US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putin is the face of global conservativism. When you look at him with that lens, you will understand why the GOP is so eager to see Biden and United States fail.

At this point, they are basically saying they support Putin over Biden, that Putin is doing nothing wrong, etc. I don't think this has happened since WW2, when some American politicians were actively aligning with Germany/Hitler.

It's not really conservatism. Hard telling what the hell Republicans actually believe these days. They hate liberals more than they love anything.

It's a story as old as history - conservative fascism. Putin opposes gays, transgender, abortion, promotes the Orthodox Church. Crony alignment with the business elite. Pushing to end independent media, either through the use of force (Putin) or nuisance lawsuits (Gawker, NYTimes, CNN, etc.)

The GOP has very similar policies as Putin.

I associate Cronyism more with the Dems!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all pretend we care about Ukraine, and send all our money into Ukraine in the form of advanced weapons. Then when the Ukrainians run away from the battle, Russia can have the weapons

We should stand by and do nothing as Russia invades a European nation for peace in our times.

That sounds like a wonderful and caring slogan but reality is not so black and white. The civilians who actually live in LPR and DPR repeatedly stated that they were pretty much abandoned by Kyiv: for example, retirees could no longer get their retirement money, no social support, etc. You will not see many people who actually live there protesting the current outcome. It is really a more complex situation and not a clearly black and white picture you get from the headlines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all pretend we care about Ukraine, and send all our money into Ukraine in the form of advanced weapons. Then when the Ukrainians run away from the battle, Russia can have the weapons

We should stand by and do nothing as Russia invades a European nation for peace in our times.

That sounds like a wonderful and caring slogan but reality is not so black and white. The civilians who actually live in LPR and DPR repeatedly stated that they were pretty much abandoned by Kyiv: for example, retirees could no longer get their retirement money, no social support, etc. You will not see many people who actually live there protesting the current outcome. It is really a more complex situation and not a clearly black and white picture you get from the headlines.

These people have been forced out of the disputed territories by Russia under the pretext of needing to evacuate, and will be abandoned inside Russia without the means to travel back home, since most of them are poor and Russia promised they would receive a pittance to return, but the people say that even if it honors that promise, it's not enough to pay for the return trip.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that Ukraine abandoned its people first. Russian-backed separatists declared independence there, because Russia has worked for years to destabilize the area, promise riches to those who work towards independence or reunification with the motherland, and generally trigger escalation. There was no way Ukraine could waste valuable resources supporting what was de facto a Russian enclave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all pretend we care about Ukraine, and send all our money into Ukraine in the form of advanced weapons. Then when the Ukrainians run away from the battle, Russia can have the weapons

We should stand by and do nothing as Russia invades a European nation for peace in our times.

That sounds like a wonderful and caring slogan but reality is not so black and white. The civilians who actually live in LPR and DPR repeatedly stated that they were pretty much abandoned by Kyiv: for example, retirees could no longer get their retirement money, no social support, etc. You will not see many people who actually live there protesting the current outcome. It is really a more complex situation and not a clearly black and white picture you get from the headlines.

Watching Ru news? The retirees to this day are still getting pensions from Kyiv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you criticizing Biden for being weak on Ukraine, please explain what exactly you would do in his place. What would be a strong response?

They don't have any better ideas, because Biden has done an excellent job managing this.

Putin underestimated Biden, and NATO as a whole. He thought this would go like all his past invasions - create a pretext, march in and take over, get a few useless sanctions put on him, and everyone eventually moves on. He also hoped it would divide NATO - that the Germans wouldn't give up NordStream, the French and the British wouldn't give up the oligrachs' money. But Biden and his team have convinced all of them that the line needs to be drawn here. Instead NATO is MORE unified and NATO have been placed even closer to Russia, which is the opposite of what Putin wanted.

And it's been masterful. Trump and his minions did NOT succeed in hollowing out the American intelligence capability, and announcing ahead of time Putin's plans seems to have unnerved him a bit, as well as showing that the emperor has no clothes.

It's really nice to have adults in charge again.

You have to be joking. This has all been a joke. And, it will end as disastrously as Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal.
At Ned Price's briefing just now, a reporter asked how they can claim that not taking Nordstream 2 off line earlier would not have been more of a deterrent. Because, as we are witnessing, taking it off line now has had no deterring effect. He spun some answer that was totally unsupported with facts.
And, just a reminder that Republicans proposed a bill to sanction Nord Stream 2, Biden personally lobbied against it.
This administration has certainly not done an excellent job. Quite the opposite.

And, another reminder..... most of the "adults" in charge are the same ones who were "in charge" when Putin annexed Crimea. Remind me again.... what administration was "in charge" when that happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you criticizing Biden for being weak on Ukraine, please explain what exactly you would do in his place. What would be a strong response?

They don't have any better ideas, because Biden has done an excellent job managing this.

Putin underestimated Biden, and NATO as a whole. He thought this would go like all his past invasions - create a pretext, march in and take over, get a few useless sanctions put on him, and everyone eventually moves on. He also hoped it would divide NATO - that the Germans wouldn't give up NordStream, the French and the British wouldn't give up the oligrachs' money. But Biden and his team have convinced all of them that the line needs to be drawn here. Instead NATO is MORE unified and NATO have been placed even closer to Russia, which is the opposite of what Putin wanted.

And it's been masterful. Trump and his minions did NOT succeed in hollowing out the American intelligence capability, and announcing ahead of time Putin's plans seems to have unnerved him a bit, as well as showing that the emperor has no clothes.

It's really nice to have adults in charge again.

You have to be joking. This has all been a joke. And, it will end as disastrously as Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal.
At Ned Price's briefing just now, a reporter asked how they can claim that not taking Nordstream 2 off line earlier would not have been more of a deterrent. Because, as we are witnessing, taking it off line now has had no deterring effect. He spun some answer that was totally unsupported with facts.
And, just a reminder that Republicans proposed a bill to sanction Nord Stream 2, Biden personally lobbied against it.
This administration has certainly not done an excellent job. Quite the opposite.

And, another reminder..... most of the "adults" in charge are the same ones who were "in charge" when Putin annexed Crimea. Remind me again.... what administration was "in charge" when that happened?

You do realize that this bill would've sanctioned Germany, our allies - right?

Great idea to get them on our side - sanction the country, their government leaders, and the German companies involved. Brilliant chess.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Well I think people should be more patient with Joe, given his ongoing battle with Alzheimer’s.

[Anonymous]

Weak.

https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1496565715389853705[twitter]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weak.

https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1496565715389853705[twitter]

[Anonymous]

Ned Price's answer: nice hunk of steel, Vlad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weak.

https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1496565715389853705[twitter]

[Anonymous]

The russian trolls are strong in this post.

[Anonymous]

Did no one point out that "Sanction NordStream 2" means that we sanction our ally, Germany? Also it would mean personal sanctions on members of the German government and German companies.

When we need their help countering Russia....we sanction them? How does this make any g#ddamn sense?

Help me understand the Republican talking point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all pretend we care about Ukraine, and send all our money into Ukraine in the form of advanced weapons. Then when the Ukrainians run away from the battle, Russia can have the weapons

We should stand by and do nothing as Russia invades a European nation for peace in our times.

That sounds like a wonderful and caring slogan but reality is not so black and white. The civilians who actually live in LPR and DPR repeatedly stated that they were pretty much abandoned by Kyiv: for example, retirees could no longer get their retirement money, no social support, etc. You will not see many people who actually live there protesting the current outcome. It is really a more complex situation and not a clearly black and white picture you get from the headlines.

These people have been forced out of the disputed territories by Russia under the pretext of needing to evacuate, and will be abandoned inside Russia without the means to travel back home, since most of them are poor and Russia promised they would receive a pittance to return, but the people say that even if it honors that promise, it's not enough to pay for the return trip.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that Ukraine abandoned its people first. Russian-backed separatists declared independence there, because Russia has worked for years to destabilize the area, promise riches to those who work towards independence or reunification with the motherland, and generally trigger escalation. There was no way Ukraine could waste valuable resources supporting what was de facto a Russian enclave.

So what you've said is a) Ukraine has supported them, and b) Ukraine has not supported them bc they don't deserve support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Russia now has about 100,000 troops sitting on Ukraine’s border, and is sending strong signals it will invade as soon as the weather reaches the right moment. Russia is filling Ukraine media with all sorts of misinformation and fake news in advance of an attack. Biden is working with many other countries to discourage Russian aggression and warn of economic sanctions these countries will impose. Biden does not have many choices here.

The Trumpublicans - led by FoxNews - are of course supporting their Russian masters in all this, and saying the US should just let Russia invade other countries without consequence. More traditional Republicans are saying the US should send military support to Ukraine. No matter what Biden does, they’re all sure to try to blame him if Russia invades.

Are there any good options?

I think another question to ask is this: could this situation have been avoided had we made different foreign policy decisions over the last 20 years? It is hard to believe today, but we cooperated with Russia during peace-keeping operations after the war in Bosnia. Relations between the U.S. and Russia were not perfect at that time, but they were far better than they are now. How did the relationship deteriorate so much? Perhaps we should never have considered the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and perhaps we shouldn't have expanded NATO into the Baltics. Instead, we should have considered these countries to be neutral zones in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military assets.