KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

When Columbia raised their price and terms for a lease across the Isthmus of Panama for a US canal; Teddy Roosevelt landed US troops and provided cash to Panamanian revolutionaries

With such aid Panama easily won independence from Columbia and immediately signed a treaty with the US giving Roosevelt the right to build and control the Panama Canal on extremely favorable terms.......

to the United States.

---

Apples to bowling balls. There's a significant difference between financially supporting rebels, and invading a country and incorporating large swaths of its territory.

---

A. The US invaded Mexican Territory beginning the Mexican - American War.
B. Even Abraham Lincoln ( then a congressman ) pointed out US aggression in placing Taylor' s army on Mexican soil.
C. After capturing Mexico City the US took over 25% of all Mexican Territory as part of the peace treaty.

---

Sorry, I should have been clear - I was looking for something that was a little more modern.

But in either regard, I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

---

How about when the United States invaded the Philippines to drive out the occupying Spanish. Promised the locals independence if they would join the Americans against the Spanish. Only to renege on the agreement, declare the Philippines to be a territory of the United States then fight a 3 year war against these same people. Concentration camps for civilians were eventually established and tens of thousands of the locals died of disease. Thousands of others were killed by US soldiers in combat. Independence was only granted in 1946 after the end of WW2.


Honestly believe much of Texas ( and Southern California, New Mexico ) will , voluntarily, become part of Mexico.

As my old farm foreman Santos informed me years ago …..

" We are going to breed you right out of the country "

---

I understand the point you are making. Yes, we have engaged in tactics to overthrow govts. to further our interests. And I think our interventionist policies have been disastrous at times. I much prefer what used to be the Republican policy of non-interventionism. But again, that was not an answer to any question I posed.

Let me try again: I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

A simple yes or no will do.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear 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.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement%85

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is%85.

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

You found the smoking gun%85Good grief.

Do you also plan to use Putin's reference to Zelensky clapping for the old man in the Canadian parliament?

---

I'm not the one cherry-picking. Fascists are indeed very active (their militias were involved in the civil war, for crying out loud), and they have deep roots in Ukraine's postwar history. Comparing them with the likes of Wernher von Braun is some serious denialism.

---

This reminds of the folks who frame those who have confederate flags and historical sentiment to the Confederacy are looking to reinstate slavery and Jim Crow. The slander is by inference and is intended to marginalize right wing political opinion. Hell, most of the Trumpers would support these so called "neo-Nazis" platforms (anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, and nation first position).

You know this is about quelling Ukrainian nationalism, no matter how much you want to participate in the propaganda game. That's the real denial.

---

Again, these aren't cosplayers or people with a mere historical interest in fascism. They're violent extremists who torture and kill civilians.

---

Again, those are nationalists being framed as Nazis. There isn't even a reference to Jews, only the anti-LGBT and Romanian immigrants/gypsies, something I specifically mentioned. This also has nothing to do with Putin's argument of "denazification" efforts. He doesn't want Ukrainian nationalists.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear 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.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is….

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

The neo-Nazis are a problem in Ukraine in the same way the Biden admin tells us white supremacists are a problem in the U.S. army.

In other words, they're really not. Does the fringe Azov movement have Nazi-like elements? Yes. Is it a pervasive problem, and supported by Ukrainians leadership? Not at all.

I am shocked you bought the "rooting out Nazi" subterfuge, hook, line and sinker. And I still wonder how it fits within your just war beliefs...

---

It's not so much that the government supports them as it's intimidated by them. If they can get rid of Yanukovych they can get rid of Zelensky too. That's one of the things that makes them more than just a fringe movement. It's also one of the reasons Zelensky never implemented the Minsk Agreement even though he was elected with a mandate to do so. Your Mexico analogy overlooks the fact that everyone had agreed to autonomy for the Donbas. If we'd supported the wishes of the Ukrainian people instead of supporting these thugs, none of this would have happened. But it's what we do. We were sowing hatred and violence to hurt the Russians immediately after WWII, and we're still at it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear 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.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is….

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

The neo-Nazis are a problem in Ukraine in the same way the Biden admin tells us white supremacists are a problem in the U.S. army.

In other words, they're really not. Does the fringe Azov movement have Nazi-like elements? Yes. Is it a pervasive problem, and supported by Ukrainians leadership? Not at all.

I am shocked you bought the "rooting out Nazi" subterfuge, hook, line and sinker. And I still wonder how it fits within your just war beliefs...

---

It's not so much that the government supports them as it's intimidated by them. If they can get rid of Yanukovych they can get rid of Zelensky too. That's one of the things that makes them more than just a fringe movement. It's also one of the reasons Zelensky never implemented the Minsk Agreement even though he was elected with a mandate to do so. Your Mexico analogy overlooks the fact that everyone had agreed to autonomy for the Donbas. If we'd supported the wishes of the Ukrainian people instead of supporting these thugs, none of this would have happened. But it's what we do. We were sowing hatred and violence to hurt the Russians immediately after WWII, and we're still at it.

---

More pro-RU BS.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear 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.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement%85

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is%85.

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

You found the smoking gun%85Good grief.

Do you also plan to use Putin's reference to Zelensky clapping for the old man in the Canadian parliament?

---

I'm not the one cherry-picking. Fascists are indeed very active (their militias were involved in the civil war, for crying out loud), and they have deep roots in Ukraine's postwar history. Comparing them with the likes of Wernher von Braun is some serious denialism.

---

This reminds of the folks who frame those who have confederate flags and historical sentiment to the Confederacy are looking to reinstate slavery and Jim Crow. The slander is by inference and is intended to marginalize right wing political opinion. Hell, most of the Trumpers would support these so called "neo-Nazis" platforms (anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, and nation first position).

You know this is about quelling Ukrainian nationalism, no matter how much you want to participate in the propaganda game. That's the real denial.

---

Again, these aren't cosplayers or people with a mere historical interest in fascism. They're violent extremists who torture and kill civilians.

---

Again, those are nationalists being framed as Nazis. There isn't even a reference to Jews, only the anti-LGBT and Romanian immigrants/gypsies, something I specifically mentioned. This also has nothing to do with Putin's argument of "denazification" efforts. He doesn't want Ukrainian nationalists.

---

And good thing there isn't a whole invading army that are torturing and killing civilians....Oh wait.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

When Columbia raised their price and terms for a lease across the Isthmus of Panama for a US canal; Teddy Roosevelt landed US troops and provided cash to Panamanian revolutionaries

With such aid Panama easily won independence from Columbia and immediately signed a treaty with the US giving Roosevelt the right to build and control the Panama Canal on extremely favorable terms.......

to the United States.

---

Apples to bowling balls. There's a significant difference between financially supporting rebels, and invading a country and incorporating large swaths of its territory.

---

A. The US invaded Mexican Territory beginning the Mexican - American War.
B. Even Abraham Lincoln ( then a congressman ) pointed out US aggression in placing Taylor' s army on Mexican soil.
C. After capturing Mexico City the US took over 25% of all Mexican Territory as part of the peace treaty.

---

Sorry, I should have been clear - I was looking for something that was a little more modern.

But in either regard, I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

---

How about when the United States invaded the Philippines to drive out the occupying Spanish. Promised the locals independence if they would join the Americans against the Spanish. Only to renege on the agreement, declare the Philippines to be a territory of the United States then fight a 3 year war against these same people. Concentration camps for civilians were eventually established and tens of thousands of the locals died of disease. Thousands of others were killed by US soldiers in combat. Independence was only granted in 1946 after the end of WW2.


Honestly believe much of Texas ( and Southern California, New Mexico ) will , voluntarily, become part of Mexico.

As my old farm foreman Santos informed me years ago …..

" We are going to breed you right out of the country "

---

I understand the point you are making. Yes, we have engaged in tactics to overthrow govts. to further our interests. And I think our interventionist policies have been disastrous at times. I much prefer what used to be the Republican policy of non-interventionism. But again, that was not an answer to any question I posed.

Let me try again: I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

A simple yes or no will do.

---

Life is never that simple and you know it.

However there are conditions on which I would be ok with it.

For that matter I would be totally ok with Mexico claiming all of California as long as the ports of San Diego, Long Beach and San Francisco were excluded.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

When Columbia raised their price and terms for a lease across the Isthmus of Panama for a US canal; Teddy Roosevelt landed US troops and provided cash to Panamanian revolutionaries

With such aid Panama easily won independence from Columbia and immediately signed a treaty with the US giving Roosevelt the right to build and control the Panama Canal on extremely favorable terms.......

to the United States.

---

Apples to bowling balls. There's a significant difference between financially supporting rebels, and invading a country and incorporating large swaths of its territory.

---

A. The US invaded Mexican Territory beginning the Mexican - American War.
B. Even Abraham Lincoln ( then a congressman ) pointed out US aggression in placing Taylor' s army on Mexican soil.
C. After capturing Mexico City the US took over 25% of all Mexican Territory as part of the peace treaty.

---

Sorry, I should have been clear - I was looking for something that was a little more modern.

But in either regard, I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

---

How about when the United States invaded the Philippines to drive out the occupying Spanish. Promised the locals independence if they would join the Americans against the Spanish. Only to renege on the agreement, declare the Philippines to be a territory of the United States then fight a 3 year war against these same people. Concentration camps for civilians were eventually established and tens of thousands of the locals died of disease. Thousands of others were killed by US soldiers in combat. Independence was only granted in 1946 after the end of WW2.


Honestly believe much of Texas ( and Southern California, New Mexico ) will , voluntarily, become part of Mexico.

As my old farm foreman Santos informed me years ago …..

" We are going to breed you right out of the country "

---

I understand the point you are making. Yes, we have engaged in tactics to overthrow govts. to further our interests. And I think our interventionist policies have been disastrous at times. I much prefer what used to be the Republican policy of non-interventionism. But again, that was not an answer to any question I posed.

Let me try again: I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

A simple yes or no will do.

---

Life is never that simple and you know it.

However there are conditions on which I would be ok with it.

For that matter I would be totally ok with Mexico claiming all of California as long as the ports of San Diego, Long Beach and San Francisco were excluded.

---

Remarkable. Would it be ok for Mexico to start bombing Texas's major cities in its bid to kill its leadership and take all of Texas in the process (i.e. Russia's goal 2 years ago)?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear 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.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is….

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

The neo-Nazis are a problem in Ukraine in the same way the Biden admin tells us white supremacists are a problem in the U.S. army.

In other words, they're really not. Does the fringe Azov movement have Nazi-like elements? Yes. Is it a pervasive problem, and supported by Ukrainians leadership? Not at all.

I am shocked you bought the "rooting out Nazi" subterfuge, hook, line and sinker. And I still wonder how it fits within your just war beliefs...

---

It's not so much that the government supports them as it's intimidated by them. If they can get rid of Yanukovych they can get rid of Zelensky too. That's one of the things that makes them more than just a fringe movement. It's also one of the reasons Zelensky never implemented the Minsk Agreement even though he was elected with a mandate to do so. Your Mexico analogy overlooks the fact that everyone had agreed to autonomy for the Donbas. If we'd supported the wishes of the Ukrainian people instead of supporting these thugs, none of this would have happened. But it's what we do. We were sowing hatred and violence to hurt the Russians immediately after WWII, and we're still at it.

---

If you think it was the ultra-nationalists that had Yanukovych on the ropes, you are completely disconnected from the situation on the ground.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin. And yes, the situation in Georgia was largely the same reason, and like Ukraine, had about as much to do with preventing genocide (in fact, it was actually the other way around) as the current conflict has with rooting out neo-Nazis.

I thought you were against interventionism of that kind when it's the U.S. You've railed against our support for coups and revolutions for years. Like Atl, I am curious why it's ok if countries like Russia do it?

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear 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.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is….

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

The neo-Nazis are a problem in Ukraine in the same way the Biden admin tells us white supremacists are a problem in the U.S. army.

In other words, they're really not. Does the fringe Azov movement have Nazi-like elements? Yes. Is it a pervasive problem, and supported by Ukrainians leadership? Not at all.

I am shocked you bought the "rooting out Nazi" subterfuge, hook, line and sinker. And I still wonder how it fits within your just war beliefs...

---

It's not so much that the government supports them as it's intimidated by them. If they can get rid of Yanukovych they can get rid of Zelensky too. That's one of the things that makes them more than just a fringe movement. It's also one of the reasons Zelensky never implemented the Minsk Agreement even though he was elected with a mandate to do so. Your Mexico analogy overlooks the fact that everyone had agreed to autonomy for the Donbas. If we'd supported the wishes of the Ukrainian people instead of supporting these thugs, none of this would have happened. But it's what we do. We were sowing hatred and violence to hurt the Russians immediately after WWII, and we're still at it.

---

If you think it was the ultra-nationalists that had Yanukovych on the ropes, you are completely disconnected from the situation on the ground.

---

The same ground where Maidan was "organic" and all we did was hand out cookies? Talk about disconnected.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin. And yes, the situation in Georgia was largely the same reason, and like Ukraine, had about as much to do with preventing genocide (in fact, it was actually the other way around) as the current conflict has with rooting out neo-Nazis.

I thought you were against interventionism of that kind when it's the U.S. You've railed against our support for coups and revolutions for years. Like Atl, I am curious why it's ok if countries like Russia do it?

---

It's not who does it, it's why. Russia is protecting its own borders, not invading some place on the other side of the world.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin. And yes, the situation in Georgia was largely the same reason, and like Ukraine, had about as much to do with preventing genocide (in fact, it was actually the other way around) as the current conflict has with rooting out neo-Nazis.

I thought you were against interventionism of that kind when it's the U.S. You've railed against our support for coups and revolutions for years. Like Atl, I am curious why it's ok if countries like Russia do it?

---

It's not who does it, it's why. Russia is protecting its own borders, not invading some place on the other side of the world.

---

Ah, so if the U.S. had done this to Mexico or Canada, in that instance you would have no problem with it? It's ok to carpet bomb another country and overthrow its leadership if it is friendly with your enemy, or could act as a buffer of sorts to your enemy?

Was Russia in real danger of an invasion from NATO, Sam?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear 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.

---

This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…

---

1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis

And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.

It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down

Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.


2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"

It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?

I wonder why that is….

---

1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.

I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.

2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.

Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.

---

Ukrainian Nazis aren't a bunch of incels running around with tiki torches. They're influential enough that Zaluzhny and his men had themselves photographed with a whole roomful of fan merch and tweeted it for the world to see.

---

The neo-Nazis are a problem in Ukraine in the same way the Biden admin tells us white supremacists are a problem in the U.S. army.

In other words, they're really not. Does the fringe Azov movement have Nazi-like elements? Yes. Is it a pervasive problem, and supported by Ukrainians leadership? Not at all.

I am shocked you bought the "rooting out Nazi" subterfuge, hook, line and sinker. And I still wonder how it fits within your just war beliefs...

---

It's not so much that the government supports them as it's intimidated by them. If they can get rid of Yanukovych they can get rid of Zelensky too. That's one of the things that makes them more than just a fringe movement. It's also one of the reasons Zelensky never implemented the Minsk Agreement even though he was elected with a mandate to do so. Your Mexico analogy overlooks the fact that everyone had agreed to autonomy for the Donbas. If we'd supported the wishes of the Ukrainian people instead of supporting these thugs, none of this would have happened. But it's what we do. We were sowing hatred and violence to hurt the Russians immediately after WWII, and we're still at it.

---

If you think it was the ultra-nationalists that had Yanukovych on the ropes, you are completely disconnected from the situation on the ground.

---

The same ground where Maidan was "organic" and all we did was hand out cookies? Talk about disconnected.

---

Keep grinding for Vlad, Sam.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

---

We already invaded both Canada and Mexico many times in the past....and something like having a hostile military alliance on our doorstep was not even a thing at the time.

Lets be real.

If DC will bomb Serbia and invade places like Iraq to regime change...we would certainly regime change in our own back yard

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe.

---

That is certainly a politically correct way of framing what happened....and certainly the kind of spin you would want to put on events if you worked for an outfit in DC

Some might also say it was a standard color revolution sponsored by clandestine organizations in the West (both governmental & NGOs) using a faction of Ukrainian's as the street muscle

https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/debating-the-color-revolutions-what-are-we-trying-to-explain/

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240540.shtml

[Whether it is the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia in 2003, the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine in 2004, the "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan in 2005, or the "Arab Spring" in Asia and Africa in 2011, the past decades have seen the US plan and implement "color revolutions," or wars without gunpowder in many places around the world, frantically exporting "American values."

Instead of launching military operations directly in the name of "democracy," the US prefers to use color revolutions as a tool to intervene in other countries' internal affairs to subvert governments in order to reinforce its global control, which the US has found more efficient and economical.

It is estimated that in the past three decades, among all the toppled governments, those that were subverted by such "non-violent revolutions" accounted for more than 90 percent.

Before that, during the Cold War, the US engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change, according to Covert Regime Change: America's Secret Cold War, by Lindsey A. O'Rourke.]

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

When Columbia raised their price and terms for a lease across the Isthmus of Panama for a US canal; Teddy Roosevelt landed US troops and provided cash to Panamanian revolutionaries

With such aid Panama easily won independence from Columbia and immediately signed a treaty with the US giving Roosevelt the right to build and control the Panama Canal on extremely favorable terms.......

to the United States.

---

Apples to bowling balls. There's a significant difference between financially supporting rebels, and invading a country and incorporating large swaths of its territory.

---

A. The US invaded Mexican Territory beginning the Mexican - American War.
B. Even Abraham Lincoln ( then a congressman ) pointed out US aggression in placing Taylor' s army on Mexican soil.
C. After capturing Mexico City the US took over 25% of all Mexican Territory as part of the peace treaty.

---

Sorry, I should have been clear - I was looking for something that was a little more modern.

But in either regard, I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

---

How about when the United States invaded the Philippines to drive out the occupying Spanish. Promised the locals independence if they would join the Americans against the Spanish. Only to renege on the agreement, declare the Philippines to be a territory of the United States then fight a 3 year war against these same people. Concentration camps for civilians were eventually established and tens of thousands of the locals died of disease. Thousands of others were killed by US soldiers in combat. Independence was only granted in 1946 after the end of WW2.


Honestly believe much of Texas ( and Southern California, New Mexico ) will , voluntarily, become part of Mexico.

As my old farm foreman Santos informed me years ago …..

" We are going to breed you right out of the country "

---

I understand the point you are making. Yes, we have engaged in tactics to overthrow govts. to further our interests. And I think our interventionist policies have been disastrous at times. I much prefer what used to be the Republican policy of non-interventionism. But again, that was not an answer to any question I posed.

Let me try again: I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

A simple yes or no will do.

---

Life is never that simple and you know it.

However there are conditions on which I would be ok with it.

For that matter I would be totally ok with Mexico claiming all of California as long as the ports of San Diego, Long Beach and San Francisco were excluded.

---

Remarkable. Would it be ok for Mexico to start bombing Texas's major cities in its bid to kill its leadership and take all of Texas in the process (i.e. Russia's goal 2 years ago)?

---

You realize of course that the CIA assassinated the leadership
of other countries over the last 70 years ?

The US has attempted to kill several others and failed.

Even today , the US is using drones, missiles and fighter aircraft to 'eliminate' people we don't like while these individuals are residing in other sovereign countries.

Can you imagine the outrage if any other countries routinely killed individuals within the US ?

Why we're helping Ukraine fight:

I suspect that one of the purposes the war has been extended - is for America to ensure the total annihilation of Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime - and to…

— Adam Townsend (@adamscrabble) February 10, 2024

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

When Columbia raised their price and terms for a lease across the Isthmus of Panama for a US canal; Teddy Roosevelt landed US troops and provided cash to Panamanian revolutionaries

With such aid Panama easily won independence from Columbia and immediately signed a treaty with the US giving Roosevelt the right to build and control the Panama Canal on extremely favorable terms.......

to the United States.

---

Apples to bowling balls. There's a significant difference between financially supporting rebels, and invading a country and incorporating large swaths of its territory.

---

A. The US invaded Mexican Territory beginning the Mexican - American War.
B. Even Abraham Lincoln ( then a congressman ) pointed out US aggression in placing Taylor' s army on Mexican soil.
C. After capturing Mexico City the US took over 25% of all Mexican Territory as part of the peace treaty.

---

Sorry, I should have been clear - I was looking for something that was a little more modern.

But in either regard, I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

---

How about when the United States invaded the Philippines to drive out the occupying Spanish. Promised the locals independence if they would join the Americans against the Spanish. Only to renege on the agreement, declare the Philippines to be a territory of the United States then fight a 3 year war against these same people. Concentration camps for civilians were eventually established and tens of thousands of the locals died of disease. Thousands of others were killed by US soldiers in combat. Independence was only granted in 1946 after the end of WW2.


Honestly believe much of Texas ( and Southern California, New Mexico ) will , voluntarily, become part of Mexico.

As my old farm foreman Santos informed me years ago …..

" We are going to breed you right out of the country "

---

I understand the point you are making. Yes, we have engaged in tactics to overthrow govts. to further our interests. And I think our interventionist policies have been disastrous at times. I much prefer what used to be the Republican policy of non-interventionism. But again, that was not an answer to any question I posed.

Let me try again: I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

A simple yes or no will do.

---

Life is never that simple and you know it.

However there are conditions on which I would be ok with it.

For that matter I would be totally ok with Mexico claiming all of California as long as the ports of San Diego, Long Beach and San Francisco were excluded.

---

Remarkable. Would it be ok for Mexico to start bombing Texas's major cities in its bid to kill its leadership and take all of Texas in the process (i.e. Russia's goal 2 years ago)?

---

You realize of course that the CIA assassinated the leadership
of other countries over the last 70 years ?

The US has attempted to kill several others and failed.

Even today , the US is using drones, missiles and fighter aircraft to 'eliminate' people we don't like while these individuals are residing in other sovereign countries.

Can you imagine the outrage if any other countries routinely killed individuals within the US ?

---

As a side note...interestingly enough that as the USA and Canada now have a basic open immigration system we are now witnessing other nations assassinate or attempt to assassinate people here on our home turf.

[That period coincides with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit in June to Washington. But things changed on June 18, when masked gunmen murdered Hardeep Singh Nijjar outside a Sikh temple in British Columbia, says the indictment]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-unseals-indictment-sikh-killings-1.7043428#:~:text=That%20period%20coincides%20with%20Prime,British%20Columbia%2C%20says%20the%20indictment.

[Two individuals have been charged in New York for their alleged participation in a plot directed by elements of the Iranian government to murder the Saudi Ambassador to the United States with explosives while the Ambassador was in the United States.]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-men-charged-alleged-plot-assassinate-saudi-arabian-ambassador-united-states

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why we're helping Ukraine fight:

I suspect that one of the purposes the war has been extended - is for America to ensure the total annihilation of Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime - and to…

— Adam Townsend (@adamscrabble) February 10, 2024

---

Basically any fighting age Ukrainian men who would have a problem with their boys being propagandized into becoming girls and girls to boys.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Why we're helping Ukraine fight:

I suspect that one of the purposes the war has been extended - is for America to ensure the total annihilation of Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime - and to…

— Adam Townsend (@adamscrabble) February 10, 2024

---

Basically any fighting age Ukrainian men who would have a problem with their boys being propagandized into becoming girls and girls to boys.

---

Blackrock is already committed to investing $400 billion into Ukraine. They will own the whole damn country along with all the other banks and corporations that will absorb the spoils of war. Ukraine has some of the largest farming acreage on the planet. Putting Ukrainians through the meat grinder makes that process much faster.

It's been obvious for a while that the process of westernizing Ukraine has been ongoing long before the war. That's a huge problem for Russia if Ukraine is part of NATO and armed to the teeth with the help of the US seeking to destabilize Russia and eventually topple it.

Putin is gambling and being proactive. He knows he's helping the west achieve this process faster through the death of Ukrainian men…but he's hoping he actually wins and keeps the west from essentially capturing Ukraine.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

---

We already invaded both Canada and Mexico many times in the past....and something like having a hostile military alliance on our doorstep was not even a thing at the time.

Lets be real.

If DC will bomb Serbia and invade places like Iraq to regime change...we would certainly regime change in our own back yard

---

I didn't ask what we had done in the past. I asked if you would be ok with my hypothetical. Well?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

A few questions:

1) Please describe the facts you believe I have omitted. I suspect I know where you're going with the "Anglo population under attack" language, but I want to see if you're going to repeat more unsupported Russian propaganda.

2) "Involved." Well, that is an interesting term. How do you believe we were "involved"?

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

We are at a true democracy. We are republic.

---

How do you think that Republic was created?

Through secession (and war) from the British State.

---

True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?

---

Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"


The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.

And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.

---

I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.

---

The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off

We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.

Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?

How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?

---

A moral equivalency argument?

Meh. That's not very persuasive. I don't agree with your position that outside actors should invade other countries to support secessionist movements.

---

When Columbia raised their price and terms for a lease across the Isthmus of Panama for a US canal; Teddy Roosevelt landed US troops and provided cash to Panamanian revolutionaries

With such aid Panama easily won independence from Columbia and immediately signed a treaty with the US giving Roosevelt the right to build and control the Panama Canal on extremely favorable terms.......

to the United States.

---

Apples to bowling balls. There's a significant difference between financially supporting rebels, and invading a country and incorporating large swaths of its territory.

---

A. The US invaded Mexican Territory beginning the Mexican - American War.
B. Even Abraham Lincoln ( then a congressman ) pointed out US aggression in placing Taylor' s army on Mexican soil.
C. After capturing Mexico City the US took over 25% of all Mexican Territory as part of the peace treaty.

---

Sorry, I should have been clear - I was looking for something that was a little more modern.

But in either regard, I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

---

How about when the United States invaded the Philippines to drive out the occupying Spanish. Promised the locals independence if they would join the Americans against the Spanish. Only to renege on the agreement, declare the Philippines to be a territory of the United States then fight a 3 year war against these same people. Concentration camps for civilians were eventually established and tens of thousands of the locals died of disease. Thousands of others were killed by US soldiers in combat. Independence was only granted in 1946 after the end of WW2.


Honestly believe much of Texas ( and Southern California, New Mexico ) will , voluntarily, become part of Mexico.

As my old farm foreman Santos informed me years ago …..

" We are going to breed you right out of the country "

---

I understand the point you are making. Yes, we have engaged in tactics to overthrow govts. to further our interests. And I think our interventionist policies have been disastrous at times. I much prefer what used to be the Republican policy of non-interventionism. But again, that was not an answer to any question I posed.

Let me try again: I take it you'd be cool then if Mexico had the ability and did in fact take the valley by force?

A simple yes or no will do.

---

Life is never that simple and you know it.

However there are conditions on which I would be ok with it.

For that matter I would be totally ok with Mexico claiming all of California as long as the ports of San Diego, Long Beach and San Francisco were excluded.

---

Remarkable. Would it be ok for Mexico to start bombing Texas's major cities in its bid to kill its leadership and take all of Texas in the process (i.e. Russia's goal 2 years ago)?

---

You realize of course that the CIA assassinated the leadership
of other countries over the last 70 years ?

The US has attempted to kill several others and failed.

Even today , the US is using drones, missiles and fighter aircraft to 'eliminate' people we don't like while these individuals are residing in other sovereign countries.

Can you imagine the outrage if any other countries routinely killed individuals within the US ?

---

I am sorry, but I am once again unclear how that answers my question. Again, I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make, but my question is different. Let me know if you decide to answer.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe.

---

That is certainly a politically correct way of framing what happened....and certainly the kind of spin you would want to put on events if you worked for an outfit in DC

Some might also say it was a standard color revolution sponsored by clandestine organizations in the West (both governmental & NGOs) using a faction of Ukrainian's as the street muscle

https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/debating-the-color-revolutions-what-are-we-trying-to-explain/

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1240540.shtml

[Whether it is the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia in 2003, the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine in 2004, the "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan in 2005, or the "Arab Spring" in Asia and Africa in 2011, the past decades have seen the US plan and implement "color revolutions," or wars without gunpowder in many places around the world, frantically exporting "American values."

Instead of launching military operations directly in the name of "democracy," the US prefers to use color revolutions as a tool to intervene in other countries' internal affairs to subvert governments in order to reinforce its global control, which the US has found more efficient and economical.

It is estimated that in the past three decades, among all the toppled governments, those that were subverted by such "non-violent revolutions" accounted for more than 90 percent.

Before that, during the Cold War, the US engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change, according to Covert Regime Change: America's Secret Cold War, by Lindsey A. O'Rourke.]

---

Please lay out the timelines and facts of a U.S. led coup in Ukraine. I'll take just 2014, but feel free to include 2004.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

How were we involved? We got involved after Russia invaded Crimea, but what was done in 2013?

Russian soldier from the 1st Kantemirovsky Tank Regiment captured by the Ukrainians in the Luhansk region.

He was sent there by Putin to “de-nazify” Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/x1BW3wqTXf

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 12, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

Exactly


Ask any college educated Mexican what they feel about giving up 25% of their territory to the United States just to get the yankee army out of their country .

Ask Germans about the Dresden fire bombing or the Japanese about the atomic bomb attacks.

Tell the Iraqis and Syrians how noble the US is when our laser guided missiles wipe out hundreds of civilians deep in a bomb shelter.

It's all about perspective, ours versus that of the rest of the world.

Is the US better than the communists, better than nazis , better than Putin ?

Absolutely

But let's not get amnesia about our own travesties.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I simply find it incredible that he finds Putin's beliefs that Ukraine shouldn't exist "sincere," as if that somehow operates as an excuse or justification, as Tucker seems to suggest.

---

He doesn't. Putin specifically said he has no problem with Ukrainian independence.

---

LOL.

He also spent about 25 minutes of the interview essentially explaining why Ukraine should never exist. Given that 2 years ago he tried to take down Kyiv and assassinate Ukrainian leadership, I am sure we should take him at his word. I am sure he meant that.

---

I know, I know…"but but the history lecture!" Can you not think of any reason he'd want to preface the discussion that way? Or is he just a really stupid guy who "accidentally" said the quiet part out loud for half an hour?

---

Would you agree with me that actions speak louder than words? If so, the problem with taking Putin at his word is we put the two together, as we should, his actions bely his words, and as most well know, the man lies constantly.

Let's begin with Putin falsely accusing Georgia of committing genocide and aggression against South Ossetia and his launching of a full-scale land, air and sea invasion, which resulted in the Russian occupation (and de facto incorporation) of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Everyone in the world of course realizes that was a false flag operation, but it did result in what was essentially incorporation of these strategically important areas. And then of course we had Crimea a few years later, and now all of Ukraine under attack by Russian forces.

That is the problem with taking Putin at his word, Sam, and not listening to ALL of his words. Putin did say the quiet part out loud, and he has shown that with his actions.

---

Much has been made of the fact that Crimea was content with the status quo prior to 2014. Here's what's going to blow your mind: despite their alleged territorial ambitions, so were the Russians. What changed?

Georgia was a similar situation to Ukraine. Russia tolerated NATO expansion to a great extent, but they always made it clear that Georgia was off limits.

---

The "coup" of course (or if you prefer, the generally non-violent occupation of Ukraine's govt. buildings) which resulted in the replacement of the pro-Russian govt. with the pro-European govt. - an executable offense to Putin.

---

A coup that replaced the current government in Ottawa or Mexico City with a pro-Chinese communist party would also be completely unacceptable offense to our rulers in DC

If we want to overthrow governments around Russia and China...then fine

But we can't exactly complain when they respond with military force.

After all we sent in troops to regime change Iraq....and that country was on the other side of the planet from us.

---

So in that instance, you would be ok with us invading Canada and Mexico, carpet bombing their cities, and overthrowing their govts.?

Contrary to your assertions, the 2014 uprising wasn't a US or European led "coup." It was organic, composed of mostly younger Ukrainians who were unhappy that the regime in place at that time wouldn't vote on free trade agreements and a closer association with Europe. Thankfully, we were not involved, and neither was Europe. So this is another apples to oranges comparison.

---

It depends. For example, is there a large Anglo population under attack by the Mexican army? Your scenario omits almost all of the pertinent facts.

The idea that we weren't involved in Maidan is just ridiculous. If that's what you believe, I can see why you don't think Russia was under threat. In fact we were involved, and Russia had every reason to believe we'd do more of the same. The presence of a large army to back up any regime change effort in Russia significantly increases that threat. Remember when Biden stated that Putin can't remain in power? He said it after the war started, but it was no surprise to anyone who was paying attention, particularly not in Russia. They are taking him at his word.

---

I'm still waiting on someone to tell us exactly how we were involved in Maidan aside from that nothingburger Nuland the Conqueror phone call.

sombear said:

---

Russian soldier from the 1st Kantemirovsky Tank Regiment captured by the Ukrainians in the Luhansk region.

He was sent there by Putin to “de-nazify” Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/x1BW3wqTXf

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 12, 2024

---

This would be an example of the smoking gun fallacy which ATLBear tried (and failed) to identify in my earlier post. I'm sure there are American servicemen with similar sympathies, but they're not part of an organized movement with any real influence. That's the difference. You don't see Milley or Austin flaunting Nazi symbolism like Zaluzhny did (which was also an implicit threat to Zelensky, by the way).

It's worth noting that Putin rose to power in 1999 and since then, Russian police, FSB and GRU have tolerated violence and terrorism coming from the far-right as long as it's not anti-Putin and/or pro-Ukraine.https://t.co/0a4ocbfVuN

6/12 pic.twitter.com/L1baSA13VE

— Pekka Kallioniemi (@P_Kallioniemi) November 28, 2022

A neo-nazi group Russkii Obraz has received official government support. Russkii Obraz also has ties to far-right terrorist group BORN. A far-right motorcycle gang Night Wolves have been in close relations with Putin, and they have even appeared on a children's TV show.

7/12 pic.twitter.com/5NjX3Do725

— Pekka Kallioniemi (@P_Kallioniemi) November 28, 2022

This is all a part of Kremlin funded "managed nationalism" program which supports actual
far-right actors and organizations. Robert Horvath (@RG_Horvath) has written an excellent book on the subject: https://t.co/wHbupy35n5

8/12

— Pekka Kallioniemi (@P_Kallioniemi) November 28, 2022

🇷🇺 army is also infested with actual neo-nazis.Rusich group that was fighting in Donbas in '14-'15 was led by Alexei Milchakov: https://t.co/LdSMgZ3Bjf
Prigozhin's mercenary army was led by Dmitry Utkin who has Waffen SS and other nazi symbols tattooed on his body.

9/12 pic.twitter.com/ordEL8HA6l

— Pekka Kallioniemi (@P_Kallioniemi) November 28, 2022

In the Russian propaganda "Neo-Nazis" are a synonym with the ZSU, volunteer battalions, and territorial defense forces. The goal with this rhetoric is to dehumanize the enemy: everybody hates nazis, and they SHOULD be treated badly and even killed.

11/12 pic.twitter.com/F3lfVvcxUG

— Pekka Kallioniemi (@P_Kallioniemi) November 28, 2022