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.

---

Crimeans would disagree with you. They supported annexation overwhelmingly. I just think you misconstrued the history lesson and it colored the rest of what you heard.

---

Just curious, in the future when California is majority Hispanic and say they support annexation. Will you support a Mexican invasion of California?

---

It depends on a lot of things. Does the US have a legitimate regime at this point, or has it been taken over in a J6-type scenario where the insurrectionists succeeded and began packing the government with right-wing xenophobes who hate Mexican-Americans? Is a foreign superpower influencing the events, and if so why? Are they trying to use California as a platform to destabilize and potentially attack Mexico? Has California agreed to remain neutral as between the US and Mexico, and are they in violation of that agreement? And so on.

---

Same RU propaganda, and so on.

Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.

sombear said:

---

You're basing that on a fraudulent referendum that was held after Russian took control and that even the traditionally pro-Russian UN did not recognize.

---

See above.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

You're basing that on a fraudulent referendum that was held after Russian took control and that even the traditionally pro-Russian UN did not recognize.

---

See above.

---

Still wrong, shill.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.

---

You can't be serious…

---

Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.

---

You can't be serious…

---

Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.

---

I'm sure they're fully legit… Just like 7 days after Yanukovych is ousted the Russians roll into Crimea because of "neo-Nazis".

---

I'm not saying facts matter. I'm just saying what they are. We're Americans and this is SicEm after all.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.

---

You can't be serious…

---

Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.

---

Not true.

The Crimean polls were perplexing to the even the most veteran Eastern Europe pollsters. Yes, many reputable polls showed (slim) majorities supporting Russian affiliation. But many of the same polls showed even stronger majorities satisfied with their current arrangement. There was no evidence - and no polls - showing Crimeans wanted Russia to invade.

---

This is not really intelligible as a response to my claim. Was the "current situation" before or after the Maidan coup? When was the question about "invasion" specifically asked, and by whom?