Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Best-22]

9 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

When the president of the United States goes off script and immediately has to be corrected via his own White House AND Secretary of State we have issues. 

“brilliant 4D chess move” LOL ok dude. Like the “most successful” AFG withdraw! You’re living in democratic fantasy land 

this administration is so inept. 

For clarity, that is not the argument I'm making. Just contrasting it to the OAN/Fox News interpretation of Trump when he went off script. Judging by your post history, you likely watch those networks exclusively so I was just trying to find a common political language to talk to you in. 

[Best-22]

You have to be careful not to become so anti-Biden that you stop looking at things objectively and instead just wait for any small mistake to pounce on and scream about how terrible he is. If you aren't careful you might find yourself accidentally spreading russian propaganda and Kremlin talking points simply because it makes you feel good to trash on Biden. Take it too far and you might find yourself more aligned with Russia's interests than America's. 

[BashiChuni]

Bro, 

the stakes right now are very high. It’s not good that the President is spewing off the cuff remarks that totally change the calculus of the conflict. 
 

this is no small matter. And it’s certainly not spreading “Russian propaganda” (he literally said it)

your last sentence is total garbage…grow up

side note it’s interesting that the vast majority of COVID paranoia people have instantly jumped on the Ukraine or death bandwagon. Very interesting. 

Edited March 27, 2022 by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

34 minutes ago, Best-22 said:

For clarity, that is not the argument I'm making. Just contrasting it to the OAN/Fox News interpretation of Trump when he went off script. Judging by your post history, you likely watch those networks exclusively so I was just trying to find a common political language to talk to you in. 

So what argument are you making? You like the disjointed statements coming from the WH and state department?

[herkbum]

You don’t have to wait long for “any small mistake” from this administration. He’s good for at least 1/day.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[FLEA]

31 minutes ago, Best-22 said:

You have to be careful not to become so anti-Biden that you stop looking at things objectively and instead just wait for any small mistake to pounce on and scream about how terrible he is. If you aren't careful you might find yourself accidentally spreading russian propaganda and Kremlin talking points simply because it makes you feel good to trash on Biden. Take it too far and you might find yourself more aligned with Russia's interests than America's. 

This was not a small mistake. This was a huge mistake. Maybe bigger than most people understand the context. Putin was already paranoid that he was the subject of CIA regime change operations. Now you have a sitting US President cement that in his head. Its not something the WH can cover up as speech diarrhea. This will get read into as more than a slip and its going to take a lot of back peddling to assure Putin what was meant. 

Put in context for a minute: Putin is a former KGB officer from the Cold War. He was read in at the highest levels of Soviet level espionage and paramilitary programs, including programs in counterbalance to CIA Cold War operations to topple state regimes. Also put into context that Putin already believed he was the subject of an attempted CIA overthrow in the 2011 Snow Revolution, when President Biden was Vice President Biden. 

I agree that I generally concur with the overall direction Biden has been taking us (Cold War proxy war playbook) but this was a serious mistake and we should not discount it as a simple speech "slip." So I will counter you overall point that no person's support of the President should become so strong that they fail to recognize when he makes a serious mistake. This was an either intentional or unintentional signal to Putin that his seat of power is in jeopardy and he should be taking measures to safeguard it. That is some very scary shit. 

Also, this is not the first time he's done this. His off the cuff remarks of Putin being a war criminal is another example. That was a remark that was completely inappropriate for a President to make and it didn't need to be said.

Edited March 27, 2022 by FLEA

[Sua Sponte]

https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-hi-tech-warfare-system-seized-ukraine-hold-military-secrets-2022-3?amp

[Blue]

30 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

side note it’s interesting that the vast majority of COVID paranoia people have instantly jumped on the Ukraine or death bandwagon. Very interesting. 

[dream big]

20 hours ago, HeloDude said:

And make energy that much more expensive for American citizens?  Not to mention that progressives want less energy from nuclear and fossil fuels, so that will be interesting to see.

We need to focus on our problems at home before we start trying to be the salvation of Europe…who by the way is still happy to buy Russian energy.

Most progressives I know are genuinely happy with high gas prices.  They feel they are doing their “patriotic duty” in reprimanding Russia and raising the incentive to switch to alternate energy.  This sentiment is pretty wide spread. 

[Lord Ratner]

20 hours ago, HeloDude said:

And make energy that much more expensive for American citizens?  Not to mention that progressives want less energy from nuclear and fossil fuels, so that will be interesting to see.

We need to focus on our problems at home before we start trying to be the salvation of Europe…who by the way is still happy to buy Russian energy.

They're also happy to buy a shitload of American goods. So we should be careful before we write off the continent under an "America First" philosophy.

 

But you're spot on in regards to progressive priorities. It's clear that Biden realizes the answer is energy production, but that he would lose his base should he pursue it.

 

America should unleash the natural gas and oil producers (within the context of protecting the environment from accidents and spills) while developing the next generation of nuclear technology to export around the world. Unfortunately, progressives are completely unable to make the connection between energy access and human flourishing. The only technology that provides the required energy for the given population, while simultaneously fulfilling their goals of carbon reduction, is nuclear.

But I've also believed for a long time that the progressive position on environmentalism is far more about preventing human growth than it is reducing climate change. But to admit that would be the death of their cause.

[Blue]

3 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Why is your focus point above on what Zelensky/Ukraine should capitulate on given that Ukraine has been subject to an unprovoked war of aggression that’s killed and is killing thousands of its citizens?  Right now the Ukrainian military is punching hard and even retaking some lost ground; if I were NATO/US/Ukraine I’d be more interested in what Russia should capitulate on.

 

1 hour ago, DirkDiggler said:

 I’ll ask again, what do you think Russia should capitulate on?

What do I think Russia should capitulate on?  Honestly, I don't know.  Ukraine and Russia have relationships going back hundred of years.  I don't have the expertise necessary to parse all that history into something that's workable to end the war.  I don't know what the right answer is.  Maybe Russia takes all of Crimea, the Donbass becomes an independent state, and Ukraine gets some sort of Swedish-like "NATO-lite" membership, where they aren't a full NATO member, but still enjoy some of the benefits?

In theory, we have a State Department that's full of professionals with the expertise to facilitate these kinds of negotiations.  Normally, these State Department pros would have the support and backing of the White House, as they seek to thread-the-needle of promoting global peace and democracy, while ensuring global stability, and at the same time looking out for America's best interests.

Instead, we have a President running his mouth about pushing another world leader out of power.  And as far as I can tell, Sec of State Blinken has done fuck-all to help deescalate the whole thing.

I don't have a crystal ball any more than the next person.  But I'm concerned that our foreign policy of the last 20 years seems to revolve around spending our blood and treasure dredging up old foes of the 80s and 90s, like we're some movie studio bent on rebooting all the classics.

We got Saddam, we got Gaddafi, and our war on Iran seems to be forever under script development.  We've done nothing but break a lot of people and leave instability and chaos in our wake.  And now with Ukraine, we're seeing a possibility of remaking the biggest 80's classic of all: Evil Russia vs. the Red, White, and Blue.  Only this isn't some tin-pot dictator in an isolated kingdom.  Russia has a lot of nukes, and a lot of economic ties in Europe and Asia.

I want to see us head down the path of de-escalation.  Instead, all I see is "Russia Bad, Ukraine Good," and other such nonsense.

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

Quit trying to hide in the gray area. Of course Ukraine wants to highlight its triumphs. Of course the Ukrainian government is not perfect. But the fact is, only one country is taking sovereign territory from others. Only one country has blatantly invaded a neighbor and is now in the process of killing women and children en masse. Only one country has cast aside all of the rules and norms that have allowed the world and the world’s economy to flourish for the past 70 years. The fact that Ukraine isn’t perfect should not make it hard to pick the right side here. 

Tell me once where I have disagreed with anything you have said?  I have repeatedly said Putin is a bad guy and Russia is in the wrong for the invasion.  But we can still discuss what motivates them without discounting it as just straight tyranny…something about being able to better understand your enemy?  And just because I don’t want to see our economy further suffer with what’s going on with Europe doesn’t make me pro-Putin or pro-Russia…it does though make me pro-USA. Oh and tell me where I am wrong with the media bias?  And tel me where I’m wrong by not fully trusting the media after the lies they intentionally told to push an ideological narrative?

Progressives love the binary Ukraine is good and is doing well (vice versa for Russia) because they were against Russia well before the invasion and are still upset that Mueller couldn’t find any evidence of Trump Russian collusion.  The left also needs a scapegoat for how bad things are going with the economy, and Russia is their best bet.  And as I’ve said before, the Lyndsey Graham warhawk types on the right have always loved a good war.  
 

Remember when Bush was labeled by the left as a war criminal for invading Iraq…well, it’s not like Saddam was good, so why wasn’t the left on board?

 

[HeloDude]

42 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

They're also happy to buy a shitload of American goods. So we should be careful before we write off the continent under an "America First" philosophy.

 

But you're spot on in regards to progressive priorities. It's clear that Biden realizes the answer is energy production, but that he would lose his base should he pursue it.

 

America should unleash the natural gas and oil producers (within the context of protecting the environment from accidents and spills) while developing the next generation of nuclear technology to export around the world. Unfortunately, progressives are completely unable to make the connection between energy access and human flourishing. The only technology that provides the required energy for the given population, while simultaneously fulfilling their goals of carbon reduction, is nuclear.

But I've also believed for a long time that the progressive position on environmentalism is far more about preventing human growth than it is reducing climate change. But to admit that would be the death of their cause.

Some valid points man.

The left is seeing the rubber meet the road on their green energy crusade…and they’re losing.  Oh and it was always a losing battle in today’s time.  Cheap fossil fuels was the only way the left could peddle their nonsense about getting rid of fossil fuels because it’s a great feel good slogan when the economy is doing well (largely due to cheap energy).  But when people start to take a hit in their pocket books they care less about “green energy”…and I don’t mean nuclear since the left isn’t on board with that either.

What’s hilarious is that European countries are more at risk from Russia than we are here in the US…and yet many of those same countries have not ended all economic ties with Russia.  Don’t worry, it’s not the first time our leaders have screwed over its American citizens all in the name of trying to help people who wouldn’t do the same for themselves.

[DirkDiggler]

30 minutes ago, Blue said:

 

What do I think Russia should capitulate on?  Honestly, I don't know.  Ukraine and Russia have relationships going back hundred of years.  I don't have the expertise necessary to parse all that history into something that's workable to end the war.  I don't know what the right answer is.  Maybe Russia takes all of Crimea, the Donbass becomes an independent state, and Ukraine gets some sort of Swedish-like "NATO-lite" membership, where they aren't a full NATO member, but still enjoy some of the benefits?

In theory, we have a State Department that's full of professionals with the expertise to facilitate these kinds of negotiations.  Normally, these State Department pros would have the support and backing of the White House, as they seek to thread-the-needle of promoting global peace and democracy, while ensuring global stability, and at the same time looking out for America's best interests.

Instead, we have a President running his mouth about pushing another world leader out of power.  And as far as I can tell, Sec of State Blinken has done fuck-all to help deescalate the whole thing.

I don't have a crystal ball any more than the next person.  But I'm concerned that our foreign policy of the last 20 years seems to revolve around spending our blood and treasure dredging up old foes of the 80s and 90s, like we're some movie studio bent on rebooting all the classics.

We got Saddam, we got Gaddafi, and our war on Iran seems to be forever under script development.  We've done nothing but break a lot of people and leave instability and chaos in our wake.  And now with Ukraine, we're seeing a possibility of remaking the biggest 80's classic of all: Evil Russia vs. the Red, White, and Blue.  Only this isn't some tin-pot dictator in an isolated kingdom.  Russia has a lot of nukes, and a lot of economic ties in Europe and Asia.

I want to see us head down the path of de-escalation.  Instead, all I see is "Russia Bad, Ukraine Good," and other such nonsense.

So you don’t have the expertise to say what Russia, the country whose invasion is turning cities into rubble and killing hundreds, if not thousands of innocents, should capitulate to, but in your first post you had the expertise to say what Ukraine should acquiesce to?

  At this point in the conflict, with Russia continuing to dismantle 30 years of Ukrainian progress with high explosives, I doubt the Ukrainians are in any mood to give up more of their territory.  And I don’t blame them.  I would agree with your point about Crimea probably permanently becoming Russian territory; the civilian population there is more sympathetic to and aligned with Russia than Ukraine.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/01/21/russia-ukraine-crisis-blinken-urges-lavrov-to-pull-troops-from-border.html

  Your second point is incorrect and isn’t backed by the reality of both the US and individual European countries efforts prior to the invasion to find a diplomatic solution.  The above link is just one example of the US diplomatic effort to avoid war.  Up till the very moment of the invasion Russia was lying to the world about their intentions; their military buildup started back in November.  The US government clearly stated to the world what Russia’s true intentions were.  Russia never had any serious intentions to negotiate in good faith as evidenced by the current war.  Now that we’re right of bang, I’m of the opinion that a third party intermediate is the best hope for a negotiated settlement; the Russians lied to us for three months and our current diplomatic efforts are where they should be in maintaining the unity of the NATO alliance.

  Russia is not our friend or ally, and this invasion has cemented one of the biggest mistakes the US and Western world has made in the last 30 years.  No matter how much involvement and exposure to the liberal international system and the world banking and economic system, Russia’s autocracy is fundamentally at odds with the Western world and its values.  If we find ourselves at odds with Russia today, it’s due to Putin’s actions, not ours.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

Most progressives I know are genuinely happy with high gas prices.  They feel they are doing their “patriotic duty” in reprimanding Russia and raising the incentive to switch to alternate energy.  This sentiment is pretty wide spread. 

They were happy with high gas prices, regardless of how it arrives…I doubt most of these progressives you mention are living paycheck to paycheck.  I mean, why don’t these poor people just buy really expensive electric vehicles?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-high-gas-prices-are-a_b_6855142

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5378487

[DirkDiggler]

 Good video of some Russians burning in a BMP.

[Lord Ratner]

36 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

 Good video of some Russians burning in a BMP.

From the debris to the left it looks like it might have been an IED (perhaps not improvised) with an EFP. Nasty thing to drive into.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, DirkDiggler said:

So you don’t have the expertise to say what Russia, the country whose invasion is turning cities into rubble and killing hundreds, if not thousands of innocents, should capitulate to, but in your first post you had the expertise to say what Ukraine should acquiesce to?

  At this point in the conflict, with Russia continuing to dismantle 30 years of Ukrainian progress with high explosives, I doubt the Ukrainians are in any mood to give up more of their territory.  And I don’t blame them.  I would agree with your point about Crimea probably permanently becoming Russian territory; the civilian population there is more sympathetic to and aligned with Russia than Ukraine.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/01/21/russia-ukraine-crisis-blinken-urges-lavrov-to-pull-troops-from-border.html

  Your second point is incorrect and isn’t backed by the reality of both the US and individual European countries efforts prior to the invasion to find a diplomatic solution.  The above link is just one example of the US diplomatic effort to avoid war.  Up till the very moment of the invasion Russia was lying to the world about their intentions; their military buildup started back in November.  The US government clearly stated to the world what Russia’s true intentions were.  Russia never had any serious intentions to negotiate in good faith as evidenced by the current war.  Now that we’re right of bang, I’m of the opinion that a third party intermediate is the best hope for a negotiated settlement; the Russians lied to us for three months and our current diplomatic efforts are where they should be in maintaining the unity of the NATO alliance.

  Russia is not our friend or ally, and this invasion has cemented one of the biggest mistakes the US and Western world has made in the last 30 years.  No matter how much involvement and exposure to the liberal international system and the world banking and economic system, Russia’s autocracy is fundamentally at odds with the Western world and its values.  If we find ourselves at odds with Russia today, it’s due to Putin’s actions, not ours.

Russian capitulation would be anything short of total victory in Ukraine (or at least up to the Dnieper). That's a hard pill for Putin to take back and sell his people and its going to burn some political currency for him within his cabinet. That and the likelihood they will not be accepted back into several global systems while Putin is in power. 

The article above doesn't really illustrate a serious approach to negotiation. Putin said he was willing to negotiate and sent a list of demands. Many of them were ridiculous, but several of them had adequate positions to begin a negotiation. It was a bit odd because it was like watching two people have two separate conversations. Russia asked for NATO to return to its 1997 state allegiances (never going to happen) and the US responds, "sure we are willing to renegotiate the IMF." Was very odd because Russia is benefitting from the current status of the IMF and really has no reason to renegotiate it, but that was something we've wanted to renegotiate for years. So I think there was a lapse in DoS about what our actual positional priorities were and what was worth discussing. In the end, there was probably a discussion in the Presidential cabinet about whether or not Ukraine should just be taken off the table for NATO membership. My guess is the President in concert with Zelensky, refused to consider it, recognizing imminent invasion was the likely consequence. But its hard to say, we'll never know now. 

One thing Id add though is none of our opinions on the issue really matter. If Ukraine finds terms they believe are acceptable, then that is their decision and we should support them on it.

I think the two most likely outcomes are 1.) Ukraine and Russia negotiate an armistice where Ukraine agrees to maintain strict neutrality and grant independents to the eastern regions, plus secede Crimea to Russia or 2.) this drags into a 10 year long stale made that bleeds Russia economically to the bone. Putin dies in his early 80s and the new government swiftly uses the new leadership opportunity to withdrawal and normalize relations with the world again. 

Edited March 27, 2022 by FLEA

[Best-22]

3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Bro, 

the stakes right now are very high. It’s not good that the President is spewing off the cuff remarks that totally change the calculus of the conflict. 
 

this is no small matter. And it’s certainly not spreading “Russian propaganda” (he literally said it)

your last sentence is total garbage…grow up

side note it’s interesting that the vast majority of COVID paranoia people have instantly jumped on the Ukraine or death bandwagon. Very interesting. 

Yes he did say it, but you are the one bleating about how the US president is inept and spreading panic about how this will escalate things. I'm not saying Putin is personally handing you talking points, just saying you have to be careful not to let US domestic politics be the only lense you're looking through. Always circling around to COVID policy and Hunter Bidens laptop and dunking on "crazy Joe" makes it seem like you might be in the partisan politics game a little too deep. 

I didn't think my last sentence would be controversial honestly. It's not even that hard to imagine considering we have American newscasters being featured on Russian state media and using nearly identical talking points on their own show: 

https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/russian-tv-uses-tucker-carlson-tulsi-gabbard-sell-putins-war/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/tucker-carlson-indistinguishable-russian-state-183629992.html

Please tell me we all agree that hating Biden so much that you end up saying the same things as the Kremlin about your own president has potential to be taken too far? 

Edited March 27, 2022 by Best-22

[DirkDiggler]

33 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Russian capitulation would be anything short of total victory in Ukraine (or at least up to the Dnieper). That's a hard pill for Putin to take back and sell his people and its going to burn some political currency for him within his cabinet. That and the likelihood they will not be accepted back into several global systems while Putin is in power. 

The article above doesn't really illustrate a serious approach to negotiation. Putin said he was willing to negotiate and sent a list of demands. Many of them were ridiculous, but several of them had adequate positions to begin a negotiation. It was a bit odd because it was like watching two people have two separate conversations. Russia asked for NATO to return to its 1997 state allegiances (never going to happen) and the US responds, "sure we are willing to renegotiate the IMF." Was very odd because Russia is benefitting from the current status of the IMF and really has no reason to renegotiate it, but that was something we've wanted to renegotiate for years. So I think there was a lapse in DoS about what our actual positional priorities were and what was worth discussing. In the end, there was probably a discussion in the Presidential cabinet about whether or not Ukraine should just be taken off the table for NATO membership. My guess is the President in concert with Zelensky, refused to consider it, recognizing imminent invasion was the likely consequence. But its hard to say, we'll never know now. 

One thing Id add though is none of our opinions on the issue really matter. If Ukraine finds terms they believe are acceptable, then that is their decision and we should support them on it.

I think the two most likely outcomes are 1.) Ukraine and Russia negotiate an armistice where Ukraine agrees to maintain strict neutrality and grant independents to the eastern regions, plus secede Crimea to Russia or 2.) this drags into a 10 year long stale made that bleeds Russia economically to the bone. Putin dies in his early 80s and the new government swiftly uses the new leadership opportunity to withdrawal and normalize relations with the world again. 

To your third and forth points above, fresh off the press:

  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/rockets-strike-ukraines-lviv-biden-says-putin-cannot-remain-power-2022-03-27/
 

  I would agree that if the Zelensky states the above and negotiates on that, we should be supportive if it leads to a ceasefire.

  To your 1st point, IMO Russian capitulation should also include security guarantees for Ukraine (probably worthless at this point given what we’ve seen the last 30 days) and Russian reparations in the form of financial assistance to rebuild Ukrainian cities.  Most likely not going to happen, but they started a war of aggression and should suffer the consequences of that.

  I disagree with your second point; I believe the US and members of NATO made a serious effort to set expectations and avoid war.  I don’t believe Russia had any intention to do anything but invade.  Do you honestly believe the Russians would’ve stepped back from the brink given what we’ve seen?

[FLEA]

20 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

To your third and forth points above, fresh off the press:

  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/rockets-strike-ukraines-lviv-biden-says-putin-cannot-remain-power-2022-03-27/
 

  I would agree that if the Zelensky states the above and negotiates on that, we should be supportive if it leads to a ceasefire.

  To your 1st point, IMO Russian capitulation should also include security guarantees for Ukraine (probably worthless at this point given what we’ve seen the last 30 days) and Russian reparations in the form of financial assistance to rebuild Ukrainian cities.  Most likely not going to happen, but they started a war of aggression and should suffer the consequences of that.

  I disagree with your second point; I believe the US and members of NATO made a serious effort to set expectations and avoid war.  I don’t believe Russia had any intention to do anything but invade.  Do you honestly believe the Russians would’ve stepped back from the brink given what we’ve seen?

To my second point, I dont think we'll ever know. I think its very possible. I believe in the west we tend to discount security concerns for other countries fairly often. Culturally, I think we are shorter sighted than other powers and I think we are willing to ignore future problems for immediate gains. 

It wasn't just the question of Ukraine joining the alliance but the amalgamation of several nuances about the alliance that admittedly, even by NATO's own standards, didn't make sense. The biggest and most obvious one being "why?" In the Cold War that question was obvious. "Keep Russia out, America in, and Germany down." But I think once the Berlin wall fell Russia really believed there was going to be a new era of parlay that would remove the necessity of the alliance. Its lack of clear purpose and continued growth would certainly send mixed signals and while the alliance forthright is for collective defense, in war, "collective defense" is just ambiguous enough to mean so many things.

I was explaining this to friends the other day. There are so many justifications a country could use for article 5. Say Russia had a missile misguide into Poland, was Poland attacked? What if a Russian aircraft accidentally cut Polands airspace? What if Poland shot that aircraft down? What if the aircraft never crossed Polish airspace but got close enough Polish authorities got skittish and said they were being attacked? What if its not kinetics? What if Russia jams all of eastern Poland while combating Ukraine? What if its a cyber attack? What if Russia detonates a nuke and the EMP wipes out most of Poland but otherwise no damage? Its so fricken nebulous NATO isn't even always sure what constitutes article 5, and the only thing that is for certain is if all 30 members agree its an article 5, then NATO will go to war as an alliance.

From Russia's standpoint, being boxed in by a massive conglomerate of military power like that seems risky. What if he can't police his own borders when newly ascended Finland breaks out into civil war and munitions start accidentally falling within 75nm of St Petersburg. Or Turkey and Greece finally decide to go at it, blocking Russia's access to the Dardanelles. Maybe Russia has a legit interest in that but can't act because of the risk of entangling the rest of the alliance. 

I think Russia's standpoint was largely this: If you aren't going to bring me in, then we need to keep a gray zone between us, because I need the room to breath without the worry that your 30+ countries with all their political baggage, aren't going to go starting crap in my back yard that seriously threatens my interests and I have no recourse to intervene. 

One last note, there would have been value in just entertaining his pitch on those demands. For one, sometimes people just like to think they are being heard. But more so than that, it would have stalled time and back in February, time was something Ukraine needed as much of as possible. So even if those pitches had absolutely not probability to go anywhere, spinning them on a yard long enough to delay invasion a month or two would have been invaluable. 

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Best-22 said:

Yes he did say it, but you are the one bleating about how the US president is inept and spreading panic about how this will escalate things. I'm not saying Putin is personally handing you talking points, just saying you have to be careful not to let US domestic politics be the only lense you're looking through. Always circling around to COVID policy and Hunter Bidens laptop and dunking on "crazy Joe" makes it seem like you might be in the partisan politics game a little too deep. 

I didn't think my last sentence would be controversial honestly. It's not even that hard to imagine considering we have American newscasters being featured on Russian state media and using nearly identical talking points on their own show: 

https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/russian-tv-uses-tucker-carlson-tulsi-gabbard-sell-putins-war/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/tucker-carlson-indistinguishable-russian-state-183629992.html

Please tell me we all agree that hating Biden so much that you end up saying the same things as the Kremlin about your own president has potential to be taken too far? 

He is inept. That’s why they don’t let him take questions without a list of reporters to call on. He has shown zero competence. Just calling a spade a spade dude. Biden is in OBVIOUS cognitive decline and it’s scary he’s “in charge”

Also very ironic the Democratic Party is screaming about politics and Russia…I’m old enough to remember when the left absolutely shredded mitt Romney during a Presidential debate when he said Russia was our biggest national security threat. So please…spare me your political “outrage”. 
 

 

Edited March 27, 2022 by BashiChuni

[uninformed]

1 hour ago, Best-22 said:

Yes he did say it, but you are the one bleating about how the US president is inept and spreading panic about how this will escalate things. I'm not saying Putin is personally handing you talking points, just saying you have to be careful not to let US domestic politics be the only lense you're looking through. Always circling around to COVID policy and Hunter Bidens laptop and dunking on "crazy Joe" makes it seem like you might be in the partisan politics game a little too deep. 

I didn't think my last sentence would be controversial honestly. It's not even that hard to imagine considering we have American newscasters being featured on Russian state media and using nearly identical talking points on their own show: 

https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/russian-tv-uses-tucker-carlson-tulsi-gabbard-sell-putins-war/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/tucker-carlson-indistinguishable-russian-state-183629992.html

Please tell me we all agree that hating Biden so much that you end up saying the same things as the Kremlin about your own president has potential to be taken too far? 

What if the Kremlin says something about Biden that is true?  Am I required to say the opposite just so I'm not agreeing with some villain?  Just looking for clarification. 

[Best-22]

17 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

He is inept. That’s why they don’t let him take questions without a list of reporters to call on. He has shown zero competence. Just calling a spade a spade dude. Biden is in OBVIOUS cognitive decline and it’s scary he’s “in charge”

Also very ironic the Democratic Party is screaming about politics and Russia…I’m old enough to remember when the left absolutely shredded mitt Romney during a Presidential debate when he said Russia was our biggest national security threat. So please…spare me your political “outrage”. 
 

 

No political outrage from me, I'm just urging caution and awareness of what message you're spreading; you're obviously free to hold any opinion you like. Honestly I'm baffled at your emotional response here, you'd think I was attacking you or something. 

 

The Mitt Romney thing and your second paragraph is kind of my point.. the answers to the Ukraine conflict aren't going to be found looking at the American left vs the right. Try to look at the bigger picture and not get bogged down with how terrible the democratic party is. 

[Best-22]

1 minute ago, uninformed said:

What if the Kremlin says something about Biden that is true?  Am I required to say the opposite just so I'm not agreeing with some villain?  Just looking for clarification. 

I don't think any rational adult would oppose everything "the other side" says just because they are the ones who said it. 

 

There is a middle ground between parroting everything RT says and just blindly saying the opposite though.