News2Share captures hundreds of protesters marching to the White House to ask Joe Biden to deliver more support for Ukraine, and antiwar actions involving Code Pink, ANSWER Coalition, and other groups
More support for Ukraine? For what . . . so they can keep up bombing in Dombas?! These people need to stop watching TV "news" (curtesy of our State Department). Putin recognized two states which voted for secession. I have no problem with self rule. Maybe these folks should review the history of Texas (or Kosovo . . . or the USA).
I wonder if China overthrew the Canadian government and threatened to bring them into their mutual defense alliance, and Alberta voted to secede, what FedGov would do about it.
The Biden Administration would welcome the Chinese dictators warmly. Hunter Biden would be named ambassador to Canada. Chinese elite have paid some $31 million to Hunter and the Bidens
By Peter Schweizer
January 27, 2022
For those wondering why Joe Biden is soft on China, consider this never-before-reported revelation: The Biden family has done five deals in China totaling some $31 million arranged by individuals with direct ties to Chinese intelligence — some reaching the very top of China’s spy agency.
"The Biden Administration would welcome the Chinese dictators warmly. Hunter Biden would be named ambassador to Canada. Chinese elite have paid some $31 million to Hunter and the Bidens."
That's just clownish. GOP partisan agitprop. I read your article link; it doesn't say what you claim it to say.
Can everyone please stop the hype? You're hurting America.
Hype??! Did Hunter do big money deals in China or not? Was he a financial wizard or not? Did he utilize his fathers influence or not? Is he a sleazy do anything for a buck guy?
GOP partisan agitprop or just inconvenient truths uncovered by actual journalists? Do people commenting on apparent corruption hurt America or is it the money grubbing politicians and sports figures that actually harm their own nation? Lot of questions few answers.
Never said he reaped a particular amount of money. But what number would you consider important in the Biden families dealings with China. Murky insinuations? Really just questions people might consider or the media might ask old Joe about if they were even a bit curious. Bet you are still pushing the Russian hoax. Love to see your posts on that pile of trash over the last few years. Fantasies die hard.
Thanks for the inspiration. I know the truth of the American invasion.
I love America but Land of the Free and the home of the brave seem more than pathetic. The words of that slave driver written below the walls of Fort McHenry seem bathetic to this old troll.
This song seems almost as old as Key's homage to slavery but better expresses why I still love America even if it uses electricity to lit up the darkness
My wife's uncle died in Corpus Christi and he was a truthteller When I want to cry I listen to real history. You can't change history but at least we don't have to repeat it when we know the real truth.
I suspect by the name you may be of catholic heritage. Some of my best friends were Jesuit priests and they loved to visit so they could speak their truths. They knew Jews don't proselytize.
My wife was born in Nashville but my father in law was run out of town for speaking truth to power when he talked to the Democratic governor about corruption so very long ago
La plus ca change.
If my father in law hadn't been told to leave I would not be the happiest troll in the universe.
Crucification is such a terrible way to go defending truth.
My wife and I will die in real democracy and real freedom where truth is the only commandment.
America can be the real bastion of freedom when truth sets it free.
I don't understand the analogy. The Mandarins fled Mao and the Formosans gave them sanctuary. What this looks like is America invading Mexico. It was the end of Texas' evolution of civilization.
Given the number of Mexicans who have "invaded" the southwest by entering illegally, one wonders if US should have invaded Mexico when it had the chance and "Americanized" Mexico as Mexicans themselves seem to want to do evidenced by extraordinary efforts they make to enter this country illegally at great physical risk.
I think Mexicans want to be "Americanized" although I am afraid Americans have lost confidence in themselves and their culture. Oddly, Mexicans may see the value of our culture and economic system better than we do.
The increase in immigration can be traced directly to American foreign policy, such as our "war on drugs" and our support of right-wing governments in our fight against "communism". They wouldn't be coming here if their countries were not hotbeds of violence and dysfunction.
A hostile foreign power with weapons in Canada and Mexico or in Cuba is the obvious analogy.
There were valid reasons for "The Monroe Doctrine" which remain valid today as we are learning from feckless Western leadership that has lost its will.
"A hostile foreign power with weapons in Canada and Mexico or in Cuba is the obvious analogy."
Not really as it is Russia that sees a threat in NATO expansion into what was its buffer zone between it and Europe. If you're referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets placed missiles in Cuba in response to us placing missiles in Turkey. We started the Cold War, they didn't. We started this mess because we promised not to expand NATO eastward then we did. NATO's only function was to oppose Russian, Soviet, expansion that it never had a policy to do.
We belong to NATO even if the Soviet Union no longer exists. We are threatened by only one country and NATO's charter protects us from outside aggression and as much as I love Alberta its largest immigrant group came from the American Midwest.
"There were valid reasons for "The Monroe Doctrine" which remain valid today as we are learning from feckless Western leadership that has lost its will."
The problem isn't feckless leadership, as in defense, it was never recognizing that a) the Soviets were never a threat and (b) they had valid border security concerns that translate true with the Russians who simply replaced the Soviets in American minds. All we needed to do was enter into a security treaty with Russia that included nonagression agreements with those countries on their border that secured their security and border integrity.
How does your analysis differ from President Putin’s stated views? Or the views of the Bolsheviks who preceded him.
The Bolshevik USSR was expansionist, imperialist, ideological, supremacist, totalitarian, very violent and saw the USA not only as a military threat but as a threat to the ideology, philosophy and policies of Bolshevism.
The Bolsheiviks exported their policies with violence. The history of eastern Europe proves this irrefutably.
It is worth remembering that the Bolsheviks enabled not only the NAZIs rise to power but traded with the NAZIs and actively cooperated with the NAZI’s re-armamament in violation Versailles Treaty.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Treaty was signed in 23August 1939; on 1 September 1939 the NAZIs invaded Poland from the west and on 16 September 1939 Bolsheviks invaded Poland from the east. This was the beginning of WWII; with NAZI and Bolshevik aggression against an independent Poland ( which posed no miliary threat to eith NAZIs or Bolsheviks) remained under Bolshevik control until November 1989 when it became free after the Berlin Wall on 9 November that separated Bolshevik Germany from Free Germany.
The Bolsheviks may be gone (or not) but Bolsheivik thinking remains.
The question is why you don't seem to understand that Russia was invaded by European countries and has legitimate security concerns with regards to NATO.
They would do what they did when we had our referendum and let the people decide.
We have come a long way baby.
I remember Blair saying "One is too many" and the great Canadian historian Irving Abela telling me the story. He is married to the great Supreme Court Justice ret. Rosalie Silberman Abela who was born in a DP camp after WWII.
She is worth listening to she is a champion of truth and reconciliation.
We can not change the past it so often seems too difficult to create a better future.
I was reborn in Calgary when I was in my thirties and I may not like their politics but I believe in democracy and believe they know what they want. I am not a Christian but my brother Jesus told me to follow my heart and I am one happy old geezer living in the land of my birth. I was born in an other Quebec and freedom and democracy sure tastes good even with the occasional worm in the apple.
When the Soviet Union dissolved, our only concern essentially was that they open markets. Now we're reaping the rewards of our stupid, greedy policies. All we needed to do was dissolve NATO and reconfigure security that included Russia and brought it into the West, but we didn't.
Odd how you can't reply to what I posted. You are a great example of what's wrong with American foreign policy, controlled by reactionaries who operate from within a very narrow, ill-informed world view.
see above. I did respond on point. Putin's Russian Federation is as violent and expansionist as Bolshevik USSR. It is surprising how many still remain sympathetic to Bolshevism. A Dupe or a Fellow Traveler? It is difficult to tell.
You didn't though. Russia was invaded by European countries. It wanted a buffer zone between it and Europe. The Soviets were never a threat and had no military plans for world domination. The US created the Cold War because it was paranoid about communism in that it had the audacity to posit that workers should control their own lives instead of the wealthy elite. The problem is the conservative world view, always has been.
The Bolshevik policy was world domination. and was a threat to the USA. It was explicitly stated and it was acted upon. It was the Leninist-Stalinist-Bolshevik world view and Bolshevism was expoerted, see Cuba as an example.
In thinking more about this, I do NOT think that Vladimir Putin and today's Russian Federation shares that view.
As evidence increases, it appears that Putin's moves may well be defensive. It is very difficult to determine another person's intentions. It is clear that US interfered in the internal affairs of Ukraine aggressively. The Russian Federation may well have had reasons for concern and have concluded that the purpose of the intervention was "regime change" as the President said a few days ago.
I'd quibble with you on just one aspect: it's no longer "odd" how the (now so-called Left) adopts the views of the authoritarian Putin. On the contrary, authoritarian--their own version of that--is precisely what the now-so-called-Left is all about.
I believe the following excerpt should interest you---(the now-so-called-"Left", not so much):
… “The possibility of an effective international agreement to prohibit nuclear weapons must be recognized as very remote. But under the circumstances of nuclear stalemate through mutual deterrence, the United States might forego use of nuclear retaliation if the (Russian) provocation were clearly to involve less than a directly mortal threat. ...
...The (Russians) recognize the value of exploiting this situation. The first objective presumably is the isolation of (those countries) from (any present or future) strategic alliance (with) the United States. ...
...The (Russian) objective is expansion of power and influence, but only by ways in which (Russia) itself is not risked as the stake in an 'adventure.' ...(I)f nuclear weapons create a recognized stalemate, this stalemate would serve as a shield behind which …
...(Russian) conventional military power could,, through threat and possibly in actual limited wars, be used to expand (Russian) control at much reduced risk (to itself). …
... (T)here are cogent reasons for believing that (Russia) believes its greatest advantage would be served by avoiding thermonuclear war and using her growing nuclear striking power to stalemate American deterrent power, and then to take advantage of this neutralization for purposes of gradual and probable indirect aggrandizement. …
... (T)he possibility of a major non-nuclear war in Europe remains strong enough—and may increase in likelihood—so that the question of preparation for waging such a war should concern all great powers. The (Russians) realize this and plan accordingly. …
... (T)here is one (potential) case of a major, though not world, war under which the (Russians) may attempt to place the West in a position where we will not use nuclear weapons: a major (Russian) challenge which they deem insufficient to provoke us to all-out massive retaliation under prevailing circumstances of mutual strategic deterrence. Thus, at some time, the (Russians) might launch a non-nuclear attack on (Germany), or on Western Europe in general, if they had been led to judge mutual deterrence to be so strong a restraint on American action that we would withhold our nuclear fire in response to such a major (italic emph.) _conventional_ attack in which neither major protagonist was directly threatened. This might at the least present us—and the people of the area involved—with a most difficult choice, and conceivably lead us, in line with (Russian) expectations, to forego our relative advantage in the use of nuclear weapons and to fight a major non-nuclear war. …
(The Russians) might well anticipate enormous gains in Europe and other areas on the Eurasian periphery. And, (italic emph.) _so long as the mutual deterrence was maintained,_ these gains could be made at assumable—indeed minimum—risks.”
(end of excerpt)
You'd be forgiven if you assumed that the foregoing was taken from some recent specialist analysis of Russian-U.S. relations. Rather, it's from a work written between 1955 and 1958 and published in that year, "Soviet Strategy in the Nuclear Age" (Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., New York) by Raymond L. Garthoff. I'd replaced all Garthoff's uses of "Soviet" with "Russia" or "Russian(s)" to highlight its enduring accuracy.
Who, today, should guess that these next excerpts, from the same work,
..."the term 'military target' applies to munitions plants, to naval bases, and to railway junctions, all of which are so often situated within the limits of densely populated cities. So it is obvious that the use of tactical nuclear weapons against such targets must inevitably result in immense loss of life among civilians." ... (1)
and
..."In modern war, hostilities extend over huge areas. The zone of combat operations, and, consequently, of the use of armaments, includes a front line running for hundreds and thousands of miles and extending to a depth of at least 300 to 400 miles on both sides of the front, from the line of direct contact of the troops. The aggressive elements who are preparing atomic war do not intend to wage it in the deserts of Arabia, the pampas of Argentina, or even in our Siberian taiga. They are preaparing to carry it out in Europe with its dense population, which in some areas reaches two hundred and even more people per square mile. Can it be imagined that in these conditions war and atomic attacks would ne limited only to the zone of operations of the troops and would not affect the civilian population? In present conditions, the density of the troops, at least in the case of defense, will frequently be much less than the density of the population in the same area adjacent to the field of battle, and the victims among the civilians would be incalculable just as the destruction would be inevitably immense. ... (ital. emphas.) there is no difference in the tactical and strategic use of atomic weapons, nor could there be any.
And, what is more important, from the standpoint of the population subjected to atomic attack, there would hardly be any difference whether it is killed by a tactical or a strategic bomb. Both the strategic and the tactical means of atomic attack are equally barbarous weapons of mass destruction which would spell death to millions of people." (2)
(and)
"It is to be recalled that both world wars started as limited military action, i.e., in their beginning both were local wars. In our time rapid development of military technology it will be even an more difficult task to put any limits on an armed conflict it this conflict starts in any single region." (3)
These were authored & published statements fromSoviet Generals, (circa 1950s) the authors were, respectively,
(1) Major General Konstantin Dmitriyevich Orlov (Константин Дмитриевич Орлов), ("Tactical Atomic Warfare Talk Abroad" (“Тактические разговоры об атомной войне за рубежом”) Radio Moscow, 13 April 1955 (Радио Москвы 13 апреля 1955));
(2) Nikolai Talensky (Николай Таленский), (USSR Major-General, USSR General Staff. Doctor of History Science; Professor; Voroshilov Higher Military Academy ) in International Affairs, No. 1, January 1955.
(3) Premier Nikita Khrushchev, letter to the British Labour Party, October 1957, quoted in The New York Times, 16 October, 1957.
You'd understand that the left isn't "sympathetic to Authoritarian governments" if you weren't so busy trolling and spreading Russian propaganda, you clownish Kremlin stooge.
I guess they'd manage it the same way they went on "ma(king) their quarterly dividend payments" when the U.S. left the League of Nations.
By the way, the Oxford Union phoned--from 1933. They wanted to inform you that they received your duly-sworn oath-- by which you invited Western Civilization to go to blazes-- in the post. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Oath) LOL!
Speaking of "dividend payments," it seems you know where to look for yours, huh?
There was no U.S. military industrial complex until WWII. Since then, it's been one endless American imperial war paid for by American tax donkeys and dumb 19 year olds.
So, if Michigan and Montana voted to opt out of the United States and become part of Canada instead ... you'd expect the United States to do nothing about it? If Texas voted to go back to Mexico, you'd be fine? I don't think so.
I'd definitely expect the US to do something about it. But if Russia or China sent weapons and trained troops and sanctioned one side or the other I'd tell them it is none of their damn business - exactly how it is none of the US' business what is going on in Ukraine.
Would you make the same argument if Putin decided to invade Poland, Germany, France, or Britain? It's their problem and we should stay out of it?
Personally, I lean toward a "Let Europe deal with Europe" stance--they have money and troops, they can protect Ukraine if they want. Then I think of all the times Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks if met with a firm and united "this far and no father," and because Chamberlain et al didn't do that, the United States wound up in the middle of the world wars anyway.
So I'm genuinely torn as to whether we should let Europe deal with this and concentrate on fixing our own mounting problems--or to intervene because if left unchecked this invasion will become our problem at some point and it's easier to deal with it now.
To answer your first question, "No." Those countries were never a part of the Russian empire, or the Soviet Union for centuries/decades. Those countries do not contain large percentages of ethnic Russians who identify as Russians. Those countries do not contain federal counties/states that have tried multiple times to leave their respective countries to become part of Russia.
Your comparison is Bush Jr. level sophomoric.
Putin is not a good guy, but he is not Hitler. This is another disengenous argument.
Hitler was discussing how Jews needed to be wiped out of Europe from his earliest days in writing (the 1920s). Hitler was preaching about how Germany needed to be avenged from "the stab in the back" in Versailles also from his first days. Hitler came to power in 33, and within 5 years he annexed the Sudetenland.
When Hitler did that he immediately ethnically cleansed the Sudetenland as well as rounding up any men born in 1921 and shipped them to concentration camps (which the allies knew about). My wife's grandfather was among those shipped off to Buchenwald, so I've done a shitton of research on this.
When Hitler annexed Austria (where I live) they immediately rounded up the Jews (and lots of others), took their property and shipped them off to concentration camps.
Putin has been in power since 1999. So by your comparison to Hitler, around 2004 he should have been annexing other countries for "Lebensraum," then ethnically cleansed those countries. He should have been shipping the undesireables off to concentration camps to work as slave labor until the died of exhaustion for the last 15+ years. Putin is not Hitler. Again, not a good guy, but not Hitler.
The French invaded Russia (Napoleon). The US invaded Russia to restore the Tsars. The Germans invaded Russia - and by now the Russians know damn well that the allies were happy to let the Russians get slaughtered rather than help on the Eastern Front.
Stalin was a fucking brutal monster, but I understand the desire of Russia after WWII to have buffer states to stop the West from invading - again.
Documentation of the explicit promise by the West NOT to expand Nato past the Elbe has recently been found. We gave an explicit promise to Russia - "this far and no farther" and in the 30 years since, we have expanded NATO five times.
Then we backed a coup (maybe even forced it) in 2014 to overthrow the democratically elected (and yes, massively corrupt) gov't in the Ukraine because we didn't like that they wouldn't accept western terms.
Where was the "this far and no farther" then? That doesn't apply to us?
When exactly do you think this would become a problem for the US? Seriously? Does anyone actually think Putin's plan is to take over the EU? Invade the US?
We're definitely in a pickle now, no doubt about it. But what we don't need is 1950s "domino theory" rhetoric. Particularly since Russia is now capitalist.
But in specific. Even though I'm against the idea of Ukraine becoming in whole a part of Russia, it is not up to us.
I reject the idea - in part - that it will be a bigger problem later, as in general since the fall of the Soviet Union the world - including the west - has gotten worse, not better. Income inequality is worse in the US than in 1991. Infant mortality. Student debt. Political corrtuption. We have scrapped the weapons bans we had with Russia. Etc. etc. I do not see the world as a better or safer place since the US became the sole superpower.
I say "in part" referring back to the domino theory. The Donbas is not Ukraine. The Donbas wants to be part of Russia. As far as my understanding of the Ukrainian constitution goes, the Donbas should be able to secede and become part of Russia.
To extrapolate from - "two counties in Ukraine that were historically part of Russia, were part of the USSR, and have tried to leave Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR" to - "Putin is Hitler and is going to take over Eastern Europe" is unbelievably simplistic and facile logic.
William, I apologize for my sarcasm and anger. I really shouldn't be venting my spleen on you like this, but this situation hits close to home and pisses me the fuck off. I should rewrite my entire comment to make it less ascerbic, but I just don't have time tonight. I've got to get back to making memes for Russia to undermine US democracy ;-) (more sarcasm!!!)
Wow! Superb writing, clear analysis. Thanks for the good job. I would like to offer, however, that there is no need for Putin to be a "good guy" as I often hear that "Putin is not a good guy." First, most of what the Americans know about Putin is tainted by animus; second, the last thing we should want is for a world leader to try to be a "good guy" as goodness is pretty relative and individual. We want a leader to be clear-sighted enough to form an acceptable vision and skillful to lead well to that goal. People criticize Stalin often, perhaps as they should, but Stalin foresaw the attacks Russia would have to defend and prepared the Soviet Union to do so, Of course, he was brutal....
Thanks for the praise. I don't know enough about Putin to say I have expertise. What I do believe is that he's pretty corrupt, but then so is Joe Biden, the Clintons, Obama, the Bushes, etc.
I also believe at least some of the stories about how he handles political opponents internally in Russia. All the shit about Novachok etc. is clearly bullshit, but over the years the number of stories of how opposing Putin politically can be, uhh.. "bad for your health" is where my "not a good guy" opinion comes from.
On a tiny personal note, I used to ski a lot Am Arlberg in the far west of Austria. Wife v1 and I went to hotel right off the slopes one day for a late breakfast. While eating two huge dudes came in to get food. They were clearly not skiers. 2 meters tall, 1 meter wide, and they looked like they would bench press a Mercedes. Pitch black hair that started about 5 cm over their eyes that were clearly scanning everyone in the breakfast room to see if any of us looked threatening. They collected several plates worth of food and left. I asked the waitress who they were, and she said they were Mr. Putin's bodyguards (he was not yet president) as he was staying in the hotel. My near "brush with greatness" (h/t David Letterman).
Anyway...Stalin was a street thug who was in the right place at the right time. He was a paranoid sociopath who killed a LOT of his own people. He lay in his own room alone for a couple of days after having his final stroke because his personal staff were terrified to enter his room without permission. That is a brutal monster that has nothing to do with making hard decisions preparing and fighting a horribly brutal war.
You can yell at me, that's fine---happy to be a buffer for this genuinely alarming issue, which could plunge us into WWIII with a single shot at a Balkan leader. (Gratuitous WWI reference!)
But good god, don't call me Shrub. Eew! I wasn't comparing Putin to Hitler, not even remotely. Putin is neither Hitler nor Stalin. He's a nationalist politician and head of state who's probing to see what he can get away with . . . like most global leaders do.
I used the Hitler analogy to explore the usefulness/uselessness of appeasement as a tool for countering invasions, nothing more. Sorry if I was unclear.
I don't want the United States to get pulled into this mess. On the other hand, if we refuse to participate now, will we get pulled in later when things are much harder to handle? Our answer depends largely on whether we believe Putin will stop only at these two regions IF Europe and Ukraine grants him those two regions. What do we do if he invades all of Ukraine? Let him or fight him? What if he tries to re-create the old USSR by taking one state after the next, claiming "Russian speakers clamor for my leadership and I cannot let them down"? At what point does THAT become our business?
These are thorny questions that Americans have to ask and answer, and the time frame is compressed because the invasion is under way in those two regions---on top of Crimea having been seized since 2004.
I take your point about Ukraine having been long associated with Russia. But that association ended with the forced takeover of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union, and the escape of those nations when the USSR collapsed. Those states, including Ukraine, are free and independent now, have been for years, and it is up to them to chose who they will associate with: Russia, NATO and the West, nobody, or some other arrangement.
Putin has no business interfering with sovereign Ukraine, let alone invading it. He lost that right when his forebears imposed Soviet communism on sovereign states, then lost it. The question for Americans: What do we do about it, if anything?
You fail to understand the regional history. Ukraine up to Kiev was essentially Russian until the Stalinist era, then joined with what is now west Ukraine after WW II. The sovereign nation of Ukraine that emerged after the breakup of USSR essentially lost its sovereignty after the Maidan coup in 2014, becoming a failed state and a vassal of the US. So, the peoples of Donbas and Crimea all chose Russia.
Ah, get you about the comparison. Sorry for the Bush the lesser comparison.
Since my comment yesterday two things happened. Germany axed Nordstream II (this might have happened already before I commented, but I learned about it last night), and (unsurprisingly), Russia has now invaded Ukraine proper.
Russia's economy depends on selling natural gas to Europe. Nordstream I runs in the ocean, making it rather vulnerable. Nordstream II runs parallel. The land route goes through Ukraine.
Germany gets 40% of its LNG over NS I, and this would have doubled with NS II. Cutting off NS II (which is physically complete, with final specification in progress) was a huge escalation of aggression. Imagine if Russia was able to cut off crude oil from Canada or Mexico to the US.
Russia would have to be stupid not to imagine that NS I could now be threatened. So how do they get their products out of Russia by land if not by sea? Through Ukraine.
To answer your question when it becomes our business I'll answer for myself and then give what I think the US gov't's answer will be. For me the point is moot. Russia tried to join NATO and was rebuffed. They have been slowly rebuilding their country after the rape of the 90s. NS I and II would have tightly integrated Russia with Germany, and that would have been the end of it. Germany is the powerhouse of the EU. By having Russia and Germany huge business partners, there would be no need for invasion from either side.
Two side notes: 1) The entire EU project was to integrate the continent economically so that the countries would stop warring with each other, and has been a great success. No reason that couldn't work with Russia - except that doesn't maintain US hegemony in Europe.
2) I don't know enough about Putin to know if he really has delusions of grandeur about restoring the USSR. CZ, SK and RO have been largely integrated with Europe. I don't know enough about Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to give an opinion. Poland is partially integrated in Europe but too fucking big to overrun. The Balkans are truly balkanized now, and they and Hungary are buffered / behind RO/SK, so other than the three little countries in the north - who are all part of NATO, I don't see many options for invasion that would for sure trigger WWIII after Ukraine.
My answer about when it becomes the problem of the US from the US gov't's point of view is now. We overthrew Ukraine in 2013/14. We have been sending a shitton of weapons there since then, and training their Nazis to fight separatists in preparation for Russia. Again here I'll note, when does Russia get to say, "enough" to the arming and training of adversaries on their border?
Biden's popularity is in the toilet. The MIC wants to get the weapons sales they "lost" after we decided to use siege warfare on Afghanistan rather than boots on the ground. A war in Ukraine solves multiple short-term problems for Biden....but I very much doubt the US public (not the main stream media) will support a war. Going to war ourselves just to fuck up Russia's economy I believe is a bridge too far.
That association did NOT end with takeover of Eastern Europe. It did not end with fall of the USSR. The Donbas tried to leave Ukraine in 1991, and again in 2014, and Crimea has been in Russian hands for about 300 years.
Since the US backed coup in 2014, the Donbas has not been a part of Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine has a mixture of pro-Russia, pro-Ukraine (independent) and pro-EU. But the association with Russia, who is Ukraines largest trading partner, goes back many centuries and doesn't end because the USSR did. That's like saying the Kenyan association with England ended because they got independence.
I could agree with you that Putin has no business interfering with A sovereign Ukraine. But you aren't seriously going to try to argue that after a US-backed (maybe started) coup followed by a US installed Ukraine president, "Yatz is our man. Fuck the EU" (Victoria Nuland, and Yatz did become president), that Ukraine is "sovereign."
Imagine if China backed a coup in Canada. Installed a pro-China president. Sent BILLLIONS of dollars of weapons into Canada. Started arming and training anti-American militias. The new Canada says, "Yeah, maybe let's join the pro-China/anti-American military alliance." Would you say the US has no business interferring with sovereign Canada in that situation? I wouldn't.
Again I say: Ukraine is not our problem. The EU should handle it. The way Germany is going it is making the situation worse rather than better in the short run.
Don't delude yourself that Russia has any designs on European countries; that is a hypothetical, but a useless one. A better hypothetical would be if the US withdrew entirely from Europe (and NATO) and pledged not to intervene or meddle in others' internal affairs, that there would be no Ukraine crisis.
I don't believe Putin has any designs on France, England, Norway, or other such European countries---he is not Hitler, he is not even Stalin. I do believe he would be happy to re-create the old Soviet Union if he could. He tested world tolerance for that with his successful invasion and capture of the Crimea, and he's testing again with his meddling in the rest of Ukraine.
If Putin has not stolen Crimea, invaded two Ukrainian provinces, and put 100k troops along Ukraine's border, there would be no Ukraine crisis, would there?
The crisis started with the US-backed Maidan coup in 2014 before the Crimea plebescite, to overthrow Russia's neighbor's democraticly elected President, Yanukovych. Although presented as Pro-Russian, Yanukovych was Pro-EU when they offered better opportunities; he played both sides.
The turning of Ukraine over to American-backed NAZIs is consistent with the American-backed coup against democraticly elected Morsi in Egypt in 2013, replacing him with the military dictator al SiSi; Morsi was jailed and died in custody.
Similarly the American-backed "coup" (Hillary claimed no coup, since that blocks foreign aid) in Honduras in 2009, quickly resulted in death squads, and Honduras became an American-backed narco state.
The American-backed Libyan coup in 2011, and the American-backed breakup of Yugoslovia (into six breakaway nations in 2001). You almost get the impression that Putin is not the problem?
Stolen Crimea? Crimea has been Russia's military port for 250+ years. Those two provinces have wanted to be part of Russia since 1991. They voted to leave Ukraine then, but Ukraine parliament (illegally as I understand it) refused to recognize their referendums. Plural, as ther was also one in 2014 and since then they refuse to recognize the coup gov't in Kiev.
If Putin had not done those things--which mainly required listening to the peoples involved--NATO would now be in Sebastopol and millions of ethnic Russians would be dead.
You think China, Russia, Five Eyes, and anyone else with "pull" want WWIII, which would not merely reduce our population but end all human life from nuclear winter? Your paranoia is alarming.
The only intelligence I trust is Israeli because their survival depends on truth. They may live under gaslights but their survival depends on the sunlight and the truth outside their cave.
We are on the cusp of population decline and you understand is bull crap. Our population is sustainable but our economy cannot be sustained. We are growing orchids for the world with the heat from our aluminum smelters and we could easily grow bananas, mangoes and oranges. It is 19 below and I heat with the energy captured in my dormant flower bed with the fans powered by falling water.
Any population, be it yeast or humans, will expand until it reaches equilibrium with available resources, ie energy. The world population today has reached its scope on the back of fossil fuels. Both huge numbers of people and massive burning of fossil fuels have brought the planet to a tipping point of climate chaos. The most reasonable answer is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. This will concomitantly imply reduction of population.
Have you considered alternatives that do not contribute to global warming, i.e. nuclear/fusion?
One of the reasons Russia is developing and building nuclear reactors for power generation (despite ample reserves of oil & gas) is that they assume oil/gas/coal are finite and not feasible for much longer due to CO2 emissions but the amount of energy required to maintain our civilization and to prosper will only increase.
I conclude that Ukraine lost its sovereignty after the 2014 coup and is now completely a US vassal; thus, Russia offers a superior alternative to the people of Crimea and the Donbas who want to live in a real country.
Why should they move out of their homeland? Perhaps you notice that thousands of Donbas residents have moved to Russia in order to not die from Ukrainian artillery.
1) You can't move the port in Crimea. 2) Ukraine constitution allows binding referendums for "states" (I'm not sure if they call them "federal counties" or whatever) to leave Ukraine. They don't have to leave if they are a majority, and in Crimea and the Donbas, they are, and have so voted. Twice.
Thank you we in Quebec voted twice to remain Canadian.
We trolls need all the help we can get.
Maybe you can change your name to Alberich even if only you and I might get the joke. Singing trolls are hard to find.
I don't think we need talk about nazi trolls living under bridges far from my own. pierce is one heck of a troll finder but is delicious snack for fans of fresh immature Billy goat.
I had all the education I could handle when I was dismissed from High School but take great pride in being cited in a dissertation about measuring the distance between the stars.
We settled the issue of "self-determination" in 1776, and reaffirmed it by subduing the secessionist South in the Civil War. The United States has remained internally peaceful ever since because it's one united (albeit noisy and messy) country. Europe, in contrast, was plagued with civil wars for thousands of years precisely because its small states kept invading each other to become larger states and empires.
Duh. Of course states control their internal destinies. But only when they don't run afoul of federal law or the U.S. Constitution. Texas's abortion ban is an ideal case in point. Texas can enforce its ban if, and only if, it doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution. SCOTUS heard arguments pro and con and will rule later this year on whether the ban is valid. If SCOTUS says no, that's it, Texas must abort their law.
Why? Because the federal constitution and federal law reign supreme in our republic of states. If you weren't dizzy from sniffing the skid marks in your underwear, you'd know that.
As for states can secede if they're willing to be declared enemy combatants and their leaders declared traitors and their territories invaded and retaken by a federal government that is supreme under our Constitution? Uh, sure, states can do that if they want. They'd be lunatics to try, but yeah, Idaho could declare itself a Sovereign Citizen and say "come get me, Sammy." Sammy would oblige.
I like our country the way it is, warts and all, because warts can be successfully treated. Perhaps you could peacefully break up with us since you hate the place so much.
I love America but I love my country more. We send our Trumpists south in the winter to stink up your beaches and trailer parks and drink till their brains pour out their mouths. Sad oh so very sadly, Florida is too hot in the summer and they return to our local beaches and camping grounds.
We have rules (mandates) that must be followed like you can drink , smoke as much cannabis as you want , you must shit in the toilets and flush and you can fuck your brains out in public but no assault rifles and you must obey the 4AM curfews.
We take care of our Trumpists and they stay out of our politics. We like peace order and good government and our drunken hooligans are compliant.
They just want to party all night long and wake up in the morning, start again and drink and smoke to relieve their headaches.
They would like nothing more than live in Florida all year long but when you are living in a metal box with wheels hot summers sure are shitty.
We are grateful for you taking them. I don't think having them here as we try to survive the winter would be good for our mental stability and just about now the suicides would make Covid a very minor irritation.
Does Florida want more Fantasyland visitors we have too many and we heat with gravity. I wake up in the morning thanking the stars we don't let them play with guns. Guns and alcohol don't mix.
I would be perfectly happy. My wife grew up in Michigan I lived there and I know Montana very well. The people can be trusted to make a correct decision but where in your fucking bastion of ignorance loving bastards are you going to find truth?
Tell me where in the USA can any media be trusted?
As Leonard once said I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
"where in your fucking bastion of ignorance loving bastards . . ."
There are plenty of intelligent and well-read Americans. But you're Canadian. Deal with your own problems instead of condescending to us like you're saints. You aren't.
Fine people live in Michigan and Montana. They would not be permitted secede from our country, for the same reason British Columbia would not be permitted to secede from yours.
You fucking ignorant piece of stinking rotting flesh. If British Columbians vote to secede we would wish them the best and wish them a fond farewell. Democracy is about people not power and fortune.
I love America my wife and many family members are Americans and they are scared shitless about their future and all those ignorant bastards who want the tyranny you love so dearly.
Plato was a founder of Republicanism; he said Democracy is the ultimate tyranny. Plato was an oligarch and loved oligarchy Michigan isn't going to secede and Montana isn't going to secede but Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas and Florida.?. Need to be give a fond farewell in a country that supposedly believes in democracy.
I hate ignorant bastards who want tyranny. But I don't know any personally. Perhaps you should keep better company since you do.
Plato was right about democracy being tyrannical. But we're a republic, so fuck you. And fuck Plato for loving oligarchy; that is the source of much of our problems here.
As for secession, yeah, right, you'd wave bye-bye and wish them well. I see what happened when Quebec tried it. Oh, and your Canadian Supreme Court disagrees with your notion of unilateral secession by a province. From Wiki:
"Quebec cannot secede from Canada unilaterally; however, a clear vote on a clear question to secede in a referendum should lead to negotiations between Quebec and the rest of Canada for secession. However, above all, secession would require a constitutional amendment."
Today the Trudeau government said the emergency is over. And Canada is more united than ever the insurrectionists are more isolated than ever. Trump confirmed our suspicions and now we know our fears weren't paranoia. I suspect that Biden's approval ratings will be over 70% . That Zelensky sure writes brilliant scripts but when your enemy is ignorance blood is going to be spilled.
We had a vote that was really close and Quebec voted to remain in Canada and we are all better for it. pierce is totally correct. I am everything he says I am I speak only my truth, shithead. pierce taught me how to write American and use the words that mean whatever one choses them to mean you brilliant erudite and inciteful genius.
We are a miserable angry and violent people who can't wait for an invasion so we can chop off the heads of you ignorant pieces of shit.
Why don't you come up for a visit but be wary those welcomes, those hugs, that love is all a ruse so you let your guard down so we can ravage your children and cut your gonads off.
I lived for two decades in deep red Michigan and dark dark blue South Chicago there are bad people on both sides but not all that many . Most just want peace order and good government just like we have here in Quebec.
Our children live in the People's Republic of Takoma Park. There are no pierces there they are too busy preparing their sophisticated arguments to learn pierce speech. Do I sound like a moronic troll, do I sound like a moron, do I spew nonsense or do my words bear inquiry? What do you think pierce words mean other than fear makes us all insane. Mark Twain wrote those very words over one century ago and he was America's greatest truth teller and he cried many a tear.
Stick your courage to its sticking point and speak you truth I don't do sophistication very well. I live under a bridge and eat Billy goats even William Goats..
Me bad Twain said most of us are moral cowards and he confessed to being a moral coward and he was the bravest of the brave.
Would you like a url to fact check my Twain Quote?
If this invasion was centered and about Dombas then perhaps Putin's move could be seen as support for a separatist state, but the focus in on taking over ALL of Ukraine hence the fighting in Kiev. This makes it look like an invasion to take over another sovereign nation because of the resources and money involved.
Sure… we should be listening for Radio Moscow instead. No thanks, I’ve listened for their KGB lies for 26 years. You don’t like Biden’s State Dept.? Great, neither do I. That doesn’t make dirty Putin propaganda palatable.
I think the KGB was disbanded just about 26 years ago, so who knows what lies you listened to? I am particularly fond of the lies put out by the Americans, Radio Washington. Very entertaining. Try it sometime.
Yet - the truth is soo obvious and soo simple... The original modern sin is -- the Russia-gate HOAX.
SAME lying team that concocted the Russia-gate hoax and 2014 bloody coup that overthrew democratically elected Ukraine government Jake Sullivan, Hillary strategy advisor had a KEY role in launching Russia-gate hoax – he is now national security advisor to Biden.
SAME people that launched the Russia-gate hoax are now hollering that Russia invasion of Ukraine is "imminent". All to "save democracy" there -- in order to distract from the fact that St. Obama organized in 2014 bloody coup against democratically elected Ukraine government. St. Obama installed Biden and his CIA pal Brennan as de facto governors of Ukraine -- immensely enriching US "elite" and posting and removing government members, judges and heads of industry with billions of corrupting cash -- in "fight against corruption".
US War party’s key exports are – coups, wars and all-encompassing US corruption.
Somehow the saber-rattling State Media is equating a Russian intervention to protect Russians on their border who begged for protection and INVITED THEM IN, with the US illegally entering Iraq and Syria UNINVITED, true invasions (with not a peep out of the United Nations).
Maybe Putin should claim all those NATO and US-dominated counties on their borders have WMDs? Then they could invade freely or even nuke them. have to stop nuclear weapon proliferation.
"SAME people that launched the Russia-gate hoax are now hollering that Russia invasion of Ukraine is "imminent"."
It's no longer "imminent." Russia invaded Ukraine, a sovereign nation, with combat troops.
Whether the United States should get involved in its defense--or let Europe handle European problems--depends largely on what were think our national interests are in (a) Ukraine itself (b) defending the principle of national sovereignty (c) punching Putin in the nose for our own political purposes (d) if he conquers Ukraine will he go after the rest of the former Soviet states, who want nothing to do with Mother Russia?
There is no "modern sin" at work here, just the same kind of self-interest by us that Putin uses for himself. It's what nations do.
Russia merely recognized the independence of two embattled provinces as states and on invitation offered peacekeeping protection -- EXACTLY as US/UK unilaterally did with Kosovo.
PS: Remember – Biden was the governor of Ukraine after St. Obama’s bloody coup in Ukraine against its democratically elected government in 2014; Biden was selecting and removing heads of industry and Ukraine’s puppet government, dismissing the federal judge investigating Burisma – a judge that State Dept. lauded for integrity only weeks before…
The immense corruption of Biden family still needs to be investigated – Hunter’s Burisma was used to ‘wash” US dirty money. Thanks heavens that recent “colored revolution” coups in Belarus and Kazakhstan were not successful.
Thank you. So many people on "the left" have selectively forgotten - or never knew, due to media censorship - of Crazy Ol Uncle Joes iron fist in forcing Ukraine to pay his idiot son billions...or else! The filthy pack of lies and war crimes stemming from obie/biden's reign of terror and blackmail are well documented, but conveniently ignored by the war mongering left in its insatiable fear and loathing of all things Putin.
The current state of the Ukraine is document enough. It is riddled with Nazis and corrupt with kleptocrats. It has mounted a genocidal war on its rebel provinces. The Ukraine has lost its claim of sovereignty and is practically a failed state, propped up by the US.
Obama's VP Biden was selecting and removing heads of industry and Ukraine’s puppet government, dismissing the federal judge investigating Burisma – a judge that State Dept. lauded for integrity only weeks before…
The immense corruption of Biden family still needs to be investigated – Hunter’s Burisma was used to ‘wash” US dirty money.
Thanks heavens that recent “colored revolution” coups in Belarus and Kazakhstan were not successful.
Perhaps, but you make the error of assuming Russian expansion. Most of the former USSR in Europe came about after Russia defeated the German occupying armies. At that time, those countries had no government and the Soviets did their best to govern them according to communist principles. They were always an expensive headache. No sane Russian leader would want to recreate that, including incorporating the Nazi-riddled western Ukrainians.
Ukraine has been a playground for the worst grifters the West has to offer. Dirty political intrigue, rank official incompetence, and money laundering by the garbage elites. Any chance that Putin siezes comprehensive documentation before it can be destroyed? Would he blackmail his opponents or just put it all on the internet for the world to read?
In the US, we're always trying to divide the world into good guys and bad guys. For the media, that generates clicks, too.
There are no good guys here. Putin is an ex-KGB guy doing what you'd expect an ex-KGB guy to do (although Russia could have done much worse). Zelensky was put into power and is controlled by Kolomoisky, who stole $6 billion from the Ukrainian people through a bank he controlled, laundered it partly through the US, and has openly bragged that the Ukrainian president is among the assets he owns.
Pity the Ukrainian people, who continue to be stolen blind no matter who ends up in control. But there are no good guys. We cannot fix this. And it is most certainly not in the interest of the average American to expend blood or treasure on this.
You repeat rather tired misinformation about Vladimir Putin, which is the standard American view. Try some truth. The late Professor Steven F Cohen offers some insight:
You fucking ignorant piece of dog dropping.. But that is not your fault I know Ukraine it is my ancestral homeland. My ancestors fled the pogroms. I know the story of Russia and know Nazis are not freedom fighters and the Nazi militias are just as much victims of Russian Imperialism as Americans. I know my enemies they fly the flag of Catherine the Great and the Stars and Bars. I know Michigan and I know Tennessee and Texas. I know the Michigan Militia and the "Freedom" fighters of Michigan. Regardless of what American media tells you asshole nazis don't want freedom they are tyrants. Their only goal is to replace our own truths with their lies and propaganda.
I am Canadian. Trudeau is a Canadian and Canadians are the most conservative people on earth.
Our liberal government is far more conservative than your oligarchy can tolerate. Our liberals are more conservative than your oligarchy can tolerate.
Today I chanced upon Morning Joe and I heard a real conservative talk about Trudeau and what a wise conservative leader does in these best of times in a country that knows what freedom and democracy really means.
Conservative means if it works don't change it.
Oligarchy means if it is totally fucked you need to fix it.
In Quebec we have a conservative government and we have peace order and good government. Most of our citizens are happy and content and love laughter, love and sharing. We have democracy and real freedom and you must run an insane asylum. That is the essence of truth. In 1700 Vilnius was the capital of the enlightenment and then Catherine the Great turned Russia into an Empire and Russia followed the USA down the rabbit hole of where Humpty Dumpty rules and truth becomes whatever Humpty Dumpty says truth is. Jefferson warned you but you ignored his warnings.
your chains are stronger than the chains by which Putin commands.
You believe all kinds of stupid shit. America is a slave culture and thinks their slavery is as good as it gets. Today Vilnius is freer more democratic and more prosperous and saner than the USA because Lithuania is a sovereign nation and its people can again walk their own path. In fact Finland and the Baltic States are freer, more democratic and more prosperous than your insane asylum.
Putin's Russia is younger than the USA but as Voltaire admonished perception is real in its consequences.
Americans know about as much about their history as today's Catherine the Great as Americans know about the misery and ignorance they unleashed upon our world that is starving for truth and reconciliation.
So, Putin is neither Stalin nor Martin Luther King. OK, I agree. He's a politician and the leader of a nuclear power, neither evil nor warm and fuzzy. In other words, a normal national leader.
But that does not excuse his invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine. Do you believe he had that right, and if so, why? Like it or not, the Soviet Union is gone and he has no right to try to re-create it by taking over Belarus, Crimea, and now, Ukraine.
If he concentrate solely on governing Russia, I'd be all for him. But this? No. He earns the condemnation as much as my own United States should be condemned for invading Iraq, which had zero to do with 9/11.
Do you really think that this crisis would exist if Ukraine simply took the prospect of NATO membership off the table for ten years?
Vladimir Putin has watched a hostile military alliance basically march up to his doorstep for the last 23 years. A NATO-affiliated Ukraine would have the power to shut down the oil and gas pipelines running from Russia to the West; to cut off all Russian access to the Black Sea west of Sochi; to stop all transshipment commerce from ports like Odessa to Russian territory. NATO would have the ability to station military personnel from the multinational NATO alliance on its territory, along with intermediate range missiles.
Russia brought the "march" of NATO on itself. Did you forget that the Eastern European states on Russia's border were occupied by a grim, vast, and hostile military force--the Soviet Union--for decades? When the USSR's dictatorial yoke was finally broken, many of those free states decided to join NATO to ensure Russia wouldn't again be able to send in tanks and whisper, "Welcome home, bitch."
Ukraine is a sovereign state. It can join NATO if it chooses, it can install any defensive weapons systems it chooses. It can station troops along the border with Russia if it chooses---just like, you know, Russia has done to Ukraine.
What it cannot do is invade Russia. And, it hasn't.
"Hostile military alliance?" Not hardly. NATO hasn't invaded Russia. Nobody has invaded Russia, cut off the pipelines, or prohibited shipping.
Russia has done the invading. First Crimea, then a soft takeover of Belarus, and now a military invasion of Ukraine. Pardon me for not believing Putin's motives are pure.
Address the history provided by the former US ambassador to the USSR, in the links I provided. And don't patronize me. Address the history honestly, instead of in caricature.
1) The Soviet Union aka USSR did NOT obtain its Eastern Bloc satellite states by embarking on a campaign of territorial conquest. Having fought for national survival in a war against the German Nazis, the Russian Army was obligated to chase their enemy all the way back to Berlin to defeat them. That's how the Russians came to occupy that territory. In the aftermath of the defeat of the Nazi regime, Russian-friendly Soviet-style regimes rose to power in eastern European countries.
This result was entirely expected by the leaders of the West, Winston Churchill included, "Iron Curtain" rhetoric notwithstanding. It's simply elementary geopolitics that when one large nation fights two massive wars against another large nation in the span of less than 30 years, and the second time they only escape being conquered by an aggressive invasion that besieged their largest cities and advanced to the outskirts of the capital city, they're going to demand a territorial buffer zone of friendly nations between their former archenemy and their own western border. It shouldn't be surprising that the Russians insisted that the regimes of those nations also be Marxist-Leninist in order to feel secure. And for what it's worth, of all of the nations that became Soviet Eastern bloc buffer states, only Czechoslovakia had been a democracy in the 1930s. Prior to the Nazi invasion, Poland had been governed by an authoritarian regime that had taken power in a coup; Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania were authoritarian regimes that all drew on fascist ideology (amalgamated with monarchy and aristocracy in Bulgaria and Romania), and all three were considered Nazi satellite states during World War II. With the exception of Czechoslovakia, none of those countries had any tradition of democratic institutions (much less Western democracy) to draw on; it isn't as if they would all have been "free countries" if only the Russians had withdrawn all of their influence in 1946. Anyway, that just isn't the way the aftermath of a gigantic tectonic geopolitical collision works. It isn't as if the Western nations of the Allies relinquished their influence in Europe (or Japan and the Far East.)
2) Yes, the East Bloc regimes were totalitarian socialist states. Yes. the USSR acted in a repressive capacity in the 40-odd years that the Eastern Bloc nations were their satellites. The Russian Army deployed to smother rebellions in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, and Poland (in the last two cases, twice, iirc.) But it's worth noting that the national rebellions had some success in pushing the Soviets and their own governments to eventually acquiesce to more autonomy and opening up those societies; the Russians didn't crush the life out of those countries.
3) Russia is not the Soviet Union; the USSR dissolved 40 years ago. As a matter of strict fact, the original raison d'etre for the existence of NATO dissolved with it.
And as for this:
"When the USSR's dictatorial yoke was finally broken, many of those free states decided to join NATO to ensure Russia wouldn't again be able to send in tanks and whisper, "Welcome home, bitch."
That's fake history. A classic boilerplate American Infotainment narrative.
You actually have to read it, though. Along with the other two links I supplied, by the US ambassador to the USSR 1987-1991, a career Foreign Service officer with a career in Russian diplomatic affairs that began with him translating messages from Nikita Kruschev to JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1961.
It also helps if you know enough history to realize that the last leader of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, was just not a tanks-rolling kinda guy; the nations of the West didn't liberate the nations of Eastern Europe by military force, the leader of the USSR voluntarily agreed to the dismantling of the Eastern Bloc.
"Ukraine is a sovereign state." Right, and Cuba was a sovereign state when it invited the USSR to install missile bases on its territory. But somehow that didn't happen. It got worked out. By the US and Russia.
I have no patience with sanctimonious maundering about "national sovereignty" when the action being considered by the nation in question is about joining in a multinational mutual defense military pact where an attack on one nation is to be viewed as an attack at all. For crying out loud, the US has a history of enforcing the Monroe doctrine that projects our great-power national interest all over the Western hemisphere to the point where the nation of Grenada was invaded on the basis that it was a national security threat. The invasion of Iraq was arguably a tacit extension of that prerogative to the Eastern hemisphere- i.e., worldwide. To provide a relevant hypothetical analogy, if you think that the US would allow Mexico to join a BRIC defense pact, you're out of your mind. And contending that Ukraine has a historic tradition of national sovereignty separate from Russia isn't much different than claiming that Texas is, underneath it all, actually a sovereign Republic, instead of one of the 50 states.
It also might prove instructive to review the history of the US and Mexico, and to recall the fact that the territories ceded to the US by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1849 were part of the nation of Mexico for a lot longer time than they've been part of the US. But the territorial politics of "great powers" follow the same "rules"- or anyway, lack of rules, more like ad hoc conventions- everywhere. Don't they?
More than four million Ukrainian "kulaks" would love to thank you for encouraging Russia to reoccupy their land, but they can't because they're dead, starved, beaten, and frozen by gentle Uncle Joe and the Soviet Union. Familiar with "Holodomor"? That genocidal famine of Ukraine lasted from 1921 to 1933, well before WWII "forced" the Soviet Union to turn Eastern Europe into a crumple zone for Moscow:
For the record, that's patronizing you. But you've offered a lot of compelling arguments and links, and I respect that. So let's drop the mutual insults and look at the realpolitik: Russia can invade if it wants, but Ukraine can repel if it can.
Any historic ties Ukraine had with Russia, Holomodor poisoned them, and the freedom Ukraine experienced after the Soviet Union collapsed sealed the deal. "Historic relationships" do not preclude divorce, and Ukraine long ago earned the right to choose for itself which camp it wants to be in: Russian, Western, or neither. Power is the key to its success.
"But the territorial politics of 'great powers' follow the same 'rules'- or anyway, lack of rules, more like ad hoc conventions- everywhere. Don't they?"
You are absolutely correct. All great powers, including the United States, are sanctimonious and two-faced about the use and abuse of power. It's how we "justified" our coups in Central America, our invasion of Grenada, our invasion of Iraq, and other misadventures. No one had the power to make us go away, and so we didn't.
Russia is playing that game of nations now, but the rules don't require Ukraine to roll over and play dead because Putin insists. If Ukraine successfully rallies the West and forces Putin to retreat, Ukraine wins. If not, Putin wins. Land belongs only to those with the power to defend and keep it.
I think this is a shitty and sad way to run a world, but nobody in power asked me. The game will continue and people will be harmed.
Your argument that the rape victim got herself raped because she was wearing suggestive clothing is painfully illustrating the ignorance in all of your posts about this.
That's the kind of shit people defending rapacious pigs say.
It is minus 15 below but the sun tells me our Trumpists will soon return to foul our beaches, campgrounds and trailer parks and freedom is all they want. Sometimes all Trumpists really want is the freedom to drink booze and smoke cannabis and Quebec allows them to do it but our climate is not conducive to "living" in a tent or trailer on the beach in the winter and we are grateful Florida allows them the opportunity to spend their winters in your beautiful but insane Utopia.
I am a pedantic troll and my fellow trolls can't write but I hate when others use the wrong conjunction. should you use nor rather than and between warm and fuzzy?
🤣
Thank you again we would love to have you come and visit especially those willing to open up their eyes and see the occasional truths that are so hard to find in the light of the gas lamps.
You assume too much. Putin has never claimed to want more territory. He very reluctantly has moved to destroy the threat poised by the Ukrainian army--this only after years of diplomacy. But Minsk was rejected by the Yukies who instead decided to conquer the rebellious provinces of the Donbas, with perhaps Crimea next. This adventurism will not stand, just as it did not stand in 2008 with Georgia.
There is no such thing as "disinformation" or "misinformation" there is only information you accept and information you do not accept. You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told, rather you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions. Not a lot of that going on nowadays.
"There are no good guys here. Putin is an ex-KGB guy..." is misinformation and tired anti-Putin American propaganda. Please read Professor Cohen's analysis.
Really? Putin is not an ex-KGB guy? And you claim it's demonstrably, factually true that Putin is a good guy, so that a simple claim that he's "not a good guy" is misinformation, rather than an opinion?
I was just teaching my 9 year old the difference between facts, which can be true or false, and opinions...
Look, I speak Russian, I studied there as a student, I've worked there, and I have long time friends there. I think a lot of the media portrayals of Putin as some kind of monster are over the top. That's why I said that Russia could have done much worse. There was a time during the 90s collapse when a genuine psycho fascist might have risen to power. Lucky for Russia and the world that this didn't happen.
But no, Putin is not a good guy. He increases Russia's power by helping to encourage clashes in bordering regions, including Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and so on.
Professor Cohen was well-known for a strongly pro-Russian perspective. He's worth reading. But attaching a link and claiming "misinformation" and Cohen's views as "fact" is kind of silly, don't you think?
As you note, "media portrayals of Putin as some kind of monster are over the top..." That is a huge problem. In this Ukraine case, Putin offers truth and diplomacy. If you cannot see that, despite your personal knowledge, you continue misinformation. As far as I know, no leader of a people is or has been "a good guy", so of course there are technically "no good guys", but so what?. As far as KGB, Professor Cohen is quite clear that is a chimera and not at all pertinent. Your opinion that Russia could have devolved into a fascist state should reinforce a very positive rendering of Putin. Read Cohen and think of him not as "pro-Russian" but pro-truth.
I read Cohen's analysis. It was fine as far as it went. But there is no way you can claim that Putin is not a "an ex-KGB guy," because even Cohen says Putin's proud of his former occupation as a KGB guy.
GHW Bush was the Head of the CIA! Doesn't that make him a much bigger villain than a lowly KBG agent? The CIA building is named after Bush.
And of course we have several CIA and other intelligence agents in Congress, throughout the media, and on Intelligence committees working closely with the CIA, who seems to run the country now.
Putin was a KGB functionary working in East Germany during the Cold War. Professor Cohen claims that made him very much pro-European in outlook. Ray McGovern, a profound anti-war activist, was ex-CIA, and as a previous post points out, President HW Bush was the CIA Director.
So, for these demonstrators making childish comparisons of Putin as Hitler, it's worth WWIII, which will end all possibility of a future habitable civilization, to defend a former Russian state now governed by literal Nazis, that the US was vitally instrumental in installing in a 2014 coup, with no more democracy than anyone can locate in Washington DC. They couldn't have things any more backwards. These people have obviously never learned a thing from the countless atrocities the US has visited on the planet for the past hundred + years. The Democrats are now to the right of former Bush/Trump Republicans, and yet they see themselves as liberators. It's the United States of Mass Delusion.
I had read all of Arthur Conan Doyle before I entered the world from my cubicle in the library. Thank you for affirming my belief that there is still intelligent life on this planet. I know history. My ancestor's fled the Pale of Catherine the Great's Empire. I know the enlightenment was born in Vilnius Lithuania. An Empire is an Empire is an Empire and Empire wants powerful leaders even if they are mad like Putin and and senile old coots like myself.
The world is starving for truth and reconciliation because the past is the past and will never come again.
America fits my definition of insanity. The ability to know right from wrong. I find the USA not guilty by reason of insanity. Now it is our task to convince the rest of the jury.
Isn't that the purpose of gaslighting? Making the world safe for the oligarchs.
IDK dude.. it's gotten to the point where I would actually crack a smile if I woke up to nuclear daylight in the middle of the night. At least then I'd know that it would be ending.. all of it.
Even if they're not in complete control of the government, it's pretty obvious the US would be fine of they were, since they're being armed and trained by the US, as you say. The US leadership and its craven military have never really had a problem with Nazis. We recruited hundreds of them after WWII into the US to help us devise better means of destroying our enemies, chiefly Russia. Fascism is a perfect fit for US intentions as world hegemon.
While Putin certainly isn’t Hitler, this invasion of Ukraine is not unlike Hitler’s invasion of Poland. Citing all the US’s former imperial aggressions doesn’t really change the fact that he’s invading a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked him. If it’s wrong for the US to do it, it’s wrong for Russia to do it.
He's trying to keep Ukraine from being absorbed by NATO and used as a military base from which NATO, led as always by the US, can further intimidate and threaten Russia, which is largely what this is all about. We have the sovereign right to surround any country with our bases, and if they don't like it then of course it's because their leader is a dictator and tyrant. What I don't understand is why Putin has now decided to start military incursions of his own, which only seems to play directly into the plans of NATO/US. This is what the US has been provoking for a few years! Now we have every right to sanction Russia into starvation, freezing to death, whatever--all to get rid of Putin. So I don't understand what his strategy is. Probably he understands the US isn't interested in meaningful diplomacy as a way out of this madness, they're only interested in Russia's full capitulation to our demands. If the US can't control and dominate every inch of the planet, then by god we'll have to destroy it.
It's telling that there are hardly any anti-war protesters (and Africa is justifiably on many of their signs). Anti-war is not allowed under Democrat Presidents (hopefully the protesters avoid the fate of the January 6th protesters.
Where were all the NAZI flags in the pro-Ukrainian American rally? At least Canadian Freeland is proud and open about her Ukrainian NAZI connection. The Azov Bandera thugs have NAZI symbols worshipped throughout American Ukraine.
This really seems to be just another war for the Big Oil Companies competing with cheap natural gas from Russia with their expensive fracking gas. And likely Hunter and the "Big Guy" get a cut. ukrainegate.info.
Too bad the emasculated EU refused to stand up to American war-mongering, again.
Watch and read whoever you want, I don't care. But Tucker Carlson is an entertainer, not a newsman, and his lawyers said in fact that nobody should count on anything he says on his show as being actual truth. I agree with him--the job of an entertainer is to entertain, not inform.
So citing Tucker as a legitimate news source is like citing Trump about the Democrats or Biden about the Republicans---they are not neutral observers.
Thank you for explaining your "deep thoughts". I see - I should be watching lying Rachel Maddow instead... -- awarded with new $30M contract for her shameful and so dangerous services to DNC-CIA cabal, services that directly led to suffering of two beautiful Slavic nations, Ukraine and Russia (about which you know next to nothing) at present.
Tucker Carlson is a high integrity journalist, unlike her and most establishment "journalists" who are relentlessly brainwashing you. I wish he would not be a conservative on women rights and religion...
BTW -- even comedian Jimmy Dore is much better political analyst than all the DNC-CIA stenographers put together.
You can watch Rachel if you want. I quit watching Tucker, Laura, and all the other cable TV bloviators several years ago--their spin conflicts too much with what I knew were actual facts. You want to believe them, be my guest.
"Tucker Carlson" and "high integrity journalist" should never be in the same sentence. He is a right-wing propagandist. So are you, Mr. "DNC-CIA Cabal."
ukrainegate.info nice summary of Bidens' corrupt rule in Ukraine -- it looks well-researched and an outstanding in-depth analysis of US corruption in Ukraine
Do I understand some irony here? Truly, there are a lot of Americans "yearning to be free". Too bad we Americans live in an oligarchy where our democratic and popular dreams are constantly smashed.
Unfortanately, the way things are going, it will only be American-produced schrapnel and bullets deep down inside Ukrainians. Such a beautiful country and people.
I am a Canadian. I support Zelensky 100% I don't trust America. Putin is an American. He is a victim of the same gaslighting that overwhelms America. Russia as Putin sees it is some holy part of the Universe that must dominate and control lest some Devil take control.
America is older than Russia not much older but older. Empires are Empires are Empires
In 1700 Villnius was the center of the enlightenment. In 2022 Lithuania has a higher standard of living than the USA and is freer and more democratic.
What happened to Vilnius in those 300 years? It lost its sovereignty. Its people suffered.
Canada is shitting in its drawers. We are Ukraine, we are Scandinavia and the Baltic. Russia, China and the USA are not our friends. We are among the freest most prosperous and happiest place in Earth and you want to rape and pillage.
I know history I know greed and avarice. Oscar Wilde wrote a book about America. He called
it the portrait of Dorian Gray but Uncle Sam might be a more illustrative appellation.
I live on the Canadian side. Most of my family lives on the other side of the wall. Our wall is stronger than China's or the one in Berlin but it is neatly camouflaged .
We are democratic but we are not free because the bastards on the other side of the wall keep beeping their horns 24/7/365 and tell us the Russians are coming , the Russians are coming. Crazy Putin will die and so will Trump and so will Biden and so will we all.
Donald Trump told us the story which is as old as time. @"You knew I was a snake before you took me in."
Right now Canada must figure out how to get the snake out of the house before it bites everyone.
I love snakes but snake handlers are crazy dudes who reject the laws of the universe. Snakes don't know anything but how to be snakes.
It is hard being Cassandra and screaming your lungs out. The people who need to hear don't want to listen. They hate truthtellers as much as anyone. Plato told us everybody hates truthtellers.
Those truckers you worship some are ours and some are yours. We will take care of ours we always do even if we feel they are unworthy. Meanwhile why don't you leave us alone and go commit unnatural acts on yourselves. Can Ukraine or Canada or Venezuela or Georgia just say no you can just go fuck yourselves you seem pretty good at it. Just look in the mirror.
There was no Canada in 1812 Canada began during my adulthood in about 1967. In 1812 was a fertilized egg not even an embryo and we are still only looking for a a safe place in the womb in which to grow.
My grandmother was born in Canada. Of course, her parents fled after my great-grandfather was released from the concentration camp during WWI. Fuck that place.
How's the weather down under. I hope it is not too hot. It has been a terrible winter here for senile old geezers like myself it is about 5 degrees C and going to minus 15 tonight. Old bodies find climate change a pain the ass.
“ Canada is shitting in its drawers.” Then why do I see ya’ll down here in my neighborhood? (I live in a Florida budget beach resort town. And it’s true what we say about Canadians, “ The come down here with $100 and an extra suit of clothes, and they don’t change either one all season”. )
"We [Canadians] are among the freest most prosperous and happiest place in Earth and you want to rape and pillage."
For chrissakes, quit embarrassing yourself with this drivel. If the United States had ANY designs on Canada, we would have taken you out ages ago. We have no interest in violating your sovereignty or harshing your maple-leaf mellow. We don't want to rape you, and neither do Russia or China.
I will, however, steal your maple syrup with great glee.
The US overthrew democratically elected Yanukovych in 2014 (Biden was in charge, not "F* the EU" Nuland) and the US has been pulling the strings on Ukrainian puppets since. A rational Ukraine (without US control) would have implemented the Minsk Accords quickly. Do youthink America would have allowed that?
This is about the Russians' cheap natural gas, which threatens our "more deserving" big oil frackers.
What is it about that was yesterday and yesterday is gone that you all can't understand? I was born 74 years ago and I am sitting in a old mill town in the middle of a prosperous farming community in rural Quebec. Yesterday is so far gone that nobody remembers when people my age were dead and gone and now people my age are still celebrating their parents anniversary with their parents. What a problem!!! How do we educate nation of pro stupidity ignoramuses'?
It’s funny how so many people posting here seem to care A LOT about what Putin likes and how that needs to be respected, but nobody seems to care about the people of Ukraine. Those people, Ukrainian- or Russian-speaking, want to live in a country that’s free and non-corrupt, in other words anything like Russia. You want to know how good life is in a Russian-manufactured separatist enclave? Leave aside your preconceived ideas - this isn’t Scotland or Canada - and find out how life is in Transnistria.
This support for US aggression and NATO in Europe is pathetic and anti-historical. However, it builds on a century of anti-Soviet, anti-Russia, anti-Putin propaganda. Putin gave a very reasonable speech outlining his views on the Ukraine, which he explains is essentially a failed, undemocratic state that has been internally divided politically since its inception. Ukraine is historically the origin of the Russian state, but not all of it. As Sergey Khrushchev explains, the western part of Ukraine, where the new-Nazis come from, Polish and Germanic peoples, was stuck onto Russian-oriented Ukraine after WW II when the Soviets conquered Nazi-occupied territory. Ukrainian nationalism failed as a result of the US-inspired Maidan coup in 2014. In my mind, 2014 marks the dissolution of the Ukraine as a nation, let alone a democratic nation. It approaches the status of a failed state with no political will for a diplomatic solution, such that Minsk II offers. The US props up this monstrosity with its Nazi roots to further its hegemony in Europe. No good can come of this until the politicians and diplomats see things as they really are instead of seeing a fantastical chimera.
The Ukraine was once just a geographical term for the great plain there. The Rus (who became Russians, and some other Slavs) were there when Kiev was the only real city in the region in the 5th century. Moscow was noted as a "meeting place" about 700 years later, and became THE Russian city. Kiev is only 535 miles from Moscow, much closer than Memphis, TN is to DC (876 miles of driving) or the US is to Iraq (6942 miles).
Yep. The western 1/3 of what is today Ukraine was historically part of Poland and the western 2/3 (including Kiev) were historically Russian.
The "country" became independent following the demise of the USSR solely because that's where the internal border had been drawn. The idea that Putin is wrong about having a historical claim is absurd. Of course Russia has a claim.
That being said, I don't military force is the way to reclaim it. I think those regions should have self-determination and Putin is probably doing it the "correct" way by claiming to "protect" those breakaway regions instead of just outright conquering it.
Crimea (awarded to Ukraine by Krushev -- born on the Ukraine-Russia border) had a plebiscite and overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in 2014. Better than forcing a coup on Ukraine like Biden and the US did in 2014.
I am certain the U.S. media will give this international crisis, and these two competing protests, the thoughtful consideration and exposition they deserve. If the journalists from legacy media have demonstrated anything over the past five years, it is their seemingly unlimited capacity to deliver unbiased, nuanced, and informed perspectives predicated on verified facts and incisive analysis resulting from critical thinking and reasoning.
In fact, all this independent journalism is hokum and nonsense, and we would all be better off if we devoted the entirety of our time and attention to the legacy corporate media to learn about current events. The only thing more productive than consuming the output from mainstream media is slamming our various genitals between two large bricks. In fact, I think I will get right on that!
Irony and sarcasm aside, Matt, in partnership with Ford, has once again provided interesting and thought provoking news about our current political discourse based the incoherent policy machinations of a failed administration. Thanks Matt and Ford, and I look forward to more from you both as this disgraceful situation evolves!
The irony of comparing Putin, bad as he is, to Hitler is a glaring example of the American people's glaring ignorance of history, a history that has to be to aught, but isn't. The fact that the U'S. leadership is hoping upon hope that Ukraine militia that numbers about a thousand (more or less is hard to tell) DOESN'T get the hands on the weapons and ordinance we're sending, because they are openly sympathetic to the Nazis goes almost without mention in MSM news, that Ukraine's leadership during WWII SIDED and ASSISTED the Nazis is lost on most people in the US. Then there's the fact that it was Russians defending their home from the Nazi invasion lost more lives than another nations combined in that effort, that even our inclusion into the broader war effort hinged entirely on the Russians breaking the Nazi war machine, and they did, with losses so grievous it would have ended other nations. Whatever we think of Russians, we need to rethink this effort to make Ukraine a member of NATO and back off on the Sabre rattling. We're in the wrong here. Though, we're in the wrong so much is entirely done to thew propaganda we're subjected to and no matter how many times it is proved that our government has lied it's way through an all too willing, we collectively STILL buy whatever is sold, while we pay prices we never recover in any value.
More support for Ukraine? For what . . . so they can keep up bombing in Dombas?! These people need to stop watching TV "news" (curtesy of our State Department). Putin recognized two states which voted for secession. I have no problem with self rule. Maybe these folks should review the history of Texas (or Kosovo . . . or the USA).
I wonder if China overthrew the Canadian government and threatened to bring them into their mutual defense alliance, and Alberta voted to secede, what FedGov would do about it.
The Biden Administration would welcome the Chinese dictators warmly. Hunter Biden would be named ambassador to Canada. Chinese elite have paid some $31 million to Hunter and the Bidens
By Peter Schweizer
January 27, 2022
For those wondering why Joe Biden is soft on China, consider this never-before-reported revelation: The Biden family has done five deals in China totaling some $31 million arranged by individuals with direct ties to Chinese intelligence — some reaching the very top of China’s spy agency.
https://nypost.com/2022/01/27/chinese-elite-have-paid-some-31m-to-hunter-and-the-bidens/
"The Biden Administration would welcome the Chinese dictators warmly. Hunter Biden would be named ambassador to Canada. Chinese elite have paid some $31 million to Hunter and the Bidens."
That's just clownish. GOP partisan agitprop. I read your article link; it doesn't say what you claim it to say.
Can everyone please stop the hype? You're hurting America.
Hype??! Did Hunter do big money deals in China or not? Was he a financial wizard or not? Did he utilize his fathers influence or not? Is he a sleazy do anything for a buck guy?
GOP partisan agitprop or just inconvenient truths uncovered by actual journalists? Do people commenting on apparent corruption hurt America or is it the money grubbing politicians and sports figures that actually harm their own nation? Lot of questions few answers.
It's too stupid to even qualify as GOP partisan agitprop.
Did Joe or Hunter Biden really reap $31 million from deals with the Chinese?
No.
But, you're already on to your next blizzard of murky insinuations, phrased as rhetorical questions...
How much did Hunter Biden get from the Chinese ? Hunter was Joe Biden's bagman as should be obvious to all.
Never said he reaped a particular amount of money. But what number would you consider important in the Biden families dealings with China. Murky insinuations? Really just questions people might consider or the media might ask old Joe about if they were even a bit curious. Bet you are still pushing the Russian hoax. Love to see your posts on that pile of trash over the last few years. Fantasies die hard.
Yes, the more wars we fight the deeper in debt we go. If this continues it will destroy America. Or maybe it already has
We are not fighting in this war
We just gave Ukraine several billion dollars today I think and we are giving them weapons.
I share your concern that we're catching on too slowly and too late.
I am listening to Leonard sing democracy. It may be too late but without hope everybody will vote for Nihilists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEDSRP3yNPo
Biden is not in control, and the US is not "soft on China"
Are you a Democrat? " KEY INSIGHT: Large Majority of Democrats Approve of Trudeau’s Handling of Canadian Trucker Protest:
65.7 percent of Democratic voters approve of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s handling of the trucker protest in his country. 17.2 percent disapprove and 17.1 percent are unaware of it." https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/02/trudeau-provides-the-template-large-majority-of-u-s-democrats-support-canadas-crackdown-on-protests/ Trudeau Provides The Template: Large Majority of U.S. Democrats Support Canada’s Crackdown On Protests
Good thing the D/R fraud are minor parties, 50%+ of the American people are self identified and registered INDEPENDENT.
Are you a GOP stooge?
That isn't a responsive reply to Tedder's post. You've merely moved on to handing out another GOP pamphlet.
The point is that Democrats and Leftists, in Canada and Us, have an affinity for Dictatorship.
Thanks for the inspiration. I know the truth of the American invasion.
I love America but Land of the Free and the home of the brave seem more than pathetic. The words of that slave driver written below the walls of Fort McHenry seem bathetic to this old troll.
This song seems almost as old as Key's homage to slavery but better expresses why I still love America even if it uses electricity to lit up the darkness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hhsD1K84UM
Listen to truth as you remember the Alamo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jT05670l-U
My wife's uncle died in Corpus Christi and he was a truthteller When I want to cry I listen to real history. You can't change history but at least we don't have to repeat it when we know the real truth.
I suspect by the name you may be of catholic heritage. Some of my best friends were Jesuit priests and they loved to visit so they could speak their truths. They knew Jews don't proselytize.
My wife was born in Nashville but my father in law was run out of town for speaking truth to power when he talked to the Democratic governor about corruption so very long ago
La plus ca change.
If my father in law hadn't been told to leave I would not be the happiest troll in the universe.
Crucification is such a terrible way to go defending truth.
My wife and I will die in real democracy and real freedom where truth is the only commandment.
America can be the real bastion of freedom when truth sets it free.
Excellent hypothetical example.
Maybe your example would be relevant if it was a neighboring country to Alberta. I can think of one...
That's a nonsense analogy. The correct analogy is China invaded Taiwan.
I don't understand the analogy. The Mandarins fled Mao and the Formosans gave them sanctuary. What this looks like is America invading Mexico. It was the end of Texas' evolution of civilization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIQz3mNxEog
We have a century and a half to see how poorly that turned out but I am sure the Mexicans don't want it back. What do you do with an insane asylum?
Even the people who benefited the most lost their hearts and souls.
Maybe it is time for some truth and reconciliation.
I love Texas but the nuts are in charge and I would rather stay away.
Given the number of Mexicans who have "invaded" the southwest by entering illegally, one wonders if US should have invaded Mexico when it had the chance and "Americanized" Mexico as Mexicans themselves seem to want to do evidenced by extraordinary efforts they make to enter this country illegally at great physical risk.
I think Mexicans want to be "Americanized" although I am afraid Americans have lost confidence in themselves and their culture. Oddly, Mexicans may see the value of our culture and economic system better than we do.
The increase in immigration can be traced directly to American foreign policy, such as our "war on drugs" and our support of right-wing governments in our fight against "communism". They wouldn't be coming here if their countries were not hotbeds of violence and dysfunction.
Your analogy is better.
A hostile foreign power with weapons in Canada and Mexico or in Cuba is the obvious analogy.
There were valid reasons for "The Monroe Doctrine" which remain valid today as we are learning from feckless Western leadership that has lost its will.
"A hostile foreign power with weapons in Canada and Mexico or in Cuba is the obvious analogy."
Not really as it is Russia that sees a threat in NATO expansion into what was its buffer zone between it and Europe. If you're referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets placed missiles in Cuba in response to us placing missiles in Turkey. We started the Cold War, they didn't. We started this mess because we promised not to expand NATO eastward then we did. NATO's only function was to oppose Russian, Soviet, expansion that it never had a policy to do.
We belong to NATO even if the Soviet Union no longer exists. We are threatened by only one country and NATO's charter protects us from outside aggression and as much as I love Alberta its largest immigrant group came from the American Midwest.
LOL, I think.
see above
See above.
"There were valid reasons for "The Monroe Doctrine" which remain valid today as we are learning from feckless Western leadership that has lost its will."
The problem isn't feckless leadership, as in defense, it was never recognizing that a) the Soviets were never a threat and (b) they had valid border security concerns that translate true with the Russians who simply replaced the Soviets in American minds. All we needed to do was enter into a security treaty with Russia that included nonagression agreements with those countries on their border that secured their security and border integrity.
How does your analysis differ from President Putin’s stated views? Or the views of the Bolsheviks who preceded him.
The Bolshevik USSR was expansionist, imperialist, ideological, supremacist, totalitarian, very violent and saw the USA not only as a military threat but as a threat to the ideology, philosophy and policies of Bolshevism.
The Bolsheiviks exported their policies with violence. The history of eastern Europe proves this irrefutably.
It is worth remembering that the Bolsheviks enabled not only the NAZIs rise to power but traded with the NAZIs and actively cooperated with the NAZI’s re-armamament in violation Versailles Treaty.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Treaty was signed in 23August 1939; on 1 September 1939 the NAZIs invaded Poland from the west and on 16 September 1939 Bolsheviks invaded Poland from the east. This was the beginning of WWII; with NAZI and Bolshevik aggression against an independent Poland ( which posed no miliary threat to eith NAZIs or Bolsheviks) remained under Bolshevik control until November 1989 when it became free after the Berlin Wall on 9 November that separated Bolshevik Germany from Free Germany.
The Bolsheviks may be gone (or not) but Bolsheivik thinking remains.
The question is why you don't seem to understand that Russia was invaded by European countries and has legitimate security concerns with regards to NATO.
They would do what they did when we had our referendum and let the people decide.
We have come a long way baby.
I remember Blair saying "One is too many" and the great Canadian historian Irving Abela telling me the story. He is married to the great Supreme Court Justice ret. Rosalie Silberman Abela who was born in a DP camp after WWII.
She is worth listening to she is a champion of truth and reconciliation.
We can not change the past it so often seems too difficult to create a better future.
I was reborn in Calgary when I was in my thirties and I may not like their politics but I believe in democracy and believe they know what they want. I am not a Christian but my brother Jesus told me to follow my heart and I am one happy old geezer living in the land of my birth. I was born in an other Quebec and freedom and democracy sure tastes good even with the occasional worm in the apple.
This mess can be directly attributed to the US expanding NATO after we promised Russia that we wouldn't:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
When the Soviet Union dissolved, our only concern essentially was that they open markets. Now we're reaping the rewards of our stupid, greedy policies. All we needed to do was dissolve NATO and reconfigure security that included Russia and brought it into the West, but we didn't.
Exactly what President Putin says in order to justify a war of aggression against a non-aggressor sovereign nation.
Odd how the Left adopts the view of the Authoritarian Putin. I wonder why the Left is so sympathetic to Authoritarian governments?
Odd how you can't reply to what I posted. You are a great example of what's wrong with American foreign policy, controlled by reactionaries who operate from within a very narrow, ill-informed world view.
see above. I did respond on point. Putin's Russian Federation is as violent and expansionist as Bolshevik USSR. It is surprising how many still remain sympathetic to Bolshevism. A Dupe or a Fellow Traveler? It is difficult to tell.
You didn't though. Russia was invaded by European countries. It wanted a buffer zone between it and Europe. The Soviets were never a threat and had no military plans for world domination. The US created the Cold War because it was paranoid about communism in that it had the audacity to posit that workers should control their own lives instead of the wealthy elite. The problem is the conservative world view, always has been.
The Bolshevik policy was world domination. and was a threat to the USA. It was explicitly stated and it was acted upon. It was the Leninist-Stalinist-Bolshevik world view and Bolshevism was expoerted, see Cuba as an example.
In thinking more about this, I do NOT think that Vladimir Putin and today's Russian Federation shares that view.
As evidence increases, it appears that Putin's moves may well be defensive. It is very difficult to determine another person's intentions. It is clear that US interfered in the internal affairs of Ukraine aggressively. The Russian Federation may well have had reasons for concern and have concluded that the purpose of the intervention was "regime change" as the President said a few days ago.
I'd quibble with you on just one aspect: it's no longer "odd" how the (now so-called Left) adopts the views of the authoritarian Putin. On the contrary, authoritarian--their own version of that--is precisely what the now-so-called-Left is all about.
I believe the following excerpt should interest you---(the now-so-called-"Left", not so much):
… “The possibility of an effective international agreement to prohibit nuclear weapons must be recognized as very remote. But under the circumstances of nuclear stalemate through mutual deterrence, the United States might forego use of nuclear retaliation if the (Russian) provocation were clearly to involve less than a directly mortal threat. ...
...The (Russians) recognize the value of exploiting this situation. The first objective presumably is the isolation of (those countries) from (any present or future) strategic alliance (with) the United States. ...
...The (Russian) objective is expansion of power and influence, but only by ways in which (Russia) itself is not risked as the stake in an 'adventure.' ...(I)f nuclear weapons create a recognized stalemate, this stalemate would serve as a shield behind which …
...(Russian) conventional military power could,, through threat and possibly in actual limited wars, be used to expand (Russian) control at much reduced risk (to itself). …
... (T)here are cogent reasons for believing that (Russia) believes its greatest advantage would be served by avoiding thermonuclear war and using her growing nuclear striking power to stalemate American deterrent power, and then to take advantage of this neutralization for purposes of gradual and probable indirect aggrandizement. …
... (T)he possibility of a major non-nuclear war in Europe remains strong enough—and may increase in likelihood—so that the question of preparation for waging such a war should concern all great powers. The (Russians) realize this and plan accordingly. …
... (T)here is one (potential) case of a major, though not world, war under which the (Russians) may attempt to place the West in a position where we will not use nuclear weapons: a major (Russian) challenge which they deem insufficient to provoke us to all-out massive retaliation under prevailing circumstances of mutual strategic deterrence. Thus, at some time, the (Russians) might launch a non-nuclear attack on (Germany), or on Western Europe in general, if they had been led to judge mutual deterrence to be so strong a restraint on American action that we would withhold our nuclear fire in response to such a major (italic emph.) _conventional_ attack in which neither major protagonist was directly threatened. This might at the least present us—and the people of the area involved—with a most difficult choice, and conceivably lead us, in line with (Russian) expectations, to forego our relative advantage in the use of nuclear weapons and to fight a major non-nuclear war. …
(The Russians) might well anticipate enormous gains in Europe and other areas on the Eurasian periphery. And, (italic emph.) _so long as the mutual deterrence was maintained,_ these gains could be made at assumable—indeed minimum—risks.”
(end of excerpt)
You'd be forgiven if you assumed that the foregoing was taken from some recent specialist analysis of Russian-U.S. relations. Rather, it's from a work written between 1955 and 1958 and published in that year, "Soviet Strategy in the Nuclear Age" (Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., New York) by Raymond L. Garthoff. I'd replaced all Garthoff's uses of "Soviet" with "Russia" or "Russian(s)" to highlight its enduring accuracy.
Who, today, should guess that these next excerpts, from the same work,
..."the term 'military target' applies to munitions plants, to naval bases, and to railway junctions, all of which are so often situated within the limits of densely populated cities. So it is obvious that the use of tactical nuclear weapons against such targets must inevitably result in immense loss of life among civilians." ... (1)
and
..."In modern war, hostilities extend over huge areas. The zone of combat operations, and, consequently, of the use of armaments, includes a front line running for hundreds and thousands of miles and extending to a depth of at least 300 to 400 miles on both sides of the front, from the line of direct contact of the troops. The aggressive elements who are preparing atomic war do not intend to wage it in the deserts of Arabia, the pampas of Argentina, or even in our Siberian taiga. They are preaparing to carry it out in Europe with its dense population, which in some areas reaches two hundred and even more people per square mile. Can it be imagined that in these conditions war and atomic attacks would ne limited only to the zone of operations of the troops and would not affect the civilian population? In present conditions, the density of the troops, at least in the case of defense, will frequently be much less than the density of the population in the same area adjacent to the field of battle, and the victims among the civilians would be incalculable just as the destruction would be inevitably immense. ... (ital. emphas.) there is no difference in the tactical and strategic use of atomic weapons, nor could there be any.
And, what is more important, from the standpoint of the population subjected to atomic attack, there would hardly be any difference whether it is killed by a tactical or a strategic bomb. Both the strategic and the tactical means of atomic attack are equally barbarous weapons of mass destruction which would spell death to millions of people." (2)
(and)
"It is to be recalled that both world wars started as limited military action, i.e., in their beginning both were local wars. In our time rapid development of military technology it will be even an more difficult task to put any limits on an armed conflict it this conflict starts in any single region." (3)
These were authored & published statements fromSoviet Generals, (circa 1950s) the authors were, respectively,
(1) Major General Konstantin Dmitriyevich Orlov (Константин Дмитриевич Орлов), ("Tactical Atomic Warfare Talk Abroad" (“Тактические разговоры об атомной войне за рубежом”) Radio Moscow, 13 April 1955 (Радио Москвы 13 апреля 1955));
(2) Nikolai Talensky (Николай Таленский), (USSR Major-General, USSR General Staff. Doctor of History Science; Professor; Voroshilov Higher Military Academy ) in International Affairs, No. 1, January 1955.
(3) Premier Nikita Khrushchev, letter to the British Labour Party, October 1957, quoted in The New York Times, 16 October, 1957.
Thanks most informative.
You'd understand that the left isn't "sympathetic to Authoritarian governments" if you weren't so busy trolling and spreading Russian propaganda, you clownish Kremlin stooge.
..."All we needed to do was dissolve NATO and reconfigure security that included Russia and brought it into the West, ..."
LOL!
But but but, if we disbanded NATO, how would the military industrial complex make their quarterly dividend payments?
I guess they'd manage it the same way they went on "ma(king) their quarterly dividend payments" when the U.S. left the League of Nations.
By the way, the Oxford Union phoned--from 1933. They wanted to inform you that they received your duly-sworn oath-- by which you invited Western Civilization to go to blazes-- in the post. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Oath) LOL!
Speaking of "dividend payments," it seems you know where to look for yours, huh?
A song for you, Here's puking at _you_, Kid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC5YToeHXIg
There was no U.S. military industrial complex until WWII. Since then, it's been one endless American imperial war paid for by American tax donkeys and dumb 19 year olds.
That, my friend, is perhaps THE question here. I'm not sure yet, is that driving this train or ignorant ideology?
So, if Michigan and Montana voted to opt out of the United States and become part of Canada instead ... you'd expect the United States to do nothing about it? If Texas voted to go back to Mexico, you'd be fine? I don't think so.
I'd definitely expect the US to do something about it. But if Russia or China sent weapons and trained troops and sanctioned one side or the other I'd tell them it is none of their damn business - exactly how it is none of the US' business what is going on in Ukraine.
Would you make the same argument if Putin decided to invade Poland, Germany, France, or Britain? It's their problem and we should stay out of it?
Personally, I lean toward a "Let Europe deal with Europe" stance--they have money and troops, they can protect Ukraine if they want. Then I think of all the times Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks if met with a firm and united "this far and no father," and because Chamberlain et al didn't do that, the United States wound up in the middle of the world wars anyway.
So I'm genuinely torn as to whether we should let Europe deal with this and concentrate on fixing our own mounting problems--or to intervene because if left unchecked this invasion will become our problem at some point and it's easier to deal with it now.
To answer your first question, "No." Those countries were never a part of the Russian empire, or the Soviet Union for centuries/decades. Those countries do not contain large percentages of ethnic Russians who identify as Russians. Those countries do not contain federal counties/states that have tried multiple times to leave their respective countries to become part of Russia.
Your comparison is Bush Jr. level sophomoric.
Putin is not a good guy, but he is not Hitler. This is another disengenous argument.
Hitler was discussing how Jews needed to be wiped out of Europe from his earliest days in writing (the 1920s). Hitler was preaching about how Germany needed to be avenged from "the stab in the back" in Versailles also from his first days. Hitler came to power in 33, and within 5 years he annexed the Sudetenland.
When Hitler did that he immediately ethnically cleansed the Sudetenland as well as rounding up any men born in 1921 and shipped them to concentration camps (which the allies knew about). My wife's grandfather was among those shipped off to Buchenwald, so I've done a shitton of research on this.
When Hitler annexed Austria (where I live) they immediately rounded up the Jews (and lots of others), took their property and shipped them off to concentration camps.
Putin has been in power since 1999. So by your comparison to Hitler, around 2004 he should have been annexing other countries for "Lebensraum," then ethnically cleansed those countries. He should have been shipping the undesireables off to concentration camps to work as slave labor until the died of exhaustion for the last 15+ years. Putin is not Hitler. Again, not a good guy, but not Hitler.
The French invaded Russia (Napoleon). The US invaded Russia to restore the Tsars. The Germans invaded Russia - and by now the Russians know damn well that the allies were happy to let the Russians get slaughtered rather than help on the Eastern Front.
Stalin was a fucking brutal monster, but I understand the desire of Russia after WWII to have buffer states to stop the West from invading - again.
Documentation of the explicit promise by the West NOT to expand Nato past the Elbe has recently been found. We gave an explicit promise to Russia - "this far and no farther" and in the 30 years since, we have expanded NATO five times.
Then we backed a coup (maybe even forced it) in 2014 to overthrow the democratically elected (and yes, massively corrupt) gov't in the Ukraine because we didn't like that they wouldn't accept western terms.
Where was the "this far and no farther" then? That doesn't apply to us?
When exactly do you think this would become a problem for the US? Seriously? Does anyone actually think Putin's plan is to take over the EU? Invade the US?
We're definitely in a pickle now, no doubt about it. But what we don't need is 1950s "domino theory" rhetoric. Particularly since Russia is now capitalist.
But in specific. Even though I'm against the idea of Ukraine becoming in whole a part of Russia, it is not up to us.
I reject the idea - in part - that it will be a bigger problem later, as in general since the fall of the Soviet Union the world - including the west - has gotten worse, not better. Income inequality is worse in the US than in 1991. Infant mortality. Student debt. Political corrtuption. We have scrapped the weapons bans we had with Russia. Etc. etc. I do not see the world as a better or safer place since the US became the sole superpower.
I say "in part" referring back to the domino theory. The Donbas is not Ukraine. The Donbas wants to be part of Russia. As far as my understanding of the Ukrainian constitution goes, the Donbas should be able to secede and become part of Russia.
To extrapolate from - "two counties in Ukraine that were historically part of Russia, were part of the USSR, and have tried to leave Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR" to - "Putin is Hitler and is going to take over Eastern Europe" is unbelievably simplistic and facile logic.
William, I apologize for my sarcasm and anger. I really shouldn't be venting my spleen on you like this, but this situation hits close to home and pisses me the fuck off. I should rewrite my entire comment to make it less ascerbic, but I just don't have time tonight. I've got to get back to making memes for Russia to undermine US democracy ;-) (more sarcasm!!!)
Wow! Superb writing, clear analysis. Thanks for the good job. I would like to offer, however, that there is no need for Putin to be a "good guy" as I often hear that "Putin is not a good guy." First, most of what the Americans know about Putin is tainted by animus; second, the last thing we should want is for a world leader to try to be a "good guy" as goodness is pretty relative and individual. We want a leader to be clear-sighted enough to form an acceptable vision and skillful to lead well to that goal. People criticize Stalin often, perhaps as they should, but Stalin foresaw the attacks Russia would have to defend and prepared the Soviet Union to do so, Of course, he was brutal....
Thanks for the praise. I don't know enough about Putin to say I have expertise. What I do believe is that he's pretty corrupt, but then so is Joe Biden, the Clintons, Obama, the Bushes, etc.
I also believe at least some of the stories about how he handles political opponents internally in Russia. All the shit about Novachok etc. is clearly bullshit, but over the years the number of stories of how opposing Putin politically can be, uhh.. "bad for your health" is where my "not a good guy" opinion comes from.
On a tiny personal note, I used to ski a lot Am Arlberg in the far west of Austria. Wife v1 and I went to hotel right off the slopes one day for a late breakfast. While eating two huge dudes came in to get food. They were clearly not skiers. 2 meters tall, 1 meter wide, and they looked like they would bench press a Mercedes. Pitch black hair that started about 5 cm over their eyes that were clearly scanning everyone in the breakfast room to see if any of us looked threatening. They collected several plates worth of food and left. I asked the waitress who they were, and she said they were Mr. Putin's bodyguards (he was not yet president) as he was staying in the hotel. My near "brush with greatness" (h/t David Letterman).
Anyway...Stalin was a street thug who was in the right place at the right time. He was a paranoid sociopath who killed a LOT of his own people. He lay in his own room alone for a couple of days after having his final stroke because his personal staff were terrified to enter his room without permission. That is a brutal monster that has nothing to do with making hard decisions preparing and fighting a horribly brutal war.
You can yell at me, that's fine---happy to be a buffer for this genuinely alarming issue, which could plunge us into WWIII with a single shot at a Balkan leader. (Gratuitous WWI reference!)
But good god, don't call me Shrub. Eew! I wasn't comparing Putin to Hitler, not even remotely. Putin is neither Hitler nor Stalin. He's a nationalist politician and head of state who's probing to see what he can get away with . . . like most global leaders do.
I used the Hitler analogy to explore the usefulness/uselessness of appeasement as a tool for countering invasions, nothing more. Sorry if I was unclear.
I don't want the United States to get pulled into this mess. On the other hand, if we refuse to participate now, will we get pulled in later when things are much harder to handle? Our answer depends largely on whether we believe Putin will stop only at these two regions IF Europe and Ukraine grants him those two regions. What do we do if he invades all of Ukraine? Let him or fight him? What if he tries to re-create the old USSR by taking one state after the next, claiming "Russian speakers clamor for my leadership and I cannot let them down"? At what point does THAT become our business?
These are thorny questions that Americans have to ask and answer, and the time frame is compressed because the invasion is under way in those two regions---on top of Crimea having been seized since 2004.
I take your point about Ukraine having been long associated with Russia. But that association ended with the forced takeover of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union, and the escape of those nations when the USSR collapsed. Those states, including Ukraine, are free and independent now, have been for years, and it is up to them to chose who they will associate with: Russia, NATO and the West, nobody, or some other arrangement.
Putin has no business interfering with sovereign Ukraine, let alone invading it. He lost that right when his forebears imposed Soviet communism on sovereign states, then lost it. The question for Americans: What do we do about it, if anything?
You fail to understand the regional history. Ukraine up to Kiev was essentially Russian until the Stalinist era, then joined with what is now west Ukraine after WW II. The sovereign nation of Ukraine that emerged after the breakup of USSR essentially lost its sovereignty after the Maidan coup in 2014, becoming a failed state and a vassal of the US. So, the peoples of Donbas and Crimea all chose Russia.
Putin just realized their ambitions.
Ah, get you about the comparison. Sorry for the Bush the lesser comparison.
Since my comment yesterday two things happened. Germany axed Nordstream II (this might have happened already before I commented, but I learned about it last night), and (unsurprisingly), Russia has now invaded Ukraine proper.
Russia's economy depends on selling natural gas to Europe. Nordstream I runs in the ocean, making it rather vulnerable. Nordstream II runs parallel. The land route goes through Ukraine.
Germany gets 40% of its LNG over NS I, and this would have doubled with NS II. Cutting off NS II (which is physically complete, with final specification in progress) was a huge escalation of aggression. Imagine if Russia was able to cut off crude oil from Canada or Mexico to the US.
Russia would have to be stupid not to imagine that NS I could now be threatened. So how do they get their products out of Russia by land if not by sea? Through Ukraine.
To answer your question when it becomes our business I'll answer for myself and then give what I think the US gov't's answer will be. For me the point is moot. Russia tried to join NATO and was rebuffed. They have been slowly rebuilding their country after the rape of the 90s. NS I and II would have tightly integrated Russia with Germany, and that would have been the end of it. Germany is the powerhouse of the EU. By having Russia and Germany huge business partners, there would be no need for invasion from either side.
Two side notes: 1) The entire EU project was to integrate the continent economically so that the countries would stop warring with each other, and has been a great success. No reason that couldn't work with Russia - except that doesn't maintain US hegemony in Europe.
2) I don't know enough about Putin to know if he really has delusions of grandeur about restoring the USSR. CZ, SK and RO have been largely integrated with Europe. I don't know enough about Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to give an opinion. Poland is partially integrated in Europe but too fucking big to overrun. The Balkans are truly balkanized now, and they and Hungary are buffered / behind RO/SK, so other than the three little countries in the north - who are all part of NATO, I don't see many options for invasion that would for sure trigger WWIII after Ukraine.
My answer about when it becomes the problem of the US from the US gov't's point of view is now. We overthrew Ukraine in 2013/14. We have been sending a shitton of weapons there since then, and training their Nazis to fight separatists in preparation for Russia. Again here I'll note, when does Russia get to say, "enough" to the arming and training of adversaries on their border?
Biden's popularity is in the toilet. The MIC wants to get the weapons sales they "lost" after we decided to use siege warfare on Afghanistan rather than boots on the ground. A war in Ukraine solves multiple short-term problems for Biden....but I very much doubt the US public (not the main stream media) will support a war. Going to war ourselves just to fuck up Russia's economy I believe is a bridge too far.
That association did NOT end with takeover of Eastern Europe. It did not end with fall of the USSR. The Donbas tried to leave Ukraine in 1991, and again in 2014, and Crimea has been in Russian hands for about 300 years.
Since the US backed coup in 2014, the Donbas has not been a part of Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine has a mixture of pro-Russia, pro-Ukraine (independent) and pro-EU. But the association with Russia, who is Ukraines largest trading partner, goes back many centuries and doesn't end because the USSR did. That's like saying the Kenyan association with England ended because they got independence.
I could agree with you that Putin has no business interfering with A sovereign Ukraine. But you aren't seriously going to try to argue that after a US-backed (maybe started) coup followed by a US installed Ukraine president, "Yatz is our man. Fuck the EU" (Victoria Nuland, and Yatz did become president), that Ukraine is "sovereign."
Imagine if China backed a coup in Canada. Installed a pro-China president. Sent BILLLIONS of dollars of weapons into Canada. Started arming and training anti-American militias. The new Canada says, "Yeah, maybe let's join the pro-China/anti-American military alliance." Would you say the US has no business interferring with sovereign Canada in that situation? I wouldn't.
Again I say: Ukraine is not our problem. The EU should handle it. The way Germany is going it is making the situation worse rather than better in the short run.
Don't delude yourself that Russia has any designs on European countries; that is a hypothetical, but a useless one. A better hypothetical would be if the US withdrew entirely from Europe (and NATO) and pledged not to intervene or meddle in others' internal affairs, that there would be no Ukraine crisis.
I don't believe Putin has any designs on France, England, Norway, or other such European countries---he is not Hitler, he is not even Stalin. I do believe he would be happy to re-create the old Soviet Union if he could. He tested world tolerance for that with his successful invasion and capture of the Crimea, and he's testing again with his meddling in the rest of Ukraine.
If Putin has not stolen Crimea, invaded two Ukrainian provinces, and put 100k troops along Ukraine's border, there would be no Ukraine crisis, would there?
The crisis started with the US-backed Maidan coup in 2014 before the Crimea plebescite, to overthrow Russia's neighbor's democraticly elected President, Yanukovych. Although presented as Pro-Russian, Yanukovych was Pro-EU when they offered better opportunities; he played both sides.
The turning of Ukraine over to American-backed NAZIs is consistent with the American-backed coup against democraticly elected Morsi in Egypt in 2013, replacing him with the military dictator al SiSi; Morsi was jailed and died in custody.
Similarly the American-backed "coup" (Hillary claimed no coup, since that blocks foreign aid) in Honduras in 2009, quickly resulted in death squads, and Honduras became an American-backed narco state.
The American-backed Libyan coup in 2011, and the American-backed breakup of Yugoslovia (into six breakaway nations in 2001). You almost get the impression that Putin is not the problem?
Stolen Crimea? Crimea has been Russia's military port for 250+ years. Those two provinces have wanted to be part of Russia since 1991. They voted to leave Ukraine then, but Ukraine parliament (illegally as I understand it) refused to recognize their referendums. Plural, as ther was also one in 2014 and since then they refuse to recognize the coup gov't in Kiev.
If Putin had not done those things--which mainly required listening to the peoples involved--NATO would now be in Sebastopol and millions of ethnic Russians would be dead.
How do you know that China, Russia, Five Eyes and anyone else with actual pull aren't working together for this right now?
You think the world leaders aren't aware that 7 billion people is unsustainable?
What's the immediate answer to that?
Depopulation.
You think China, Russia, Five Eyes, and anyone else with "pull" want WWIII, which would not merely reduce our population but end all human life from nuclear winter? Your paranoia is alarming.
The only intelligence I trust is Israeli because their survival depends on truth. They may live under gaslights but their survival depends on the sunlight and the truth outside their cave.
We are on the cusp of population decline and you understand is bull crap. Our population is sustainable but our economy cannot be sustained. We are growing orchids for the world with the heat from our aluminum smelters and we could easily grow bananas, mangoes and oranges. It is 19 below and I heat with the energy captured in my dormant flower bed with the fans powered by falling water.
Any population, be it yeast or humans, will expand until it reaches equilibrium with available resources, ie energy. The world population today has reached its scope on the back of fossil fuels. Both huge numbers of people and massive burning of fossil fuels have brought the planet to a tipping point of climate chaos. The most reasonable answer is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. This will concomitantly imply reduction of population.
Have you considered alternatives that do not contribute to global warming, i.e. nuclear/fusion?
One of the reasons Russia is developing and building nuclear reactors for power generation (despite ample reserves of oil & gas) is that they assume oil/gas/coal are finite and not feasible for much longer due to CO2 emissions but the amount of energy required to maintain our civilization and to prosper will only increase.
I conclude that Ukraine lost its sovereignty after the 2014 coup and is now completely a US vassal; thus, Russia offers a superior alternative to the people of Crimea and the Donbas who want to live in a real country.
I conclude you're wrong.
But anyone who lives in Crimea and the Donbas who feels as you do should move to Russia. Putin will give them a hero's welcome.
Why should they move out of their homeland? Perhaps you notice that thousands of Donbas residents have moved to Russia in order to not die from Ukrainian artillery.
1) You can't move the port in Crimea. 2) Ukraine constitution allows binding referendums for "states" (I'm not sure if they call them "federal counties" or whatever) to leave Ukraine. They don't have to leave if they are a majority, and in Crimea and the Donbas, they are, and have so voted. Twice.
Thank you we in Quebec voted twice to remain Canadian.
We trolls need all the help we can get.
Maybe you can change your name to Alberich even if only you and I might get the joke. Singing trolls are hard to find.
I don't think we need talk about nazi trolls living under bridges far from my own. pierce is one heck of a troll finder but is delicious snack for fans of fresh immature Billy goat.
I had all the education I could handle when I was dismissed from High School but take great pride in being cited in a dissertation about measuring the distance between the stars.
Yes. I support self determination and all secessions. Many small governments > a few giant governments.
We settled the issue of "self-determination" in 1776, and reaffirmed it by subduing the secessionist South in the Civil War. The United States has remained internally peaceful ever since because it's one united (albeit noisy and messy) country. Europe, in contrast, was plagued with civil wars for thousands of years precisely because its small states kept invading each other to become larger states and empires.
Wow, spread a fallacy why don't you?
This is a republic of states.
Always has been. If a state wants to secede, it can... after a process. (If that process involves being declared a foreign power and enemy, so be it.)
Check out recent abortion voting and COVID response revelations lately and maybe stop sniffing your own socks for a change.
Duh. Of course states control their internal destinies. But only when they don't run afoul of federal law or the U.S. Constitution. Texas's abortion ban is an ideal case in point. Texas can enforce its ban if, and only if, it doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution. SCOTUS heard arguments pro and con and will rule later this year on whether the ban is valid. If SCOTUS says no, that's it, Texas must abort their law.
Why? Because the federal constitution and federal law reign supreme in our republic of states. If you weren't dizzy from sniffing the skid marks in your underwear, you'd know that.
As for states can secede if they're willing to be declared enemy combatants and their leaders declared traitors and their territories invaded and retaken by a federal government that is supreme under our Constitution? Uh, sure, states can do that if they want. They'd be lunatics to try, but yeah, Idaho could declare itself a Sovereign Citizen and say "come get me, Sammy." Sammy would oblige.
Nothing is ever "settled." There is no steady state.
The U.S. is a bloated confederation run by irredeemably corrupt lunatics in FedSwamp. Best we peacefully break up before it ends in blood.
I thank you and my fellow moronic trolls thank you.
I like our country the way it is, warts and all, because warts can be successfully treated. Perhaps you could peacefully break up with us since you hate the place so much.
Now you're being rude. I love my country. But one must never conflate "country" with "government."
It is impossible to peacefully break up with the U.S. Even renouncing citizenship involves an extortion payment to FedGov.
I love America but I love my country more. We send our Trumpists south in the winter to stink up your beaches and trailer parks and drink till their brains pour out their mouths. Sad oh so very sadly, Florida is too hot in the summer and they return to our local beaches and camping grounds.
We have rules (mandates) that must be followed like you can drink , smoke as much cannabis as you want , you must shit in the toilets and flush and you can fuck your brains out in public but no assault rifles and you must obey the 4AM curfews.
We take care of our Trumpists and they stay out of our politics. We like peace order and good government and our drunken hooligans are compliant.
They just want to party all night long and wake up in the morning, start again and drink and smoke to relieve their headaches.
They would like nothing more than live in Florida all year long but when you are living in a metal box with wheels hot summers sure are shitty.
We are grateful for you taking them. I don't think having them here as we try to survive the winter would be good for our mental stability and just about now the suicides would make Covid a very minor irritation.
Does Florida want more Fantasyland visitors we have too many and we heat with gravity. I wake up in the morning thanking the stars we don't let them play with guns. Guns and alcohol don't mix.
I would be perfectly happy. My wife grew up in Michigan I lived there and I know Montana very well. The people can be trusted to make a correct decision but where in your fucking bastion of ignorance loving bastards are you going to find truth?
Tell me where in the USA can any media be trusted?
As Leonard once said I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEDSRP3yNPo
"where in your fucking bastion of ignorance loving bastards . . ."
There are plenty of intelligent and well-read Americans. But you're Canadian. Deal with your own problems instead of condescending to us like you're saints. You aren't.
Fine people live in Michigan and Montana. They would not be permitted secede from our country, for the same reason British Columbia would not be permitted to secede from yours.
You fucking ignorant piece of stinking rotting flesh. If British Columbians vote to secede we would wish them the best and wish them a fond farewell. Democracy is about people not power and fortune.
I love America my wife and many family members are Americans and they are scared shitless about their future and all those ignorant bastards who want the tyranny you love so dearly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEDSRP3yNPo
Plato was a founder of Republicanism; he said Democracy is the ultimate tyranny. Plato was an oligarch and loved oligarchy Michigan isn't going to secede and Montana isn't going to secede but Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas and Florida.?. Need to be give a fond farewell in a country that supposedly believes in democracy.
e. pierce is so right about you . . .
I hate ignorant bastards who want tyranny. But I don't know any personally. Perhaps you should keep better company since you do.
Plato was right about democracy being tyrannical. But we're a republic, so fuck you. And fuck Plato for loving oligarchy; that is the source of much of our problems here.
As for secession, yeah, right, you'd wave bye-bye and wish them well. I see what happened when Quebec tried it. Oh, and your Canadian Supreme Court disagrees with your notion of unilateral secession by a province. From Wiki:
"Quebec cannot secede from Canada unilaterally; however, a clear vote on a clear question to secede in a referendum should lead to negotiations between Quebec and the rest of Canada for secession. However, above all, secession would require a constitutional amendment."
Today the Trudeau government said the emergency is over. And Canada is more united than ever the insurrectionists are more isolated than ever. Trump confirmed our suspicions and now we know our fears weren't paranoia. I suspect that Biden's approval ratings will be over 70% . That Zelensky sure writes brilliant scripts but when your enemy is ignorance blood is going to be spilled.
We had a vote that was really close and Quebec voted to remain in Canada and we are all better for it. pierce is totally correct. I am everything he says I am I speak only my truth, shithead. pierce taught me how to write American and use the words that mean whatever one choses them to mean you brilliant erudite and inciteful genius.
We are a miserable angry and violent people who can't wait for an invasion so we can chop off the heads of you ignorant pieces of shit.
Why don't you come up for a visit but be wary those welcomes, those hugs, that love is all a ruse so you let your guard down so we can ravage your children and cut your gonads off.
I lived for two decades in deep red Michigan and dark dark blue South Chicago there are bad people on both sides but not all that many . Most just want peace order and good government just like we have here in Quebec.
Our children live in the People's Republic of Takoma Park. There are no pierces there they are too busy preparing their sophisticated arguments to learn pierce speech. Do I sound like a moronic troll, do I sound like a moron, do I spew nonsense or do my words bear inquiry? What do you think pierce words mean other than fear makes us all insane. Mark Twain wrote those very words over one century ago and he was America's greatest truth teller and he cried many a tear.
Stick your courage to its sticking point and speak you truth I don't do sophistication very well. I live under a bridge and eat Billy goats even William Goats..
Me bad Twain said most of us are moral cowards and he confessed to being a moral coward and he was the bravest of the brave.
Would you like a url to fact check my Twain Quote?
I'd expect Russia and Ukraine to do nothing about it.
If this invasion was centered and about Dombas then perhaps Putin's move could be seen as support for a separatist state, but the focus in on taking over ALL of Ukraine hence the fighting in Kiev. This makes it look like an invasion to take over another sovereign nation because of the resources and money involved.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/17/ukraine-russia-map/
Sure… we should be listening for Radio Moscow instead. No thanks, I’ve listened for their KGB lies for 26 years. You don’t like Biden’s State Dept.? Great, neither do I. That doesn’t make dirty Putin propaganda palatable.
How have you listened to Radio Moscow
I think the KGB was disbanded just about 26 years ago, so who knows what lies you listened to? I am particularly fond of the lies put out by the Americans, Radio Washington. Very entertaining. Try it sometime.
LOL!! It's goes by the name of rt.com "Russia Today" ( https://rt.com ) For those who like their propaganda straight, no chaser.
Great, send your kid there to defend Biden's kid's interests.
Dirty Biden's propaganda is worse - he is gonna cost you money and people their lives, at least Putin didn't do shit to Americans.
Yet - the truth is soo obvious and soo simple... The original modern sin is -- the Russia-gate HOAX.
SAME lying team that concocted the Russia-gate hoax and 2014 bloody coup that overthrew democratically elected Ukraine government Jake Sullivan, Hillary strategy advisor had a KEY role in launching Russia-gate hoax – he is now national security advisor to Biden.
SAME people that launched the Russia-gate hoax are now hollering that Russia invasion of Ukraine is "imminent". All to "save democracy" there -- in order to distract from the fact that St. Obama organized in 2014 bloody coup against democratically elected Ukraine government. St. Obama installed Biden and his CIA pal Brennan as de facto governors of Ukraine -- immensely enriching US "elite" and posting and removing government members, judges and heads of industry with billions of corrupting cash -- in "fight against corruption".
US War party’s key exports are – coups, wars and all-encompassing US corruption.
Fucking war criminals, all.
Probably they'd fire off a global war so they can avoid ever having to be held accountable for their overt coup spanning the last five years
The State Media is pushing the Russian "invasion", after Biden had already "welcomed" a small "incursion" by the Russians: thehindu.com/news/international/white-house-warns-russia-on-invading-ukraine-after-biden-seems-to-suggest-small-incursions-will-be-tolerated/article65009146.ece
Somehow the saber-rattling State Media is equating a Russian intervention to protect Russians on their border who begged for protection and INVITED THEM IN, with the US illegally entering Iraq and Syria UNINVITED, true invasions (with not a peep out of the United Nations).
Maybe Putin should claim all those NATO and US-dominated counties on their borders have WMDs? Then they could invade freely or even nuke them. have to stop nuclear weapon proliferation.
"SAME people that launched the Russia-gate hoax are now hollering that Russia invasion of Ukraine is "imminent"."
It's no longer "imminent." Russia invaded Ukraine, a sovereign nation, with combat troops.
Whether the United States should get involved in its defense--or let Europe handle European problems--depends largely on what were think our national interests are in (a) Ukraine itself (b) defending the principle of national sovereignty (c) punching Putin in the nose for our own political purposes (d) if he conquers Ukraine will he go after the rest of the former Soviet states, who want nothing to do with Mother Russia?
There is no "modern sin" at work here, just the same kind of self-interest by us that Putin uses for himself. It's what nations do.
Russia merely recognized the independence of two embattled provinces as states and on invitation offered peacekeeping protection -- EXACTLY as US/UK unilaterally did with Kosovo.
PS: Remember – Biden was the governor of Ukraine after St. Obama’s bloody coup in Ukraine against its democratically elected government in 2014; Biden was selecting and removing heads of industry and Ukraine’s puppet government, dismissing the federal judge investigating Burisma – a judge that State Dept. lauded for integrity only weeks before…
The immense corruption of Biden family still needs to be investigated – Hunter’s Burisma was used to ‘wash” US dirty money. Thanks heavens that recent “colored revolution” coups in Belarus and Kazakhstan were not successful.
Hunter Biden Sought MASSIVE $120M Kazakh-Chinese-Ukrainian Oil Deal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t-cmDH0yyM
Thank you. So many people on "the left" have selectively forgotten - or never knew, due to media censorship - of Crazy Ol Uncle Joes iron fist in forcing Ukraine to pay his idiot son billions...or else! The filthy pack of lies and war crimes stemming from obie/biden's reign of terror and blackmail are well documented, but conveniently ignored by the war mongering left in its insatiable fear and loathing of all things Putin.
"Crazy Ol Uncle Joes iron fist in forcing Ukraine to pay his idiot son billions...or else!"
more crazy talk
"The filthy pack of lies and war crimes stemming from obie/biden's reign of terror and blackmail are well documented"
so document it, then.
The current state of the Ukraine is document enough. It is riddled with Nazis and corrupt with kleptocrats. It has mounted a genocidal war on its rebel provinces. The Ukraine has lost its claim of sovereignty and is practically a failed state, propped up by the US.
ukrainegate.info nice summary of Bidens' corrupt rule in Ukraine
Wow -- the first SHORT video -- https://ukrainegate.info/short-part-1-a-not-so-solid-prosecutor/
Invaluable !!
This looks like extensive videos -- who made them? Many thanks
" Biden was the governor of Ukraine after St. Obama’s bloody coup in Ukraine"
lol wut
Obama's VP Biden was selecting and removing heads of industry and Ukraine’s puppet government, dismissing the federal judge investigating Burisma – a judge that State Dept. lauded for integrity only weeks before…
The immense corruption of Biden family still needs to be investigated – Hunter’s Burisma was used to ‘wash” US dirty money.
Thanks heavens that recent “colored revolution” coups in Belarus and Kazakhstan were not successful.
Hunter Biden Sought MASSIVE $120M Kazakh-Chinese-Ukrainian Oil Deal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t-cmDH0yyM
not exactly....
Perhaps, but you make the error of assuming Russian expansion. Most of the former USSR in Europe came about after Russia defeated the German occupying armies. At that time, those countries had no government and the Soviets did their best to govern them according to communist principles. They were always an expensive headache. No sane Russian leader would want to recreate that, including incorporating the Nazi-riddled western Ukrainians.
Ukraine has been a playground for the worst grifters the West has to offer. Dirty political intrigue, rank official incompetence, and money laundering by the garbage elites. Any chance that Putin siezes comprehensive documentation before it can be destroyed? Would he blackmail his opponents or just put it all on the internet for the world to read?
In the US, we're always trying to divide the world into good guys and bad guys. For the media, that generates clicks, too.
There are no good guys here. Putin is an ex-KGB guy doing what you'd expect an ex-KGB guy to do (although Russia could have done much worse). Zelensky was put into power and is controlled by Kolomoisky, who stole $6 billion from the Ukrainian people through a bank he controlled, laundered it partly through the US, and has openly bragged that the Ukrainian president is among the assets he owns.
Pity the Ukrainian people, who continue to be stolen blind no matter who ends up in control. But there are no good guys. We cannot fix this. And it is most certainly not in the interest of the average American to expend blood or treasure on this.
You repeat rather tired misinformation about Vladimir Putin, which is the standard American view. Try some truth. The late Professor Steven F Cohen offers some insight:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/who-putin-is-not/?fbclid=IwAR3ErqNIE_JxbqjxMJgtgwLyc57KHfDr9evqqNd-9taL7CgW2_N9BNb9xHc
You fucking ignorant piece of dog dropping.. But that is not your fault I know Ukraine it is my ancestral homeland. My ancestors fled the pogroms. I know the story of Russia and know Nazis are not freedom fighters and the Nazi militias are just as much victims of Russian Imperialism as Americans. I know my enemies they fly the flag of Catherine the Great and the Stars and Bars. I know Michigan and I know Tennessee and Texas. I know the Michigan Militia and the "Freedom" fighters of Michigan. Regardless of what American media tells you asshole nazis don't want freedom they are tyrants. Their only goal is to replace our own truths with their lies and propaganda.
I am Canadian. Trudeau is a Canadian and Canadians are the most conservative people on earth.
Our liberal government is far more conservative than your oligarchy can tolerate. Our liberals are more conservative than your oligarchy can tolerate.
Today I chanced upon Morning Joe and I heard a real conservative talk about Trudeau and what a wise conservative leader does in these best of times in a country that knows what freedom and democracy really means.
Conservative means if it works don't change it.
Oligarchy means if it is totally fucked you need to fix it.
In Quebec we have a conservative government and we have peace order and good government. Most of our citizens are happy and content and love laughter, love and sharing. We have democracy and real freedom and you must run an insane asylum. That is the essence of truth. In 1700 Vilnius was the capital of the enlightenment and then Catherine the Great turned Russia into an Empire and Russia followed the USA down the rabbit hole of where Humpty Dumpty rules and truth becomes whatever Humpty Dumpty says truth is. Jefferson warned you but you ignored his warnings.
your chains are stronger than the chains by which Putin commands.
You believe all kinds of stupid shit. America is a slave culture and thinks their slavery is as good as it gets. Today Vilnius is freer more democratic and more prosperous and saner than the USA because Lithuania is a sovereign nation and its people can again walk their own path. In fact Finland and the Baltic States are freer, more democratic and more prosperous than your insane asylum.
Putin's Russia is younger than the USA but as Voltaire admonished perception is real in its consequences.
Americans know about as much about their history as today's Catherine the Great as Americans know about the misery and ignorance they unleashed upon our world that is starving for truth and reconciliation.
So, Putin is neither Stalin nor Martin Luther King. OK, I agree. He's a politician and the leader of a nuclear power, neither evil nor warm and fuzzy. In other words, a normal national leader.
But that does not excuse his invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine. Do you believe he had that right, and if so, why? Like it or not, the Soviet Union is gone and he has no right to try to re-create it by taking over Belarus, Crimea, and now, Ukraine.
If he concentrate solely on governing Russia, I'd be all for him. But this? No. He earns the condemnation as much as my own United States should be condemned for invading Iraq, which had zero to do with 9/11.
Do you really think that this crisis would exist if Ukraine simply took the prospect of NATO membership off the table for ten years?
Vladimir Putin has watched a hostile military alliance basically march up to his doorstep for the last 23 years. A NATO-affiliated Ukraine would have the power to shut down the oil and gas pipelines running from Russia to the West; to cut off all Russian access to the Black Sea west of Sochi; to stop all transshipment commerce from ports like Odessa to Russian territory. NATO would have the ability to station military personnel from the multinational NATO alliance on its territory, along with intermediate range missiles.
Some history I've already posted elsewhere
https://usrussiaaccord.org/acura-viewpoint-jack-f-matlock-jr-todays-crisis-over-ukraine/
https://ccisf.org/u-s-ambassadorjack-matlock-todays-crisis-over-ukraine/
Russia brought the "march" of NATO on itself. Did you forget that the Eastern European states on Russia's border were occupied by a grim, vast, and hostile military force--the Soviet Union--for decades? When the USSR's dictatorial yoke was finally broken, many of those free states decided to join NATO to ensure Russia wouldn't again be able to send in tanks and whisper, "Welcome home, bitch."
Ukraine is a sovereign state. It can join NATO if it chooses, it can install any defensive weapons systems it chooses. It can station troops along the border with Russia if it chooses---just like, you know, Russia has done to Ukraine.
What it cannot do is invade Russia. And, it hasn't.
"Hostile military alliance?" Not hardly. NATO hasn't invaded Russia. Nobody has invaded Russia, cut off the pipelines, or prohibited shipping.
Russia has done the invading. First Crimea, then a soft takeover of Belarus, and now a military invasion of Ukraine. Pardon me for not believing Putin's motives are pure.
Address the history provided by the former US ambassador to the USSR, in the links I provided. And don't patronize me. Address the history honestly, instead of in caricature.
1) The Soviet Union aka USSR did NOT obtain its Eastern Bloc satellite states by embarking on a campaign of territorial conquest. Having fought for national survival in a war against the German Nazis, the Russian Army was obligated to chase their enemy all the way back to Berlin to defeat them. That's how the Russians came to occupy that territory. In the aftermath of the defeat of the Nazi regime, Russian-friendly Soviet-style regimes rose to power in eastern European countries.
This result was entirely expected by the leaders of the West, Winston Churchill included, "Iron Curtain" rhetoric notwithstanding. It's simply elementary geopolitics that when one large nation fights two massive wars against another large nation in the span of less than 30 years, and the second time they only escape being conquered by an aggressive invasion that besieged their largest cities and advanced to the outskirts of the capital city, they're going to demand a territorial buffer zone of friendly nations between their former archenemy and their own western border. It shouldn't be surprising that the Russians insisted that the regimes of those nations also be Marxist-Leninist in order to feel secure. And for what it's worth, of all of the nations that became Soviet Eastern bloc buffer states, only Czechoslovakia had been a democracy in the 1930s. Prior to the Nazi invasion, Poland had been governed by an authoritarian regime that had taken power in a coup; Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania were authoritarian regimes that all drew on fascist ideology (amalgamated with monarchy and aristocracy in Bulgaria and Romania), and all three were considered Nazi satellite states during World War II. With the exception of Czechoslovakia, none of those countries had any tradition of democratic institutions (much less Western democracy) to draw on; it isn't as if they would all have been "free countries" if only the Russians had withdrawn all of their influence in 1946. Anyway, that just isn't the way the aftermath of a gigantic tectonic geopolitical collision works. It isn't as if the Western nations of the Allies relinquished their influence in Europe (or Japan and the Far East.)
2) Yes, the East Bloc regimes were totalitarian socialist states. Yes. the USSR acted in a repressive capacity in the 40-odd years that the Eastern Bloc nations were their satellites. The Russian Army deployed to smother rebellions in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, and Poland (in the last two cases, twice, iirc.) But it's worth noting that the national rebellions had some success in pushing the Soviets and their own governments to eventually acquiesce to more autonomy and opening up those societies; the Russians didn't crush the life out of those countries.
3) Russia is not the Soviet Union; the USSR dissolved 40 years ago. As a matter of strict fact, the original raison d'etre for the existence of NATO dissolved with it.
And as for this:
"When the USSR's dictatorial yoke was finally broken, many of those free states decided to join NATO to ensure Russia wouldn't again be able to send in tanks and whisper, "Welcome home, bitch."
That's fake history. A classic boilerplate American Infotainment narrative.
This is what real history looks like: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
You actually have to read it, though. Along with the other two links I supplied, by the US ambassador to the USSR 1987-1991, a career Foreign Service officer with a career in Russian diplomatic affairs that began with him translating messages from Nikita Kruschev to JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1961.
It also helps if you know enough history to realize that the last leader of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, was just not a tanks-rolling kinda guy; the nations of the West didn't liberate the nations of Eastern Europe by military force, the leader of the USSR voluntarily agreed to the dismantling of the Eastern Bloc.
"Ukraine is a sovereign state." Right, and Cuba was a sovereign state when it invited the USSR to install missile bases on its territory. But somehow that didn't happen. It got worked out. By the US and Russia.
I have no patience with sanctimonious maundering about "national sovereignty" when the action being considered by the nation in question is about joining in a multinational mutual defense military pact where an attack on one nation is to be viewed as an attack at all. For crying out loud, the US has a history of enforcing the Monroe doctrine that projects our great-power national interest all over the Western hemisphere to the point where the nation of Grenada was invaded on the basis that it was a national security threat. The invasion of Iraq was arguably a tacit extension of that prerogative to the Eastern hemisphere- i.e., worldwide. To provide a relevant hypothetical analogy, if you think that the US would allow Mexico to join a BRIC defense pact, you're out of your mind. And contending that Ukraine has a historic tradition of national sovereignty separate from Russia isn't much different than claiming that Texas is, underneath it all, actually a sovereign Republic, instead of one of the 50 states.
It also might prove instructive to review the history of the US and Mexico, and to recall the fact that the territories ceded to the US by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1849 were part of the nation of Mexico for a lot longer time than they've been part of the US. But the territorial politics of "great powers" follow the same "rules"- or anyway, lack of rules, more like ad hoc conventions- everywhere. Don't they?
More than four million Ukrainian "kulaks" would love to thank you for encouraging Russia to reoccupy their land, but they can't because they're dead, starved, beaten, and frozen by gentle Uncle Joe and the Soviet Union. Familiar with "Holodomor"? That genocidal famine of Ukraine lasted from 1921 to 1933, well before WWII "forced" the Soviet Union to turn Eastern Europe into a crumple zone for Moscow:
https://www.history.com/news/ukrainian-famine-stalin
For the record, that's patronizing you. But you've offered a lot of compelling arguments and links, and I respect that. So let's drop the mutual insults and look at the realpolitik: Russia can invade if it wants, but Ukraine can repel if it can.
Any historic ties Ukraine had with Russia, Holomodor poisoned them, and the freedom Ukraine experienced after the Soviet Union collapsed sealed the deal. "Historic relationships" do not preclude divorce, and Ukraine long ago earned the right to choose for itself which camp it wants to be in: Russian, Western, or neither. Power is the key to its success.
"But the territorial politics of 'great powers' follow the same 'rules'- or anyway, lack of rules, more like ad hoc conventions- everywhere. Don't they?"
You are absolutely correct. All great powers, including the United States, are sanctimonious and two-faced about the use and abuse of power. It's how we "justified" our coups in Central America, our invasion of Grenada, our invasion of Iraq, and other misadventures. No one had the power to make us go away, and so we didn't.
Russia is playing that game of nations now, but the rules don't require Ukraine to roll over and play dead because Putin insists. If Ukraine successfully rallies the West and forces Putin to retreat, Ukraine wins. If not, Putin wins. Land belongs only to those with the power to defend and keep it.
I think this is a shitty and sad way to run a world, but nobody in power asked me. The game will continue and people will be harmed.
Your argument that the rape victim got herself raped because she was wearing suggestive clothing is painfully illustrating the ignorance in all of your posts about this.
That's the kind of shit people defending rapacious pigs say.
How about just disbanding NATO altogether? It serves no purpose but enriching arms manufacturers.
Have you no empathy? NATO is all we have to protect us from our only threat, the many Putins to our south.
Thank you,
It is minus 15 below but the sun tells me our Trumpists will soon return to foul our beaches, campgrounds and trailer parks and freedom is all they want. Sometimes all Trumpists really want is the freedom to drink booze and smoke cannabis and Quebec allows them to do it but our climate is not conducive to "living" in a tent or trailer on the beach in the winter and we are grateful Florida allows them the opportunity to spend their winters in your beautiful but insane Utopia.
I am a pedantic troll and my fellow trolls can't write but I hate when others use the wrong conjunction. should you use nor rather than and between warm and fuzzy?
🤣
Thank you again we would love to have you come and visit especially those willing to open up their eyes and see the occasional truths that are so hard to find in the light of the gas lamps.
"My tent is neither warm nor fuzzy, but my boat is both warm and fuzzy."
You assume too much. Putin has never claimed to want more territory. He very reluctantly has moved to destroy the threat poised by the Ukrainian army--this only after years of diplomacy. But Minsk was rejected by the Yukies who instead decided to conquer the rebellious provinces of the Donbas, with perhaps Crimea next. This adventurism will not stand, just as it did not stand in 2008 with Georgia.
ukrainegate.info "Corruption is a cancer". Which describes anyone in the Ukraine orbit, with the Bidens at the top.
And most of us miss Stephen Cohen, a voice of reason in understanding Russia. Wonder if the CIA was involved in his death?
It is rather tired to accuse someone of misinformation without specifying what you claim to be inaccurate.
There is no such thing as "disinformation" or "misinformation" there is only information you accept and information you do not accept. You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told, rather you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions. Not a lot of that going on nowadays.
"There are no good guys here. Putin is an ex-KGB guy..." is misinformation and tired anti-Putin American propaganda. Please read Professor Cohen's analysis.
Really? Putin is not an ex-KGB guy? And you claim it's demonstrably, factually true that Putin is a good guy, so that a simple claim that he's "not a good guy" is misinformation, rather than an opinion?
I was just teaching my 9 year old the difference between facts, which can be true or false, and opinions...
Look, I speak Russian, I studied there as a student, I've worked there, and I have long time friends there. I think a lot of the media portrayals of Putin as some kind of monster are over the top. That's why I said that Russia could have done much worse. There was a time during the 90s collapse when a genuine psycho fascist might have risen to power. Lucky for Russia and the world that this didn't happen.
But no, Putin is not a good guy. He increases Russia's power by helping to encourage clashes in bordering regions, including Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and so on.
Professor Cohen was well-known for a strongly pro-Russian perspective. He's worth reading. But attaching a link and claiming "misinformation" and Cohen's views as "fact" is kind of silly, don't you think?
As you note, "media portrayals of Putin as some kind of monster are over the top..." That is a huge problem. In this Ukraine case, Putin offers truth and diplomacy. If you cannot see that, despite your personal knowledge, you continue misinformation. As far as I know, no leader of a people is or has been "a good guy", so of course there are technically "no good guys", but so what?. As far as KGB, Professor Cohen is quite clear that is a chimera and not at all pertinent. Your opinion that Russia could have devolved into a fascist state should reinforce a very positive rendering of Putin. Read Cohen and think of him not as "pro-Russian" but pro-truth.
I read Cohen's analysis. It was fine as far as it went. But there is no way you can claim that Putin is not a "an ex-KGB guy," because even Cohen says Putin's proud of his former occupation as a KGB guy.
GHW Bush was the Head of the CIA! Doesn't that make him a much bigger villain than a lowly KBG agent? The CIA building is named after Bush.
And of course we have several CIA and other intelligence agents in Congress, throughout the media, and on Intelligence committees working closely with the CIA, who seems to run the country now.
If your point is that the Bush family and the CIA suck, you're preaching to the choir. They're bad guys too.
Your. We need an edit function.
He’s not former KGB????
Putin was a KGB functionary working in East Germany during the Cold War. Professor Cohen claims that made him very much pro-European in outlook. Ray McGovern, a profound anti-war activist, was ex-CIA, and as a previous post points out, President HW Bush was the CIA Director.
Do you suppose these protesters will be arrested and will have their bank accounts frozen?
Probably the anti-war ones. They smell like terrorists for me…. We all knows jobs and education and are “dog whistles” for some bad things…
So, for these demonstrators making childish comparisons of Putin as Hitler, it's worth WWIII, which will end all possibility of a future habitable civilization, to defend a former Russian state now governed by literal Nazis, that the US was vitally instrumental in installing in a 2014 coup, with no more democracy than anyone can locate in Washington DC. They couldn't have things any more backwards. These people have obviously never learned a thing from the countless atrocities the US has visited on the planet for the past hundred + years. The Democrats are now to the right of former Bush/Trump Republicans, and yet they see themselves as liberators. It's the United States of Mass Delusion.
I had read all of Arthur Conan Doyle before I entered the world from my cubicle in the library. Thank you for affirming my belief that there is still intelligent life on this planet. I know history. My ancestor's fled the Pale of Catherine the Great's Empire. I know the enlightenment was born in Vilnius Lithuania. An Empire is an Empire is an Empire and Empire wants powerful leaders even if they are mad like Putin and and senile old coots like myself.
The world is starving for truth and reconciliation because the past is the past and will never come again.
America fits my definition of insanity. The ability to know right from wrong. I find the USA not guilty by reason of insanity. Now it is our task to convince the rest of the jury.
Isn't that the purpose of gaslighting? Making the world safe for the oligarchs.
IDK dude.. it's gotten to the point where I would actually crack a smile if I woke up to nuclear daylight in the middle of the night. At least then I'd know that it would be ending.. all of it.
One key point: there are Nazis in Ukraine. They are being armed and trained by the US, but they are NOT running the country.
Even if they're not in complete control of the government, it's pretty obvious the US would be fine of they were, since they're being armed and trained by the US, as you say. The US leadership and its craven military have never really had a problem with Nazis. We recruited hundreds of them after WWII into the US to help us devise better means of destroying our enemies, chiefly Russia. Fascism is a perfect fit for US intentions as world hegemon.
While Putin certainly isn’t Hitler, this invasion of Ukraine is not unlike Hitler’s invasion of Poland. Citing all the US’s former imperial aggressions doesn’t really change the fact that he’s invading a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked him. If it’s wrong for the US to do it, it’s wrong for Russia to do it.
He's trying to keep Ukraine from being absorbed by NATO and used as a military base from which NATO, led as always by the US, can further intimidate and threaten Russia, which is largely what this is all about. We have the sovereign right to surround any country with our bases, and if they don't like it then of course it's because their leader is a dictator and tyrant. What I don't understand is why Putin has now decided to start military incursions of his own, which only seems to play directly into the plans of NATO/US. This is what the US has been provoking for a few years! Now we have every right to sanction Russia into starvation, freezing to death, whatever--all to get rid of Putin. So I don't understand what his strategy is. Probably he understands the US isn't interested in meaningful diplomacy as a way out of this madness, they're only interested in Russia's full capitulation to our demands. If the US can't control and dominate every inch of the planet, then by god we'll have to destroy it.
It's telling that there are hardly any anti-war protesters (and Africa is justifiably on many of their signs). Anti-war is not allowed under Democrat Presidents (hopefully the protesters avoid the fate of the January 6th protesters.
Where were all the NAZI flags in the pro-Ukrainian American rally? At least Canadian Freeland is proud and open about her Ukrainian NAZI connection. The Azov Bandera thugs have NAZI symbols worshipped throughout American Ukraine.
This really seems to be just another war for the Big Oil Companies competing with cheap natural gas from Russia with their expensive fracking gas. And likely Hunter and the "Big Guy" get a cut. ukrainegate.info.
Too bad the emasculated EU refused to stand up to American war-mongering, again.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised we have people advocating for war. Morons.
And -- An outstanding book:
The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin
by Dan Kovalik Esq., Alex Hyde-White, et al
https://www.amazon.com/Plot-Scapegoat-Russia-Conspired-Vilify/dp/B07771BMV8/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1645575140&sr=1-1-ef9bfdb7-b507-43a0-b887-27e2a8414df0
---------------------------------------------------
A must see: Tucker Carlson Today – interview with Dan Kovalik: “Russia, Russia, Russia” (Feb. 4, 2022)
This and Tucker-Tonight should be available on Rumble and elsewhere
An outstanding 4-part Fox-Nation video – “Who is Hunter Biden”
You're citing Tucker Carlson as a legitimate news source?
You lost all your credibility to claim anything as true.
No, he's citing a book and an interview. Back to your regularly scheduled TDS (it has multiple facets, you know).
Oh, I see -- I must only watch and listen to "legitimate" daily DNC-CIA propaganda in NYT, CNN, and WaPo -- including about WMDs
Watch and read whoever you want, I don't care. But Tucker Carlson is an entertainer, not a newsman, and his lawyers said in fact that nobody should count on anything he says on his show as being actual truth. I agree with him--the job of an entertainer is to entertain, not inform.
So citing Tucker as a legitimate news source is like citing Trump about the Democrats or Biden about the Republicans---they are not neutral observers.
Thank you for explaining your "deep thoughts". I see - I should be watching lying Rachel Maddow instead... -- awarded with new $30M contract for her shameful and so dangerous services to DNC-CIA cabal, services that directly led to suffering of two beautiful Slavic nations, Ukraine and Russia (about which you know next to nothing) at present.
Tucker Carlson is a high integrity journalist, unlike her and most establishment "journalists" who are relentlessly brainwashing you. I wish he would not be a conservative on women rights and religion...
BTW -- even comedian Jimmy Dore is much better political analyst than all the DNC-CIA stenographers put together.
You can watch Rachel if you want. I quit watching Tucker, Laura, and all the other cable TV bloviators several years ago--their spin conflicts too much with what I knew were actual facts. You want to believe them, be my guest.
"Tucker Carlson" and "high integrity journalist" should never be in the same sentence. He is a right-wing propagandist. So are you, Mr. "DNC-CIA Cabal."
I am so happy that you now feel better... ;-))
As of me being "right-wing" -- in foreign policy we have a mono-War 1% party
PS-1: A sad thing is that GOP lunatics are equally repulsive and dangerous -- happily grunting together while feeding at same donor troughs.
PS-2: We do live in CONTINUUM:
FBI and Edgar Hoover’s crimes and surveillance === CIA-FBI and St. Obama, Biden, Clapper, Brennan, Hayden === SAME despicable dangerous bastards.
Turn off the tube Boris.
ukrainegate.info nice summary of Bidens' corrupt rule in Ukraine -- it looks well-researched and an outstanding in-depth analysis of US corruption in Ukraine
https://ukrainegate.info/short-part-1-a-not-so-solid-prosecutor/
https://ukrainegate.info/summary-part-2-not-so-dormant-investigations/
https://ukrainegate.info/summary-part-3-a-not-so-noble-president/
https://ukrainegate.info/summary-part-4-shokin-strikes-back/
We must join the fight alongside Ukraine because deep down inside every Ukrainian, there is an American yearning to be free.
Do I understand some irony here? Truly, there are a lot of Americans "yearning to be free". Too bad we Americans live in an oligarchy where our democratic and popular dreams are constantly smashed.
Unfortanately, the way things are going, it will only be American-produced schrapnel and bullets deep down inside Ukrainians. Such a beautiful country and people.
I am a Canadian. I support Zelensky 100% I don't trust America. Putin is an American. He is a victim of the same gaslighting that overwhelms America. Russia as Putin sees it is some holy part of the Universe that must dominate and control lest some Devil take control.
America is older than Russia not much older but older. Empires are Empires are Empires
In 1700 Villnius was the center of the enlightenment. In 2022 Lithuania has a higher standard of living than the USA and is freer and more democratic.
What happened to Vilnius in those 300 years? It lost its sovereignty. Its people suffered.
Canada is shitting in its drawers. We are Ukraine, we are Scandinavia and the Baltic. Russia, China and the USA are not our friends. We are among the freest most prosperous and happiest place in Earth and you want to rape and pillage.
I know history I know greed and avarice. Oscar Wilde wrote a book about America. He called
it the portrait of Dorian Gray but Uncle Sam might be a more illustrative appellation.
I live on the Canadian side. Most of my family lives on the other side of the wall. Our wall is stronger than China's or the one in Berlin but it is neatly camouflaged .
We are democratic but we are not free because the bastards on the other side of the wall keep beeping their horns 24/7/365 and tell us the Russians are coming , the Russians are coming. Crazy Putin will die and so will Trump and so will Biden and so will we all.
Donald Trump told us the story which is as old as time. @"You knew I was a snake before you took me in."
Right now Canada must figure out how to get the snake out of the house before it bites everyone.
I love snakes but snake handlers are crazy dudes who reject the laws of the universe. Snakes don't know anything but how to be snakes.
It is hard being Cassandra and screaming your lungs out. The people who need to hear don't want to listen. They hate truthtellers as much as anyone. Plato told us everybody hates truthtellers.
Those truckers you worship some are ours and some are yours. We will take care of ours we always do even if we feel they are unworthy. Meanwhile why don't you leave us alone and go commit unnatural acts on yourselves. Can Ukraine or Canada or Venezuela or Georgia just say no you can just go fuck yourselves you seem pretty good at it. Just look in the mirror.
🤣😢
Canada already kicked America's ass in The War of 1812.
There was no Canada in 1812 Canada began during my adulthood in about 1967. In 1812 was a fertilized egg not even an embryo and we are still only looking for a a safe place in the womb in which to grow.
In 1967 we started discover Man and his World.
My grandmother was born in Canada. Of course, her parents fled after my great-grandfather was released from the concentration camp during WWI. Fuck that place.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/first-world-war-internment-camps-a-dark-chapter-in-canadian-history-1.1945156
How's the weather down under. I hope it is not too hot. It has been a terrible winter here for senile old geezers like myself it is about 5 degrees C and going to minus 15 tonight. Old bodies find climate change a pain the ass.
I think you are delusional and must love Nazis, must hate democracy, probably hate a multipolar planet, and I am sure your Canada is a fantasy.
“ Canada is shitting in its drawers.” Then why do I see ya’ll down here in my neighborhood? (I live in a Florida budget beach resort town. And it’s true what we say about Canadians, “ The come down here with $100 and an extra suit of clothes, and they don’t change either one all season”. )
"We [Canadians] are among the freest most prosperous and happiest place in Earth and you want to rape and pillage."
For chrissakes, quit embarrassing yourself with this drivel. If the United States had ANY designs on Canada, we would have taken you out ages ago. We have no interest in violating your sovereignty or harshing your maple-leaf mellow. We don't want to rape you, and neither do Russia or China.
I will, however, steal your maple syrup with great glee.
Just to be clear, it was sarcasm. I agree, btw.
The US overthrew democratically elected Yanukovych in 2014 (Biden was in charge, not "F* the EU" Nuland) and the US has been pulling the strings on Ukrainian puppets since. A rational Ukraine (without US control) would have implemented the Minsk Accords quickly. Do youthink America would have allowed that?
This is about the Russians' cheap natural gas, which threatens our "more deserving" big oil frackers.
And ultimately Arctic oil.
Thank you,
What is it about that was yesterday and yesterday is gone that you all can't understand? I was born 74 years ago and I am sitting in a old mill town in the middle of a prosperous farming community in rural Quebec. Yesterday is so far gone that nobody remembers when people my age were dead and gone and now people my age are still celebrating their parents anniversary with their parents. What a problem!!! How do we educate nation of pro stupidity ignoramuses'?
no.
It’s funny how so many people posting here seem to care A LOT about what Putin likes and how that needs to be respected, but nobody seems to care about the people of Ukraine. Those people, Ukrainian- or Russian-speaking, want to live in a country that’s free and non-corrupt, in other words anything like Russia. You want to know how good life is in a Russian-manufactured separatist enclave? Leave aside your preconceived ideas - this isn’t Scotland or Canada - and find out how life is in Transnistria.
So how easy it is to trick people into thinking something is right?
If not A then B...YAWN.
These fabled "Russian speakers" can move to Russia tomorrow. I'd bet Putin would pay for the moving vans.
"Bye bye Miss American Pie", took my propaganda to the newstanda and watched my government lie, and lie, and lie.
This support for US aggression and NATO in Europe is pathetic and anti-historical. However, it builds on a century of anti-Soviet, anti-Russia, anti-Putin propaganda. Putin gave a very reasonable speech outlining his views on the Ukraine, which he explains is essentially a failed, undemocratic state that has been internally divided politically since its inception. Ukraine is historically the origin of the Russian state, but not all of it. As Sergey Khrushchev explains, the western part of Ukraine, where the new-Nazis come from, Polish and Germanic peoples, was stuck onto Russian-oriented Ukraine after WW II when the Soviets conquered Nazi-occupied territory. Ukrainian nationalism failed as a result of the US-inspired Maidan coup in 2014. In my mind, 2014 marks the dissolution of the Ukraine as a nation, let alone a democratic nation. It approaches the status of a failed state with no political will for a diplomatic solution, such that Minsk II offers. The US props up this monstrosity with its Nazi roots to further its hegemony in Europe. No good can come of this until the politicians and diplomats see things as they really are instead of seeing a fantastical chimera.
https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/119639.pdf?v=053ccaed8b88c16189cfe713ac4f3550
Putin obviously knows more about Ukrainian history than a vast vast majority of Americans do.
The Ukraine was once just a geographical term for the great plain there. The Rus (who became Russians, and some other Slavs) were there when Kiev was the only real city in the region in the 5th century. Moscow was noted as a "meeting place" about 700 years later, and became THE Russian city. Kiev is only 535 miles from Moscow, much closer than Memphis, TN is to DC (876 miles of driving) or the US is to Iraq (6942 miles).
Yep. The western 1/3 of what is today Ukraine was historically part of Poland and the western 2/3 (including Kiev) were historically Russian.
The "country" became independent following the demise of the USSR solely because that's where the internal border had been drawn. The idea that Putin is wrong about having a historical claim is absurd. Of course Russia has a claim.
That being said, I don't military force is the way to reclaim it. I think those regions should have self-determination and Putin is probably doing it the "correct" way by claiming to "protect" those breakaway regions instead of just outright conquering it.
Crimea (awarded to Ukraine by Krushev -- born on the Ukraine-Russia border) had a plebiscite and overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in 2014. Better than forcing a coup on Ukraine like Biden and the US did in 2014.
As of a few minutes ago, Russia has invaded Ukraine for real, ordering all Ukrainians to drop their weapons or face destruction.
Fuck Putin.
I am certain the U.S. media will give this international crisis, and these two competing protests, the thoughtful consideration and exposition they deserve. If the journalists from legacy media have demonstrated anything over the past five years, it is their seemingly unlimited capacity to deliver unbiased, nuanced, and informed perspectives predicated on verified facts and incisive analysis resulting from critical thinking and reasoning.
In fact, all this independent journalism is hokum and nonsense, and we would all be better off if we devoted the entirety of our time and attention to the legacy corporate media to learn about current events. The only thing more productive than consuming the output from mainstream media is slamming our various genitals between two large bricks. In fact, I think I will get right on that!
Irony and sarcasm aside, Matt, in partnership with Ford, has once again provided interesting and thought provoking news about our current political discourse based the incoherent policy machinations of a failed administration. Thanks Matt and Ford, and I look forward to more from you both as this disgraceful situation evolves!
The irony of comparing Putin, bad as he is, to Hitler is a glaring example of the American people's glaring ignorance of history, a history that has to be to aught, but isn't. The fact that the U'S. leadership is hoping upon hope that Ukraine militia that numbers about a thousand (more or less is hard to tell) DOESN'T get the hands on the weapons and ordinance we're sending, because they are openly sympathetic to the Nazis goes almost without mention in MSM news, that Ukraine's leadership during WWII SIDED and ASSISTED the Nazis is lost on most people in the US. Then there's the fact that it was Russians defending their home from the Nazi invasion lost more lives than another nations combined in that effort, that even our inclusion into the broader war effort hinged entirely on the Russians breaking the Nazi war machine, and they did, with losses so grievous it would have ended other nations. Whatever we think of Russians, we need to rethink this effort to make Ukraine a member of NATO and back off on the Sabre rattling. We're in the wrong here. Though, we're in the wrong so much is entirely done to thew propaganda we're subjected to and no matter how many times it is proved that our government has lied it's way through an all too willing, we collectively STILL buy whatever is sold, while we pay prices we never recover in any value.
"Nuclear war is good for the economy"- DNC 2022 election slogan