Well even if one was to stretch credulity and entertain the Neo Nazi angle, the fact they were in Kyiv and Central Ukraine and not Crimea would seem to argue otherwise. Furthermore, the Azov unit that got the most press (whether true or not) didn't come into existence until AFTER Putin had annexed Crimea and was fighting in Donbas. So even if one was to indulge in this fantasy, using some of the criticism I've seen you apply toward U.S. policy, I guess Putin created Nazi "blowback" through his actions. Amirite?Sam Lowry said:I'm not saying facts matter. I'm just saying what they are. We're Americans and this is SicEm after all.ATL Bear said:I'm sure they're fully legit… Just like 7 days after Yanukovych is ousted the Russians roll into Crimea because of "neo-Nazis".Sam Lowry said:Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.ATL Bear said:You can't be serious…Sam Lowry said:
Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.
The Putin Interview
32,806 Views |
885 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by Mothra
We've supported Nazis in Ukraine since the end of WWII. Whether they went by the name of Azov is quite beside the point.ATL Bear said:Well even if one was to stretch credulity and entertain the Neo Nazi angle, the fact they were in Kyiv and Central Ukraine and not Crimea would seem to argue otherwise. Furthermore, the Azov unit that got the most press (whether true or not) didn't come into existence until AFTER Putin had annexed Crimea and was fighting in Donbas. So even if one was to indulge in this fantasy, using some of the criticism I've seen you apply toward U.S. policy, I guess Putin created Nazi "blowback" through his actions. Amirite?Sam Lowry said:I'm not saying facts matter. I'm just saying what they are. We're Americans and this is SicEm after all.ATL Bear said:I'm sure they're fully legit… Just like 7 days after Yanukovych is ousted the Russians roll into Crimea because of "neo-Nazis".Sam Lowry said:Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.ATL Bear said:You can't be serious…Sam Lowry said:
Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.
BeforeSam Lowry said:This is not really intelligible as a response to my claim. Was the "current situation" before or after the Maidan coup? When was the question about "invasion" specifically asked, and by whom?sombear said:Not true.Sam Lowry said:Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.ATL Bear said:You can't be serious…Sam Lowry said:
Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.
The Crimean polls were perplexing to the even the most veteran Eastern Europe pollsters. Yes, many reputable polls showed (slim) majorities supporting Russian affiliation. But many of the same polls showed even stronger majorities satisfied with their current arrangement. There was no evidence - and no polls - showing Crimeans wanted Russia to invade.
Then see above.sombear said:BeforeSam Lowry said:This is not really intelligible as a response to my claim. Was the "current situation" before or after the Maidan coup? When was the question about "invasion" specifically asked, and by whom?sombear said:Not true.Sam Lowry said:Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.ATL Bear said:You can't be serious…Sam Lowry said:
Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.
The Crimean polls were perplexing to the even the most veteran Eastern Europe pollsters. Yes, many reputable polls showed (slim) majorities supporting Russian affiliation. But many of the same polls showed even stronger majorities satisfied with their current arrangement. There was no evidence - and no polls - showing Crimeans wanted Russia to invade.
Oh boy…I'm wondering about your thoughts on Wernher von Braun.Sam Lowry said:We've supported Nazis in Ukraine since the end of WWII. Whether they went by the name of Azov is quite beside the point.ATL Bear said:Well even if one was to stretch credulity and entertain the Neo Nazi angle, the fact they were in Kyiv and Central Ukraine and not Crimea would seem to argue otherwise. Furthermore, the Azov unit that got the most press (whether true or not) didn't come into existence until AFTER Putin had annexed Crimea and was fighting in Donbas. So even if one was to indulge in this fantasy, using some of the criticism I've seen you apply toward U.S. policy, I guess Putin created Nazi "blowback" through his actions. Amirite?Sam Lowry said:I'm not saying facts matter. I'm just saying what they are. We're Americans and this is SicEm after all.ATL Bear said:I'm sure they're fully legit… Just like 7 days after Yanukovych is ousted the Russians roll into Crimea because of "neo-Nazis".Sam Lowry said:Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.ATL Bear said:You can't be serious…Sam Lowry said:
Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.
This.ATL Bear said:I mean I wish you gave the US 1/4 the leniency you give Putin.Sam Lowry said:Crimeans would disagree with you. They supported annexation overwhelmingly. I just think you misconstrued the history lesson and it colored the rest of what you heard.Mothra said:A few things...Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.
Serious questions:
1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?
2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?
3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?
I will hang up and listen.Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024
#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.
• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”
#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”
• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV
1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?
2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.
3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.
4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.
In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.
Sam Lowry said:It depends on a lot of things. Does the US have a legitimate regime at this point, or has it been taken over in a J6-type scenario where the insurrectionists succeeded and began packing the government with right-wing xenophobes who hate Mexican-Americans? Is a foreign superpower influencing the events, and if so why? Are they trying to use California as a platform to destabilize and potentially attack Mexico? Has California agreed to remain neutral as between the US and Mexico, and are they in violation of that agreement? And so on.Porteroso said:Sam Lowry said:Crimeans would disagree with you. They supported annexation overwhelmingly. I just think you misconstrued the history lesson and it colored the rest of what you heard.Mothra said:A few things...Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.
Serious questions:
1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?
2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?
3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?
I will hang up and listen.Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024
#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.
• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”
#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”
• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV
1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?
2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.
3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.
4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.
In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.
Just curious, in the future when California is majority Hispanic and say they support annexation. Will you support a Mexican invasion of California?
Are you saying Ukraine wanted to potentially attack Russia through Crimea? Are these hypotheticals, or parallels to the subject in question?
If a majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military and incorporating Texas?Sam Lowry said:This is not really intelligible as a response to my claim. Was the "current situation" before or after the Maidan coup? When was the question about "invasion" specifically asked, and by whom?sombear said:Not true.Sam Lowry said:Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.ATL Bear said:You can't be serious…Sam Lowry said:
Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.
The Crimean polls were perplexing to the even the most veteran Eastern Europe pollsters. Yes, many reputable polls showed (slim) majorities supporting Russian affiliation. But many of the same polls showed even stronger majorities satisfied with their current arrangement. There was no evidence - and no polls - showing Crimeans wanted Russia to invade.
Look, we agree that this is not our fight to fight, and we shouldn't be over there. But your justifications of a known despot's actions are baffling to me, especially given your previous "just war" stance, which you seem to have now abandoned.
I wish the US had attacked 1/4 as many countries.Mothra said:This.ATL Bear said:I mean I wish you gave the US 1/4 the leniency you give Putin.Sam Lowry said:Crimeans would disagree with you. They supported annexation overwhelmingly. I just think you misconstrued the history lesson and it colored the rest of what you heard.Mothra said:A few things...Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.
Serious questions:
1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?
2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?
3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?
I will hang up and listen.Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024
#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.
• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”
#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”
• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV
1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?
2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.
3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.
4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.
In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.
Sam Lowry said:I wish the US had attacked 1/4 as many countries.Mothra said:This.ATL Bear said:I mean I wish you gave the US 1/4 the leniency you give Putin.Sam Lowry said:Crimeans would disagree with you. They supported annexation overwhelmingly. I just think you misconstrued the history lesson and it colored the rest of what you heard.Mothra said:A few things...Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.
Serious questions:
1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?
2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?
3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?
I will hang up and listen.Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024
#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.
• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”
#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”
• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV
1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?
2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.
3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.
4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.
In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.
When's the last time the US attacked another country as part of a land grab? And it's cool for Russia to do it until they reach a certain quota?
A couple of posters admitted that Afghanistan was a land grab on this thread the day before yesterday. Their main regret seemed to be that Dubya wasn't bold enough to enlist public support for it.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:I wish the US had attacked 1/4 as many countries.Mothra said:This.ATL Bear said:I mean I wish you gave the US 1/4 the leniency you give Putin.Sam Lowry said:Crimeans would disagree with you. They supported annexation overwhelmingly. I just think you misconstrued the history lesson and it colored the rest of what you heard.Mothra said:A few things...Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.
Serious questions:
1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?
2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?
3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?
I will hang up and listen.Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024
#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.
• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”
#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”
• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV
1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?
2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.
3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.
4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.
In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.
When's the last time the US attacked another country as part of a land grab? And it's cool for Russia to do it until they reach a certain quota?
We're all about land grabs, we just don't like to think of it that way.
Ukraine wanted to take away a naval base that Russia constructed over 200 years ago, and they wanted to build the second largest army in Europe under the auspices of NATO despite an agreement of neutrality. So not hypothetical.Porteroso said:Sam Lowry said:It depends on a lot of things. Does the US have a legitimate regime at this point, or has it been taken over in a J6-type scenario where the insurrectionists succeeded and began packing the government with right-wing xenophobes who hate Mexican-Americans? Is a foreign superpower influencing the events, and if so why? Are they trying to use California as a platform to destabilize and potentially attack Mexico? Has California agreed to remain neutral as between the US and Mexico, and are they in violation of that agreement? And so on.Porteroso said:Sam Lowry said:Crimeans would disagree with you. They supported annexation overwhelmingly. I just think you misconstrued the history lesson and it colored the rest of what you heard.Mothra said:A few things...Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.
Serious questions:
1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?
2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?
3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?
I will hang up and listen.Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024
#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.
• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”
#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”
• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV
1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?
2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.
3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.
4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.
In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.
Just curious, in the future when California is majority Hispanic and say they support annexation. Will you support a Mexican invasion of California?
Are you saying Ukraine wanted to potentially attack Russia through Crimea? Are these hypotheticals, or parallels to the subject in question?
I don't know if I'd be cool with it, but I guess the majority of Texans would. So who should have the final word, us or the Russians?Mothra said:If a majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military and incorporating Texas?Sam Lowry said:This is not really intelligible as a response to my claim. Was the "current situation" before or after the Maidan coup? When was the question about "invasion" specifically asked, and by whom?sombear said:Not true.Sam Lowry said:Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.ATL Bear said:You can't be serious…Sam Lowry said:
Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.
The Crimean polls were perplexing to the even the most veteran Eastern Europe pollsters. Yes, many reputable polls showed (slim) majorities supporting Russian affiliation. But many of the same polls showed even stronger majorities satisfied with their current arrangement. There was no evidence - and no polls - showing Crimeans wanted Russia to invade.
Look, we agree that this is not our fight to fight, and we shouldn't be over there. But your justifications of a known despot's actions are baffling to me, especially given your previous "just war" stance, which you seem to have now abandoned.
I give Tucker credit for taking the right journalistic approach. Just let someone talk, and they will answer the questions without having to be asked, through words and/or body language.
If this was a proxy war Russia would be all Ukrainian by nowKaiBear said:Agree we should not be in this proxy war.Mothra said:I am not sure how specific I need to get. I said we shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia, and suggested we should be looking for an agreement to end the conflict.KaiBear said:Sorry to be dense .Mothra said:Read my post again. I answered your question in the post you quoted.KaiBear said:So exactly what would you suggest the US does going forward ?Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops ?
All I see is a general make peace with Russia
Security assurance.
Is there something else ?
What I didn't say or even infer is that we should "continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops," etc. I said (or inferred) just the opposite.
Any agreement to end the war will most likely require Ukraine to give up some of its territory to Russia and distance itself from the West both economically and militarily. Doubt the US will allow such terms to be signed.
Didn't infer that you said such things as a no fly zone. Merely curious how any peace process resumes when Ukraine refuses a ceasefire that requires losing territory.
Wars are far easier to begin than end. Especially if your defacto ally doesn't want it to end.
Personally I see the war only ending when the Ukrainian people get tired of seeing their loved ones getting slaughtered .
Curious if you actually watched the interview, because Putin expressed the opposite, His entire opening monologue on history served two purposes. The first was the classic technique of premeditated lying where you use elaborate and unnecessary details to convince someone of a lie. Even Tucker wasn't connecting the dots.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:A few things...Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.
Serious questions:
1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?
2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?
3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?
I will hang up and listen.Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024
#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.
• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”
#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”
• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV
1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?
2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.
3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.
4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.
In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.
I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?
Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?
I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.
I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?
I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.
Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).
lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Second, the actual historical tale he weaved was a nullification of the concept of a Ukrainian state existing at all. He even chastised his former Soviet and post Soviet bosses for acknowledging them as well as allocating lands to Ukraine.
This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement. Ironically, you and others rightfully critique liberals for doing the EXACT same thing toward the MAGA movement. Putin isn't Trump. If anything he's fighting to suppress Trump type nationalism in Ukraine.
Putin understands that Ukrainian nationalism results in the independence of Ukraine from Russian hegemony and influence, not to mention are the most motivated populace to fight against him. And while he has gone to great lengths to convince the gullible about Western "coup d'etats", it ultimately returns to his own imperialist goals for Russia, which even tie to his own personal financial interests. He's excellent at tapping into anti-American sentiment. He was trained well on it in Leningrad and did so for most of his KGB career.
So invading and taking by force portions of a country is ok as long as the majority of the people living in the portion being taken are cool with it? Wow.Sam Lowry said:I don't know if I'd be cool with it, but I guess the majority of Texans would. So who should have the final word, us or the Russians?Mothra said:If a majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military and incorporating Texas?Sam Lowry said:This is not really intelligible as a response to my claim. Was the "current situation" before or after the Maidan coup? When was the question about "invasion" specifically asked, and by whom?sombear said:Not true.Sam Lowry said:Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.ATL Bear said:You can't be serious…Sam Lowry said:
Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.
The Crimean polls were perplexing to the even the most veteran Eastern Europe pollsters. Yes, many reputable polls showed (slim) majorities supporting Russian affiliation. But many of the same polls showed even stronger majorities satisfied with their current arrangement. There was no evidence - and no polls - showing Crimeans wanted Russia to invade.
Look, we agree that this is not our fight to fight, and we shouldn't be over there. But your justifications of a known despot's actions are baffling to me, especially given your previous "just war" stance, which you seem to have now abandoned.
Who has stolen Sam Lowry's screenname?
Whether the US govt. thinks it's ok is irrelevant IMO, since this isn't (or shouldn't) be our fight. But I was hoping at least we could find some consensus that invasions and land grabs are wrong in general, especially since you just stated above it's wrong when we do it. Or does that rule only apply to us?
In my hypothetical, would it be ok if Mexico decided to try to overthrow Texas, bomb it's cities and kill its civilians to establish a buffer of sorts between Mexico and the rest of the union? Would that fit within your "just war" beliefs?
Bingo. It is shocking to me the OP completely missed this. He was actually trying to post this interview in defense of Putin, when Putin was actually admitting this was a land grab, and comes across as the bloodthirsty despot he is.ATL Bear said:Curious if you actually watched the interview, because Putin expressed the opposite, His entire opening monologue on history served two purposes. The first was the classic technique of premeditated lying where you use elaborate and unnecessary details to convince someone of a lie. Even Tucker wasn't connecting the dots.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:A few things...Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.
Serious questions:
1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?
2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?
3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?
I will hang up and listen.Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024
#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.
• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”
#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”
• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV
1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?
2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.
3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.
4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.
In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.
I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?
Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?
I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.
I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?
I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.
Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).
lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Second, the actual historical tale he weaved was a nullification of the concept of a Ukrainian state existing at all. He even chastised his former Soviet and post Soviet bosses for acknowledging them as well as allocating lands to Ukraine.
But hey, at least he was "sincere" in his belief, according to Tucker.
ron.reagan said:If this was a proxy war Russia would be all Ukrainian by nowKaiBear said:Agree we should not be in this proxy war.Mothra said:I am not sure how specific I need to get. I said we shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia, and suggested we should be looking for an agreement to end the conflict.KaiBear said:Sorry to be dense .Mothra said:Read my post again. I answered your question in the post you quoted.KaiBear said:So exactly what would you suggest the US does going forward ?Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops ?
All I see is a general make peace with Russia
Security assurance.
Is there something else ?
What I didn't say or even infer is that we should "continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops," etc. I said (or inferred) just the opposite.
Any agreement to end the war will most likely require Ukraine to give up some of its territory to Russia and distance itself from the West both economically and militarily. Doubt the US will allow such terms to be signed.
Didn't infer that you said such things as a no fly zone. Merely curious how any peace process resumes when Ukraine refuses a ceasefire that requires losing territory.
Wars are far easier to begin than end. Especially if your defacto ally doesn't want it to end.
Personally I see the war only ending when the Ukrainian people get tired of seeing their loved ones getting slaughtered .
Napoleon failed to conquer Russia.. Fatally weakening his army in the attempt
Hitler failed to conquer Russia. Eventually losing WW2 beginning at Stalingrad.
So what makes you think a devastated Ukraine aided by a culturally divided , economically feeble United States could conquer Russia ?
It's odd you bring up how Ukraine defended itself twice from some of histories largest armies to argue that they couldn't defeat a economically feeble and culturally divided Russia backed by the worlds only super power.KaiBear said:ron.reagan said:If this was a proxy war Russia would be all Ukrainian by nowKaiBear said:Agree we should not be in this proxy war.Mothra said:I am not sure how specific I need to get. I said we shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia, and suggested we should be looking for an agreement to end the conflict.KaiBear said:Sorry to be dense .Mothra said:Read my post again. I answered your question in the post you quoted.KaiBear said:So exactly what would you suggest the US does going forward ?Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops ?
All I see is a general make peace with Russia
Security assurance.
Is there something else ?
What I didn't say or even infer is that we should "continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops," etc. I said (or inferred) just the opposite.
Any agreement to end the war will most likely require Ukraine to give up some of its territory to Russia and distance itself from the West both economically and militarily. Doubt the US will allow such terms to be signed.
Didn't infer that you said such things as a no fly zone. Merely curious how any peace process resumes when Ukraine refuses a ceasefire that requires losing territory.
Wars are far easier to begin than end. Especially if your defacto ally doesn't want it to end.
Personally I see the war only ending when the Ukrainian people get tired of seeing their loved ones getting slaughtered .
Napoleon failed to conquer Russia.. Fatally weakening his army in the attempt
Hitler failed to conquer Russia. Eventually losing WW2 beginning at Stalingrad.
So what makes you think a devastated , aided by a culturally divided , economically feeble United States could conquer Russia ?
ron.reagan said:It's odd you bring up how Ukraine defended itself twice from some of histories largest armies to argue that they couldn't defeat a economically feeble and culturally divided Russia backed by the worlds only super power.KaiBear said:ron.reagan said:If this was a proxy war Russia would be all Ukrainian by nowKaiBear said:Agree we should not be in this proxy war.Mothra said:I am not sure how specific I need to get. I said we shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia, and suggested we should be looking for an agreement to end the conflict.KaiBear said:Sorry to be dense .Mothra said:Read my post again. I answered your question in the post you quoted.KaiBear said:So exactly what would you suggest the US does going forward ?Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops ?
All I see is a general make peace with Russia
Security assurance.
Is there something else ?
What I didn't say or even infer is that we should "continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops," etc. I said (or inferred) just the opposite.
Any agreement to end the war will most likely require Ukraine to give up some of its territory to Russia and distance itself from the West both economically and militarily. Doubt the US will allow such terms to be signed.
Didn't infer that you said such things as a no fly zone. Merely curious how any peace process resumes when Ukraine refuses a ceasefire that requires losing territory.
Wars are far easier to begin than end. Especially if your defacto ally doesn't want it to end.
Personally I see the war only ending when the Ukrainian people get tired of seeing their loved ones getting slaughtered .
Napoleon failed to conquer Russia.. Fatally weakening his army in the attempt
Hitler failed to conquer Russia. Eventually losing WW2 beginning at Stalingrad.
So what makes you think a devastated , aided by a culturally divided , economically feeble United States could conquer Russia ?
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
The old Kevian Russ state (centered on Kyiv) was totally destroyed by the Mongols….they burned Kyiv to the ground and killed/enslaved its entire population.
What was left fractured into tiny Slavic Princedoms under the over lordship of the Mongol Golden Horde.
Later on the land of Ukraine was controlled by The Polish-Lithuania commonwealth.
Then dominated by the Russian empire.
Ukraine was by passed by the French in their march on Moscow and played no real role…and the Germans easily conquered it until the Russians\Soviets drove them out.
Ukriane has actually been a fairly easy place to conquer historically.
In fact in WWII large parts of the Ukrainian population were active supporters of Germany. And would have remained so had the USSR not counter attacked and driven them out.
ATL Bear said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:A few things...Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.
Serious questions:
1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?
2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?
3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?
I will hang up and listen.Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024
#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.
• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”
#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”
• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV
1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?
2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.
3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.
4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.
In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.
I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?
Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?
I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.
I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?
I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.
Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).
lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…
1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis
And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.
It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down
Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.
2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"
It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?
I wonder why that is….
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 10, 2024
Poland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs @PolandMFA issues a correction to 10 of the lies Putin told Tucker Carlson’s audience during his interview
1. Poland cooperated with Hitler’s Germany.
———
Before World War II, Polish diplomacy tried to keep good neighbourly… pic.twitter.com/x7kYhFz5eC
Poland was invaded by both Stalin and Hitler who later divided the country between them.
But it was Stalin who ordered the murder of over 6000 Polish officers after they had surrendered to the Red Army..
When the Nazis later attacked Russia and over ran the Russian occupied parts of Poland they discovered the mass graves. The Nazis even called in the International Red Cross to confirm their gruesome discovery.
1. Nazi is definitely overused. I don't think actual similarity is required for most who use it, just shock value. That's clearly what Putin is using it for.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Ok, so to be clear, you can't provide an opinion on whether Putin's motives were based, in part, on the desire for a land grab because you "would have to study the issue more closely," but I am "completely ignorant" in my belief that Putin was motivated in part by a land grab? Pray tell, how could you come to that conclusion if you are admittedly ignorant yourself on the topic? LOL. You're a hoot.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:My apologies if I have misinterpreted you. So, to be clear, you do believe that Putin's motives were, in part, a land grab, and not entirely based on security reasons?Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:I invite you to put forth an argument in support of your positions, instead of simply making conclusory and unsupported assertions. Perhaps we could start with this, if you have the ability:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:A few things...Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:The fact that you lack the nuance to understand the difference between my views and Lindsey Graham's is further proof you are a mere black and white thinker.Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Mothra - the fact that you think seeing this story with the nuance it requires to not fall off the deep end and classify Russia as imperialistic as nut job and "cozying up" is proof of who has drunken the kool-aid. Seriously, turn off Lindsey Graham and think.
Serious questions:
1) Is it your belief that Putin was justified in invading Ukraine and killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians?
2) Do you believe that Putin's ONLY motivation for invading was de-nazifying Ukraine and incorporating large swaths of its territory for mere security reasons?
3) What do you believe was Putin's point for brining up the fact that Ukraine used to be a part of Russia in the interview?
I will hang up and listen.Tucker Carlson’s 5 Key Takeaways from the Putin Interview:
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 9, 2024
#1 - Putin is “very wounded” by the rejection of the West.
• “That’s the whole point of NATO, I guess, is to contain Russia. And Putin is wounded by this.”
#2 - “Russia is not an expansionist power.”
• “You have to… pic.twitter.com/Oeq93tnHuV
1) That didn't answer my questions. I am not interested in what Tucker thinks, but what you think. And Tucker also didn't answer my questions. Can you think for yourself?
2) As for Tucker, I am amused by Tucker's absurd take that Russia is "not an expansionist power." Oh really? I suspect the Ukrainians and Crimea would say otherwise. I mean, in the same statement claiming Russia isn't an expansionist power, he goes on to state that Putin would have nuclear war with anyone who tried to take back Crimea. It's the height of absurdity.
3) Putin's 25-minute diatribe about how Ukraine was historically apart of mother Russia cuts against the narrative that Putin is only concerned about security. You appear to be a binary thinker, but I would submit that Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine were multi-faceted. Again, I am not fan of the proxy war and the role we played in it's beginnings, but let's not forget that Russia has repeatedly double-crossed Ukraine (remember when it gave up its nukes for security assurances?) and has annexed large swaths of its territory under the guise that it is merely concerned about security. Putin's diatribe completely belies that position.
4) I suspect Putin does want peace as long as long as it's on his terms. In other words, he gets to keep all of the land he took. And quite frankly, that may be the best option for all parties in the long run. But it was Putin that chose war and bloodshed. Was he triggered by Biden's policies? Perhaps, but his reaction was significantly disproportionate to the threat Ukraine posed (if any). Any reasonable person knows that excuse is in large part subterfuge for his other motivations.
In sum, again, I am no fan of how the U.S. has handled Russia, and I think Biden's bellicose talk did nothing but hurt our credibility, and helped start this war. But I am not so foolish to believe as you do that Putin's motives were altruistic. One can have peace with despots without cozying up to them, and buying their propaganda hook, line and sinker, as Tucker (and you) have done. Putin is a cold-blooded killer and despot. He's assassinated numerous political rivals, assassinated people who don't step in line with his regime (even outside of Russia), and has jailed anyone who opposed him. He is your textbook despot. It is incredible to me that some of my fellow conservatives think he's the cat's meow, and now guzzle down his propaganda like gin at a sorority party.
I'm not a binary thinker in the slightest. Pushing back against a binary thinker can often make one appear as such. Your characterizations of Putin are textbook black&white thinking, as is labeling anyone who doesn't share your propagandized view of Putin as thinking he's the cats meow. Other than the highly nuanced situations in Ukraine and Crimea, where do you see Russian Imperialism?
Pray tell, how is it binary thinking to believe Putin's motivations for invading were multi-faceted? It is your position that it's NOT binary thinking to believe, as you do, that Putin's motives were entirely altruistic - for security reasons? Can you explain that position?
I would love to have a discussion with you on this topic, if you're capable of actually thinking for yourself. So far, you don't seem to be able to answer pretty simple questions, however.
I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold. You putting me in that camp is another example of black and white thinking. Show me where I have stated or agreed that all of Putin's motivations are altruistic. Where else do you see Russian imperialism?
I would have to study the issue more closely - I wouldn't pretend to believe that political motivations are extremely complex. Based on what I know of the coup in Ukraine, the history of Ukraine, but especially Crimea, along with aggression by NATO - there is far more evidence to support a motive of self-defense. The fact that you have so strongly focused on the "land grab" portion of this shows either a complete ignorance of history or a bias so strong as to not be able to think clearly.
Yes, I would suggest you do study the issue more closely, and then get back to me. It's not always good to take Tucker's word for it. Listen to Putin's words, not Tucker's interpretation of them. And study the issues to understand why Putin would have a desire to annex Crimea (and other portions of Ukraine - he wants all of it, just FYI).
lol. Familiarize yourself with the coup in Ukraine. That will begin to give you a sense of the meddling that is going on in Ukraine by globalists and why they are doing it. Putin is Trump. Neither man is even close to perfect but they are pro sovereign-nation states, especially their respective ones. That is why both men have been targeted. That is why NATO is provoking him. You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
This is what guys like Sam can't seem to grasp. The entire "de-nazification" idea has nothing to do with neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine. It is straight propaganda to garner sympathy for their effort by demonizing Ukraine nationalism. He is countering the idea of a strong sovereign self determined Ukraine by slanting history and painting it as a Nazi associated and motivated movement…
1. Well sure. Putin tries to paint his enemies in Ukraine (the Ukrainian nationalists) as Nazis
And Western media tries to paint Putin as the new Hitler.
It's "Nazi Nazi Nazi" all the way down
Our world obsession with a socialist German movement from almost 80 years ago is strange to say the least.
2. I wonder if you see any connection between the way Putin & Moscow media paints its Ukrainian nationalist enemies as "Nazis" and the way the Western media in Europe & America paints their conservative-nationalist domestic enemies as "Nazis"
It's almost like elites in both Moscow and DC view nationalism as the real enemy?
I wonder why that is….
I would argue Putin is probably more akin to Japan's imperialistic efforts. In a losing battle for regional dominance with the West, they went on a militaristic regional expansion. They even used Western policy as a catalyst/justification for invasions.
2. I think I said something exactly along those lines in my post. I think I've established I'm no Trump fan, but he and his movement are incorrectly categorized as Nazi/Fascists. Similar to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, fringe associations (Azov militia in Ukraine/Charlottesville or Oath Keepers in the U.S. for Trump) are used to frame all of the movement as those extremes. The bottomline is it's all an effort to marginalize the legitimacy of your opposition.
Nationalism takes many forms, and autocratic populism (what I align Trump with) doesn't mean "Nazi". Ultimately all of it is about the struggle for power and control.
Historically North America was extremely easy to conquer. You really are a special kind of stupidRedbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:It's odd you bring up how Ukraine defended itself twice from some of histories largest armies to argue that they couldn't defeat a economically feeble and culturally divided Russia backed by the worlds only super power.KaiBear said:ron.reagan said:If this was a proxy war Russia would be all Ukrainian by nowKaiBear said:Agree we should not be in this proxy war.Mothra said:I am not sure how specific I need to get. I said we shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia, and suggested we should be looking for an agreement to end the conflict.KaiBear said:Sorry to be dense .Mothra said:Read my post again. I answered your question in the post you quoted.KaiBear said:So exactly what would you suggest the US does going forward ?Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops ?
All I see is a general make peace with Russia
Security assurance.
Is there something else ?
What I didn't say or even infer is that we should "continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops," etc. I said (or inferred) just the opposite.
Any agreement to end the war will most likely require Ukraine to give up some of its territory to Russia and distance itself from the West both economically and militarily. Doubt the US will allow such terms to be signed.
Didn't infer that you said such things as a no fly zone. Merely curious how any peace process resumes when Ukraine refuses a ceasefire that requires losing territory.
Wars are far easier to begin than end. Especially if your defacto ally doesn't want it to end.
Personally I see the war only ending when the Ukrainian people get tired of seeing their loved ones getting slaughtered .
Napoleon failed to conquer Russia.. Fatally weakening his army in the attempt
Hitler failed to conquer Russia. Eventually losing WW2 beginning at Stalingrad.
So what makes you think a devastated , aided by a culturally divided , economically feeble United States could conquer Russia ?
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
The old Kevian Russ state (centered on Kyiv) was totally destroyed by the Mongols….they burned Kyiv to the ground and killed/enslaved its entire population.
What was left fractured into tiny Slavic Princedoms under the over lordship of the Mongol Golden Horde.
Later on the land of Ukraine was controlled by The Polish-Lithuania commonwealth.
Then dominated by the Russian empire.
Ukraine was by passed by the French in their march on Moscow and played no real role…and the Germans easily conquered it until the Russians\Soviets drove them out.
Ukriane has actually been a fairly easy place to conquer historically.
In fact in WWII large parts of the Ukrainian population were active supporters of Germany. And would have remained so had the USSR not counter attacked and driven them out.
ron.reagan said:Historically North America was extremely easy to conquer. You really are a special kind of stupidRedbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:It's odd you bring up how Ukraine defended itself twice from some of histories largest armies to argue that they couldn't defeat a economically feeble and culturally divided Russia backed by the worlds only super power.KaiBear said:ron.reagan said:If this was a proxy war Russia would be all Ukrainian by nowKaiBear said:Agree we should not be in this proxy war.Mothra said:I am not sure how specific I need to get. I said we shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia, and suggested we should be looking for an agreement to end the conflict.KaiBear said:Sorry to be dense .Mothra said:Read my post again. I answered your question in the post you quoted.KaiBear said:So exactly what would you suggest the US does going forward ?Mothra said:Mafia Bear said:Mothra said:
Meh. I am no fan of a proxy war with Russia and think the Biden administration did a hell of a lot to antagonize Putin, but this guy is a piece of **** little despot. There's so much blood on his hand over the years. And quite frankly, his initial statements, prove that this was nothing more than a landgrab buy an imperialistic little dictator.
I am not sure what Tucker's intentions were in interviewing him, but this did not make either look good. Putin came across as the dictator he is, and Tucker sullied what semblance of a reputation he had by interviewing him.
Could not disagree more. That is a shocking take. The fact that you think Russia is imperialistic by wanting to protect itself against NATO advancement on its own border is Lindsey Graham-ish level. Here are some more balanced reflections:Tucker Carlson Network: After The Vladimir Putin Interview
— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 9, 2024
Tucker's immediate reaction to his hours-long interview with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. pic.twitter.com/Y1AaaURsC6
The only shocking take is your own. It's really at nutjob level. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
I've been against our involvement in the war from the beginning, and have regularly criticized this incompetent admin for its bellicose talk on letting Ukraine join NATO. I've also said we should have offered the security assurances Russia was seeking.
But let's be clear about why Russia invaded. It wasn't merely because Putin thought Ukraine was a threat or would be a threat. It's because Putin - as he said during the interview - has imperialistic ambitions. As he said, Ukraine was once apart of mother Russia and he desired to have it apart of mother Russia again. Those were his own words. That is not ok, under any circumstance. He's got thousands of Ukrainians and Russians blood on his hands because of it.
Putin is a smart, calculating, steely cold blooded killer. We shouldn't be in a proxy war with Russia and I put most of the fault on the Biden admin for that but trying to make Putin a sympathetic figure is a terrible look. While I am an advocate for peace with Russia and trying to figure out a way to end this war, Conservatives should not be cozying up to despots. Period. End of story.
Continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops ?
All I see is a general make peace with Russia
Security assurance.
Is there something else ?
What I didn't say or even infer is that we should "continue providing billions of dollars toward Ukrainian defense , establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, send in ground troops," etc. I said (or inferred) just the opposite.
Any agreement to end the war will most likely require Ukraine to give up some of its territory to Russia and distance itself from the West both economically and militarily. Doubt the US will allow such terms to be signed.
Didn't infer that you said such things as a no fly zone. Merely curious how any peace process resumes when Ukraine refuses a ceasefire that requires losing territory.
Wars are far easier to begin than end. Especially if your defacto ally doesn't want it to end.
Personally I see the war only ending when the Ukrainian people get tired of seeing their loved ones getting slaughtered .
Napoleon failed to conquer Russia.. Fatally weakening his army in the attempt
Hitler failed to conquer Russia. Eventually losing WW2 beginning at Stalingrad.
So what makes you think a devastated , aided by a culturally divided , economically feeble United States could conquer Russia ?
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
The old Kevian Russ state (centered on Kyiv) was totally destroyed by the Mongols….they burned Kyiv to the ground and killed/enslaved its entire population.
What was left fractured into tiny Slavic Princedoms under the over lordship of the Mongol Golden Horde.
Later on the land of Ukraine was controlled by The Polish-Lithuania commonwealth.
Then dominated by the Russian empire.
Ukraine was by passed by the French in their march on Moscow and played no real role…and the Germans easily conquered it until the Russians\Soviets drove them out.
Ukriane has actually been a fairly easy place to conquer historically.
In fact in WWII large parts of the Ukrainian population were active supporters of Germany. And would have remained so had the USSR not counter attacked and driven them out.
When was "North America" a country?
And it took European powers 400 years of warfare to completely pacify the Stone Age tribes inhabiting North America….
You really are a special kind of historic illiterate aren't you?
Mothra said:If a majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military and incorporating Texas?Sam Lowry said:This is not really intelligible as a response to my claim. Was the "current situation" before or after the Maidan coup? When was the question about "invasion" specifically asked, and by whom?sombear said:Not true.Sam Lowry said:Reputable Western polls showed 80-90% support for the result of the annexation vote. I've posted them many times.ATL Bear said:You can't be serious…Sam Lowry said:
Yeah, that was 2013. It's almost as if the neo-nazi coup affected opinions, as multiple independent polls later confirmed. But never mind that, I guess.
The Crimean polls were perplexing to the even the most veteran Eastern Europe pollsters. Yes, many reputable polls showed (slim) majorities supporting Russian affiliation. But many of the same polls showed even stronger majorities satisfied with their current arrangement. There was no evidence - and no polls - showing Crimeans wanted Russia to invade.
.
If the majority of Texans want that then sure.
That's called real democracy…the people who live in a certain place have the total right to choose their own form of government or what country they want to be part of.
There is nothing holding the USA together except the fact that the Federal government in DC has shown they will kill you if you try to secede.
And DC would not doubt invade Texas to kept it from joining Mexico in such a scenario.
And DC would invade Canada if its current government was over thrown in favor of a pro-China one.
You know that…we all know that
We agree on much, but I got to say some of your fringe beliefs are really out there. This is one of them.
We arent a true democracy. We are republic.
We arent a true democracy. We are republic.
Mothra said:
We are at a true democracy. We are republic.
How do you think that Republic was created?
Through secession (and war) from the British State.
Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:
We are at a true democracy. We are republic.
How do you think that Republic was created?
Through secession (and war) from the British State.
True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?
Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:
We are at a true democracy. We are republic.
How do you think that Republic was created?
Through secession (and war) from the British State.
True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?
Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"
The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.
And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.
Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:
We are at a true democracy. We are republic.
How do you think that Republic was created?
Through secession (and war) from the British State.
True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?
Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"
The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.
And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.
Interesting. So you're completely cool with each state voting whether or not they want to remain a part of the union and the ultimate break up of the United States. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since I've seen your thoughts on the Civil War, but I think even you admit, that's more than a little fringe. It's certainly what I meant when I said your views are more than a little out there.
To each his own. I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.
Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:
We are at a true democracy. We are republic.
How do you think that Republic was created?
Through secession (and war) from the British State.
True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?
Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"
The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.
And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.
Interesting. So you're completely cool with each state voting whether or not they want to remain a part of the union and the ultimate break up of the United States. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since I've seen your thoughts on the Civil War, but I think even you admit, that's more than a little fringe. It's certainly what I meant when I said your views are more than a little out there.
If my ideas on sovereignty and States rights are out there it's only because we have accepted the horrifying idea that the Federal government has the right to kill people for voting on independence.
Texas should not be forced to stay in the United States of America or in the United Mexican States….that decision is entirely up to the people of Texas
Mothra said:I don't agree with your viewpoint, and I really don't agree with the idea that such a view allows a foreign state to invade the United States in support of the secessionist state, which I think is bat **** crazy. But you're entitled to your view, as nutty as I may find it.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:
We are at a true democracy. We are republic.
How do you think that Republic was created?
Through secession (and war) from the British State.
True. And Great Britain fought a war it lost to keep the states a part of its empire. Yet I'm struggling to determine the relevance of our country's beginnings to present day and my hypothetical. What's your point?
Your hypothetical was: "majority of Texans wanted to secede and become a part of Mexico, you'd be cool with Mexico sending in the military"
The point is that this is literally what France did with the American colonies.
And I have no problem with popular sovereignty.
The USA bombed Serbia to let Kosovo break off
We put massive economic pressure on Sudan and Indonesia to let their provinces (S. Sudan and East Timor) break off.
Why should Donbas and Crimea not be able to break off from Ukraine?
How can Washington DC support some secessionist movements but not others?