The notion that Ukraine is “abandoned” because America actually talks to Russia or because America doesn’t agree to Zelensky’s every demand is too juvenile to dignify with a response.
Ukraine was abandoned in 2014 when the Budapest Accords should have kicked in and Germany and America didn't come to their defense. They were obligated once Ukraine surrendered their nuclear arsenal.
Biden was again obligated in 2022 when the entire country was invaded. I'm sick of the betrayal by America and the Russia talking points espoused by this administration. Gambling with WWIII? Yes by not stepping up and meeting our obligations and defending Ukraine in the 1st place. Ukraine has no cards because the trusted the Budapest Accords. If they still had their nukes they'd be holding a royal flush.
Well Getmany will have no choice. They've waited too long to gear up. When they tested their new tanks 1)3 broke down because they are too computerized, just a little battlefied dust did them in. And only now have they decided to gear up for war.
It is not America's true nature. We had a choice between a land of 100 genders, politicians running up trillions in debt, a land over run by criminal gangs, welfare seeking aliens allowed to just walk in unvetted, schools taking over parental rights, and Trump. Shite, who would you vote for? As citizens we had no choice. But we do not condone what Trump has done to Ukraine.
I am absolutely NOT a fan of Netanyahu or Israel and yet I can see how comparing the 2 is not comparing apples to apples nor even fruit to fruit. Both are allies but Netanyahu is far more level headed, experienced and skilled than Zelensky. Netanyahu also isn't a US Government installed puppet. Trump puts up with too much of Israel's BS but if I had to choose between the 2 I'd definitely side with Israel.
Trump does not "put up" with Israeli BS, he joyously enables it and approves of it.
What, you dislike the transgender bearded dancers in Gaza, the golden Gaza hotel and Elon eating hamburgers on top of a few hundred putrefying Palestinian bodies?
Neither one of those nations are true allies of the US. We need to bring all of our military forces and equipment home from the Middle East as well as Europe. None of them believe in a free market or free speech. Israel is a left-wing secular socialist country with many former Soviet communists in government. They murder more of their people in abortion centers than are murdered by Islamic terrorists. They persecute the God-fearing Orthodox Jewish members of society. Epstein was an obvious operative of Mossad who are blackmailing and controlling many politicians and other people with influence. That is why the files will never be fully disclosed.
‘Europe’ isn’t a nation. It’s a geographical area inhabited by many very diverse (both linguistically and culturally) nations. It also isn’t a single state, no matter what some very confused people seem to believe about the EU.
I never called Europe a nation. I was referring to Ukraine and Israel in the context of the conversation comparing the two. It is a shame that Western Europe is rapidly running from the Christian foundations of their once great civilization.
Thank you for the clarification. You seem to conflate a few European leaders with ‘Europe’. What do you mean by ‘them’ in ‘none of them believe in a free market or free speech’?
Most ordinary people in Europe actually do believe in free speech and when it comes to free trade- insofar as such a thing exists anywhere thanks to state regulation- the trading floors of the City of London are about as free as things get. Are they fantastically badly incentivised from the perspective of society? Absolutely. But again, they’re no worse than anywhere else in that regard and a whole lot better than all of the alternatives tried to date.
The only European leader I respect is Victor Orban of Hungary. Of course, the establishment globalists in every other European nation hates him. England is and has been a hard-core socialist nation for decades. Are there any European nations other than Hungary that are not socialist or communist? Sincere question. England is at the forefront along with Germany in shutting down free speech and imprisoning citizens for what they say and write. I believe we need to observe the Constitution completely. There is no authority for foreign aid. Washington warned wisely against getting into entanglements with foreign nations including the forever fighting European nations.
Unless this conversation begins with Nuland et al in 2014, the CIA Ukraine "cutout", Merkel's deliberate NATO lie to Putin, the Clinton-Bush-Obama-BIDEN-Congressional cash-cow crime syndicate, and the unelected EU warmongers is ALL discussed, I personally am not interested in anyone's shallow opinion...
This has been the issue that just about made me swear off all social media.
I have spent years involved in campaigns to fend off the spread of gender ideology here in the UK. If I was a US citizen I’d have voted for Trump because, all other differences aside, if a party is prepared to lie about the immutability of mammalian sexual dimorphism, they are unfit to govern and at least Trump is sane on that issue. I’ve also been very concerned about the response to CoV19 and the rise of what is often referred to as the censorship industrial complex across the West.
But the reaction to the to the Zelensky-Trump-Vance debacle of some American commentators who I have subscribed to for years and whom I have generally considered to be reasonable and often very unfairly treated, eg Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn, has been deeply unpleasant. They are nearly overjoyed at what is, if nothing else, a tragedy for the ordinary people of Ukraine. Because, well, Zelensky is an arrogant prick and the Europeans are all snobs.
I completely agree that there is a ruling elite in Europe that has no interest other than its own power but that is also true of the United States. However, the fact is that European leaders have essentially done nothing but follow the orders of Washington since 1945, especially when it comes to the conduct of military affairs and procurement. But in recent months there has been a shift to a view that European leaders have somehow been duping the United States for eighty years. A claim that ‘Europe’, always spoken about as though it was a unitary state, should have undertaken the same kind of spending that the likes of Kirn, Vance and Musk are simultaneously saying has been ruinous for their own country’s finances. And they invariably try to claim that this is only because American taxpayers - who apparently are so oblivious that they’ve paid for this unfailingly since WW2 and not understood why - have been subsidising the ‘defence of the world’. It isn’t entirely clear who ‘the world’ has needed protection from in this analysis. Apparently eleven carrier fleets, 5000 aircraft and 5000 nuclear warheads aren’t about exercising straightforward power politics for economic dominance (and the result of the insane MIC) but are actually all about doing everyone but the people of the US a huge favour. For all of this the world should be grateful to the point that any criticism of the US or its President is seen as outright impertinace (see the most pathetic whinging from Michael Shellenberger - ‘Europe Doesn’t Respect Us’ on this point).
As John Bolton said about NATO in an interview with the Fifth Column last week “…we’re not in there to help them out, we’re in the alliance to help ourselves out”. This is, I think, the view of both the leaders of the many states of Europe and most of their citizens. It’s not credible to think that Truman established, and all of his successors participated in, NATO because they were philanthropic. It served America’s geopolitical ambitions.
There is reasonable evidence to suggest that in 2014 the US was involved in a coup in Ukraine. It has done this kind of thing all over the world for many decades. It’s basically understood by most people outside the US that this is the case. It has, from time to time, indulged in covert and sometimes overt regime change. Again, that’s hardly an innovation, it’s the practice of realpolitik. So the US becomes embroiled in yet another intractable conflict on a proxy basis. And, as has frequently happened, the cheerleading European leaders trail along like the obedient types Washington has come to expect. But then Washington gets cold feet and, rather than simply say “we need to bring this thing to an end” and find a sensible exit, it has now determined to make out like the mess is entirely the fault of ‘the Europeans’ and do a runner.
So, did Zelensky fluff the whole thing? Yes. Did Trump and Crew? Yes. Have the leaders of various European states? Yes. But, with all of the states those people represent having played a part in the conflict- both its genesis and conduct - they are in no position to claim moral superiority and, in so doing, leave millions of Ukrainians to a fate that they helped perpetuate.
To be clear, I do not think that pouring people and treasure into a stalemate is wise. The war needs to be brought to a swift end through negotiation. But Trump, the vainglorious fool that he is, is happy to cause his country to immediately renege on its supposed commitment to peace and in this case accelerate the forfeiture of many Ukrainian lives in so doing. And all because Zelensky is a similarly vain man who ‘failed to show respect’. It would have been a rather different outcome to the Second World War if Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt had each been so spectacularly stupid as to allow their personal distrust of one another to cloud their judgement about the conduct of a war to defeat a common enemy for the benefit of the states they each led.
So, in short, yes, America is abandoning Ukraine. I do not characterise it as abandonment because it has decided to extract itself from a pointless conflict. I do so because it has chosen to extract itself from a problem it was involved in causing - eg goading a tyrant with known territorial ambitions for more than a decade - in such a reckless manner.
Indeed, I’m a subscriber to the Spectator and have read his most recent article. It has been disappointing to see Matt Taibbi say Murray ‘has it wrong’ and resort to the very lazy assumption that anyone who disagrees with Trump’s approach thinks the fight should be sustained indefinitely.
Hmmm…the answer to this question is nuanced. It is it true that both Russia and the West are responsible for the war? Yes. Russia was going around empire building and working to expand their sphere of influence with actions like the invasions of Chechnya and Georgia and the illegal annexation of Ukraine. Also, their invasion and seizure of the Donbass region with the assistance of local Russian separatists. But at the same time, the United States and the West also made mistakes that led to war. The first would be going back on their promise not to expand NATO eastward. The first Bush administration and the German government both gave Mikhail Gorbachev assurances this wouldn’t happen. But it did and NATO expanded all the way up to Russia’s doorstep. Then in 2014, the CIA directly assisted the opposition to Ukraine’s then Pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych who to be fair quite corrupt. In the process, we made a deal with the Devil and even worked with Neo-Nazis to accomplish these goals. After Yanukovych was gone and elections were held and Zelensky prevailed, the United States and NATO flooded the country with foreign weapons, built biolabs in Ukraine and teased Ukraine becoming a NATO member. On top of that, the West undermined the only hope for a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine with the Minsk Accords. So did the West also make proactive moves that led to war breaking out? Yes. Did Russia fight the war at least partially with legitimate security concerns in mind? Yes. But does that make the invasion of Ukraine justified? No. Putin still could’ve solved these issues by non-military means. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was still unacceptable and unprovoked aggression. While the West was doing concerning things in Ukraine that Russia rightly objected to, Ukraine still didn’t attack Russia. Nor was it okay for them to commit the atrocities they did in Ukraine. Whatever mistakes the West made (that would backfire on Ukraine), it doesn’t mean it was morally right to launch an all-out war on Ukraine to conquer it flagrantly violating international law. Russia could’ve addressed its legitimate grievances with the West in other ways. They could’ve had diplomatic talks with the American and Western heads of state. They could’ve made their case at the United Nations. They could’ve stayed out of the war in the Donbass. But they didn’t, they chose to invade another country and slaughter its people. If they were worried Biden wouldn’t do a deal. They could’ve hunkered down for four years and waited to see the results of the elections and in the meantime, did they’re best to stay on peaceful terms with America and NATO. They didn’t do so. The West’s provocative moves were wrong but so was their clear designs on conquering Ukraine to make it a buffer zone. That they didn’t have to do.
There isn't, and never was, a signed treaty about NATO not expanding East. The country represented by Gorbachev stopped existing in 1991. Do you find these details relevant?
Do you believe a promise by let's say president Taft to emperor Franz Joseph of the Habsburg Empire would be relevant and should be honored today?
On the other hand, Russia and US did actually sign a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal. Russia invaded Ukraine and US is now withdrawing all support.
Can you provide the name of one of the many biolabs that were built by US in Ukraine since May 2019 when Zelenskyy became president? I would like to read up on that.
I am aware of US paying through the Nunn-Lugar program for the conversion to civilian purposes of numerous former Soviet labs that had been doing bioweapons research, labs found on the territories of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and others, not just Ukraine.
I believe that Putin was pushed and pushed and pushed. The 1991 treaty stated the west would encroach no farther east. But, this kept happening and when NATO was invited onto the Ukraine/Russia border, war erupted. The war needs to stop and the warmongers need to shut the Fcuk up
Ukraine is governed by a corrupt atheist Christian-hating and persecuting dictator. He abolished all opposition political parties, shut down all media not in his control, and shut down elections. His leaders have been selling our military aid equipment all over the world including terror groups and other American-hating groups including Mexican drug cartels. We need to bring all of our equipment and personnel home from that area of the world. Putin is a typical communist thug like many others, but he controls the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. We need to get out of NATO and the UN and focus on bringing liberty back to our nation. We need to stop all trade with China, Russia, and any nation that does not boycott them. They will collapse without firing a shot.
Peter – That’s not the right question to ask. Did Russia have some legal standing or precedent to invade? NO but they had just cause for what they did! The EU Nations along with prior American administrations have been trying to coax Russia into war for many years so the important question is why, why so eager to go to war with a vastly superior force and you can bet it’s NOTYHING to do with Democracy.
After WW2 Russia was promised by multiple EU Leaders and America that NATO would not move 1 inch closer to Russia and yet that is exactly what was done. Eventually it was bad enough that we dropped an Aegis missile system close enough to Russia that an American equivalent would be if Russia were to place its S-400 system in Southern Canada or Mexico. If Russia did that how long do you think America would wait before declaring war? The real question is what is it that’s so important that these EU leaders would risk sacrificing their own nations just get Russia into a war?
The answer is plain/simple, DEBT!
Every EU Nation is in debt and the level of debt that their only realistic way out is to either default or find some way to offload the debt to another nation, a nation like Russia. Keep in mind that when this all started Trump wasn’t a factor and so America was expected to hop into war with the EU/NATO at a moment’s notice. With Trump in they still need to get rid of this debt, but they can’t assume America will help as they could before. Now it’s about dragging America into a war with Russia before America can withdraw from any such NATO obligations.
At the end of WW1 the Allied powers stuck Germany with everyone’s tab via the treaty of Versailles. It was so excessive/abusive that historians have since argued that it gave rise to power to the Nazi party. These EU leaders want a repeat of that but this time to stick Russia with the bill. The problem is that unlike WW1&2, America is determined to NOT be involved, and Russia has the people and equipment to severely defeat the EU nations; ALL-OF-THEM! The EU leaders are hoping to get this war going before America can formally withdraw from any/all NATO obligations. Even if they can’t and even if they are forced to make a treaty with Russia within a few months after, that will still be better for the EU leaders b/c then they’ll use that as justification to steal from their citizens what little wealth is still left. They’ll pull some BS like replacing their existing physical currencies with some crypto replacement. Whatever path they choose they absolutely will sacrifice everything to get rid of that debt b/c they KNOW it’s a ticking time-bomb. They’d prefer sticking Russia with the debt but either way is still a win for them b/c they will never be held accountable for what they are doing. The only way to put an end to this is to get a truce with Russia and then move towards removing every single corrupt EU leader there is and replace them with truly elected leaders and not just a new set of American puppets.
The decision to cut off military aid to Ukraine is Trump snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, much like he did in Afghanistan, for which he did not get the credit he deserved. It was said before of Trump that he's of the opinion of the last person who spoke to him, and in this term he's surrounded himself with people who embody the collective right-wing-Twitter brain. I would not call that strategy, but if governing by Twitter is one, I'd like to point that Biden had essentially the same strategy.
I don't like to make predictions, but here's one that I think it's safe to make: no country will ever willingly give up nuclear capabilities again in exchange for American security guarantees.
If NATO expansionism did provoke Russia into attacking - and it's now quite clear that this was the case - then from a certain point of view, Russia was justified. Doesn't mean it's good that this happened.
Zelensky in his capacity as the leader of Ukraine is a tragic figure no matter how tired of him many Americans are today. (Getting kind of tired of the hate; Zelensky's no saint but don't Americans have other people more deserving of that emotion?) Also, as long as 1) Putin is a dictator and the "pro-Zelensky dictator" people don't say anything about that, and 2) martial law is actually justified for once in recent world history, which it is, Trump is wrong to call Zelensky a dictator.
But Zelensky also made a few very consequential mistakes. Perhaps we can sympathize in that a leader whose country is being blown up and sliced off is more likely to make mistakes when at war than at peace. Fair. But they were made all the same, and mistakes don't miraculously cease to have consequences because they happened during a war. If anything, the consequences are greater.
Mistake #1: Zelensky chose to be a partisan ally rather than a national ally. He should have said "no comment" every time anyone asked him about Biden/Kamala vs. Trump or anything of the sort. Instead, he became a kind of Democrat. This meant that Trump and Vance couldn't trust him from the start. Zelensky has done the same in other countries as well: in Poland, which has a presidential election coming up soon, he has also taken sides even though Poles have done a lot for Ukraine. Now, the party least inclined to support Ukraine is gaining in the polls.
I would argue that it isn't that Zelensky is ungrateful, though his language is certainly lacking in tact. Rather: he is grateful to the Democrats and their allies in countries like Poland because to him, Dems = America. So when he's told he was ungrateful, he doesn't get it. It is like he is negotiating with a completely different country. This might be giving too much of the benefit of the doubt, but it's possible that occupied by a war as he was, Zelensky simply didn't get how deep the divide was in America and how consequential it would be to take sides; many in Europe don't understand that because of fake media narratives.
Mistake #2: he took foreign assistance way too much for granted.
Mistake #3: Zelensky is too much of a civilian. Bad as the Invasion of Poland was back in 1939, the country was run by military men who, however incapable in other respects, understood that there's a time when one has to stop fighting and retreat if you want to have a people left. If the casualty rates are as bad as they say, it's safe to say Zelensky doesn't understand this. That, or the Dems pushed him too hard and he was powerless to resist. (I hope we find that out one day if it's not already public)
Mistake #4: Zelensky is simply not made out to be a diplomat. If he's too emotionally affected by the war, that's understandable. But it doesn't mean he's in good shape to negotiate a ceasefire; he is, to use the term from Star Trek, "emotionally compromised." Everyone seems to understand that except Zelensky himself.
My guess is that the cutting off of military aid is a strategic calculation for the simple reason that most of Trump's other policies that rhyme with this have also been strategic calculations. However many cards Zelensky may or may not have, Trump appears to need the rare earth deal: especially if other sources fall into different spheres of influence (like South Africa). Vance is right about economic investment in things like this amounting to a security guarantee: TDS people will disagree (VDS?), in which case I invite people to look up the history of Czechoslovakia. People thought it might become a Western country after the war. Except that Stalin wanted a nuclear bomb and Czechoslovakia alone in the Soviet sphere (to the Kremlin's knowledge at the time) had uranium mines. Rare earth minerals are to our time what uranium was in 1945. And a lot of the resource-driven activity on Trump's part paints a picture of the US preparing for the emergence of a multipolar world we already, in fact, have in all but name and consolidation.
I hope Zelensky makes the deal. I'm tired of Dems gloating over the war as the beautiful Ukrainian people have been butchered. (As well as their counterparts on the Russian side, who are also a beautiful people) I agree with one person in the comments who said that Trump is running from a problem the US created; I think there's some truth in that but at the end of the day we'll just have to see.
It is obvious to me that Western assistance was always designed to assist Ukraine to defend but not to conclusively win. That is why weapons have only trickled in and were limited in range so they couldn't hit Russia proper. I also wonder whether NATO promises were a sham to string them along, because I see no rational reason why NATO would want Ukraine as a member - they bring nothing but arrive encumbered with huge liabilities.
In that context Zelensky should have settled for merely losing a smaller chunk of territory. USA isn't abandoning Ukraine since they are not formally allies, Trump is basically saying "you can't win so settle now" and forcing the issue by removing further aid. Not nice, but simply the truthful position.
Zelensky has shown the limits of his competence in diplomacy - look up the image of Ukrainian ambassador during the event, tells you all you need.
I think a better question would have been, “Did the imperialist policy of NATO back Russia into a corner so that there only option was to invade before it was full fledged NATO member, if not formally but in practice?”
There seems to be little appreciation about how much Russians fear invasion from Western Europe. This was told me by my college Russian teacher as well as my professor in a graduate level class on the Soviet Economy back in 1974.
We also seem to forget that the Warsaw Pact was a response to NATO. The Russians did not put nuclear warheads in Cuba until after we put them in Turkey.
Its quite mystifying why NATO pushed Russia's buttons with Ukraine & Georgia because even from their own self-interest it just doesn't make sense.
As to the Russian fear of "Western invasion" you need to evaluate whether that is a true motivation vs a rationalisation the Russian political class have constructed to justify their own historical imperialism. I've read a lot of Meirsheimer and his warnings were quite valid but contingent on one point: that Russia wouldn't revert into imperialist-mode sooner or later. In that context joining NATO for the ex-Communist nations was a smart move since they got in before Russia rebuilt its military capacity.
During my last year of graduate school I shared an apartment with an Oxford doctoral student who had come to the USA to do research. His contact was a friend of his Oxford advisor who taught government. This man’s academic claim to fame was studying the interaction between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. That is where I learned about the notion that the Soviet Union created the Warsaw Pact with defensive notions in mind. Anyway, I did not buy it at the time, but I believed my Soviet Economy teacher because she served as a CIA plant in the American Embassy in Moscow during the 1950’s. They lost 40,000,000 at least in WWII, so their memory was a lot longer than ours. When I was 14 the war was over for only 20 years so our culture in a sense revolved around WWII, what did your Dad do in the war? was a common question. The mental illness of my mother’s older brother who was a POW at age 18 still haunts me although he has been dead 61 years now. If I had been drafted and sent to Vietnam I think I would have suffered PTSD as well. Multiply the suffering of our WWII vets who saw combat by 30 or 40 and you get the Russian experience because their war was longer and their casualties way higher.
Peter - I know you like to give all sides a chance to speak which is the way we should go but when it comes to Destiny I'd ask you stop platforming him. Destiny is a special kind of danger. Unlike most, Destiny's has the illusion of being more intelligent the he really is. His eidetic like memory gives the illusion that he's smarter than he really is and that causes people to place trust in him they shouldn't. He sounds like as if he knows far more than he really does. Just imagine how much smarter the average person would sound if they had a photgrapoh9ic like memory.
Destiny is dangerous not b/c he's a highly intelligent and skilled individual on the left like a Bill Maher, but b/c most don't think twice to ask why does he sounds smart and yet make absurd claims.
The notion that Ukraine is “abandoned” because America actually talks to Russia or because America doesn’t agree to Zelensky’s every demand is too juvenile to dignify with a response.
Ukraine was abandoned in 2014 when the Budapest Accords should have kicked in and Germany and America didn't come to their defense. They were obligated once Ukraine surrendered their nuclear arsenal.
Biden was again obligated in 2022 when the entire country was invaded. I'm sick of the betrayal by America and the Russia talking points espoused by this administration. Gambling with WWIII? Yes by not stepping up and meeting our obligations and defending Ukraine in the 1st place. Ukraine has no cards because the trusted the Budapest Accords. If they still had their nukes they'd be holding a royal flush.
This will cause the "rush to nukes". Obvious, no?
Well Getmany will have no choice. They've waited too long to gear up. When they tested their new tanks 1)3 broke down because they are too computerized, just a little battlefied dust did them in. And only now have they decided to gear up for war.
It is abandoned.
But that is fine, cause US is finally showing its true nature.
Lemme know when you will abandon Israel or treat Netanyahu the same.
Hint: never.
It is not America's true nature. We had a choice between a land of 100 genders, politicians running up trillions in debt, a land over run by criminal gangs, welfare seeking aliens allowed to just walk in unvetted, schools taking over parental rights, and Trump. Shite, who would you vote for? As citizens we had no choice. But we do not condone what Trump has done to Ukraine.
I am absolutely NOT a fan of Netanyahu or Israel and yet I can see how comparing the 2 is not comparing apples to apples nor even fruit to fruit. Both are allies but Netanyahu is far more level headed, experienced and skilled than Zelensky. Netanyahu also isn't a US Government installed puppet. Trump puts up with too much of Israel's BS but if I had to choose between the 2 I'd definitely side with Israel.
Trump does not "put up" with Israeli BS, he joyously enables it and approves of it.
What, you dislike the transgender bearded dancers in Gaza, the golden Gaza hotel and Elon eating hamburgers on top of a few hundred putrefying Palestinian bodies?
Are you some sort of anti-Semite?
Neither one of those nations are true allies of the US. We need to bring all of our military forces and equipment home from the Middle East as well as Europe. None of them believe in a free market or free speech. Israel is a left-wing secular socialist country with many former Soviet communists in government. They murder more of their people in abortion centers than are murdered by Islamic terrorists. They persecute the God-fearing Orthodox Jewish members of society. Epstein was an obvious operative of Mossad who are blackmailing and controlling many politicians and other people with influence. That is why the files will never be fully disclosed.
https://archive.org/details/videoplayback_20221002_2353
‘Europe’ isn’t a nation. It’s a geographical area inhabited by many very diverse (both linguistically and culturally) nations. It also isn’t a single state, no matter what some very confused people seem to believe about the EU.
I never called Europe a nation. I was referring to Ukraine and Israel in the context of the conversation comparing the two. It is a shame that Western Europe is rapidly running from the Christian foundations of their once great civilization.
Thank you for the clarification. You seem to conflate a few European leaders with ‘Europe’. What do you mean by ‘them’ in ‘none of them believe in a free market or free speech’?
Most ordinary people in Europe actually do believe in free speech and when it comes to free trade- insofar as such a thing exists anywhere thanks to state regulation- the trading floors of the City of London are about as free as things get. Are they fantastically badly incentivised from the perspective of society? Absolutely. But again, they’re no worse than anywhere else in that regard and a whole lot better than all of the alternatives tried to date.
The only European leader I respect is Victor Orban of Hungary. Of course, the establishment globalists in every other European nation hates him. England is and has been a hard-core socialist nation for decades. Are there any European nations other than Hungary that are not socialist or communist? Sincere question. England is at the forefront along with Germany in shutting down free speech and imprisoning citizens for what they say and write. I believe we need to observe the Constitution completely. There is no authority for foreign aid. Washington warned wisely against getting into entanglements with foreign nations including the forever fighting European nations.
Please see Douglas Murray’s recent piece in The Spectator:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-maga-movement-is-wrong-on-ukraine/
Yes he's the only one not kissing the ring.
Unless this conversation begins with Nuland et al in 2014, the CIA Ukraine "cutout", Merkel's deliberate NATO lie to Putin, the Clinton-Bush-Obama-BIDEN-Congressional cash-cow crime syndicate, and the unelected EU warmongers is ALL discussed, I personally am not interested in anyone's shallow opinion...
This has been the issue that just about made me swear off all social media.
I have spent years involved in campaigns to fend off the spread of gender ideology here in the UK. If I was a US citizen I’d have voted for Trump because, all other differences aside, if a party is prepared to lie about the immutability of mammalian sexual dimorphism, they are unfit to govern and at least Trump is sane on that issue. I’ve also been very concerned about the response to CoV19 and the rise of what is often referred to as the censorship industrial complex across the West.
But the reaction to the to the Zelensky-Trump-Vance debacle of some American commentators who I have subscribed to for years and whom I have generally considered to be reasonable and often very unfairly treated, eg Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn, has been deeply unpleasant. They are nearly overjoyed at what is, if nothing else, a tragedy for the ordinary people of Ukraine. Because, well, Zelensky is an arrogant prick and the Europeans are all snobs.
I completely agree that there is a ruling elite in Europe that has no interest other than its own power but that is also true of the United States. However, the fact is that European leaders have essentially done nothing but follow the orders of Washington since 1945, especially when it comes to the conduct of military affairs and procurement. But in recent months there has been a shift to a view that European leaders have somehow been duping the United States for eighty years. A claim that ‘Europe’, always spoken about as though it was a unitary state, should have undertaken the same kind of spending that the likes of Kirn, Vance and Musk are simultaneously saying has been ruinous for their own country’s finances. And they invariably try to claim that this is only because American taxpayers - who apparently are so oblivious that they’ve paid for this unfailingly since WW2 and not understood why - have been subsidising the ‘defence of the world’. It isn’t entirely clear who ‘the world’ has needed protection from in this analysis. Apparently eleven carrier fleets, 5000 aircraft and 5000 nuclear warheads aren’t about exercising straightforward power politics for economic dominance (and the result of the insane MIC) but are actually all about doing everyone but the people of the US a huge favour. For all of this the world should be grateful to the point that any criticism of the US or its President is seen as outright impertinace (see the most pathetic whinging from Michael Shellenberger - ‘Europe Doesn’t Respect Us’ on this point).
As John Bolton said about NATO in an interview with the Fifth Column last week “…we’re not in there to help them out, we’re in the alliance to help ourselves out”. This is, I think, the view of both the leaders of the many states of Europe and most of their citizens. It’s not credible to think that Truman established, and all of his successors participated in, NATO because they were philanthropic. It served America’s geopolitical ambitions.
There is reasonable evidence to suggest that in 2014 the US was involved in a coup in Ukraine. It has done this kind of thing all over the world for many decades. It’s basically understood by most people outside the US that this is the case. It has, from time to time, indulged in covert and sometimes overt regime change. Again, that’s hardly an innovation, it’s the practice of realpolitik. So the US becomes embroiled in yet another intractable conflict on a proxy basis. And, as has frequently happened, the cheerleading European leaders trail along like the obedient types Washington has come to expect. But then Washington gets cold feet and, rather than simply say “we need to bring this thing to an end” and find a sensible exit, it has now determined to make out like the mess is entirely the fault of ‘the Europeans’ and do a runner.
So, did Zelensky fluff the whole thing? Yes. Did Trump and Crew? Yes. Have the leaders of various European states? Yes. But, with all of the states those people represent having played a part in the conflict- both its genesis and conduct - they are in no position to claim moral superiority and, in so doing, leave millions of Ukrainians to a fate that they helped perpetuate.
To be clear, I do not think that pouring people and treasure into a stalemate is wise. The war needs to be brought to a swift end through negotiation. But Trump, the vainglorious fool that he is, is happy to cause his country to immediately renege on its supposed commitment to peace and in this case accelerate the forfeiture of many Ukrainian lives in so doing. And all because Zelensky is a similarly vain man who ‘failed to show respect’. It would have been a rather different outcome to the Second World War if Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt had each been so spectacularly stupid as to allow their personal distrust of one another to cloud their judgement about the conduct of a war to defeat a common enemy for the benefit of the states they each led.
So, in short, yes, America is abandoning Ukraine. I do not characterise it as abandonment because it has decided to extract itself from a pointless conflict. I do so because it has chosen to extract itself from a problem it was involved in causing - eg goading a tyrant with known territorial ambitions for more than a decade - in such a reckless manner.
See Douglas Murray's work on this. Not all conservatives hold the MAGA view.
Indeed, I’m a subscriber to the Spectator and have read his most recent article. It has been disappointing to see Matt Taibbi say Murray ‘has it wrong’ and resort to the very lazy assumption that anyone who disagrees with Trump’s approach thinks the fight should be sustained indefinitely.
Hmmm…the answer to this question is nuanced. It is it true that both Russia and the West are responsible for the war? Yes. Russia was going around empire building and working to expand their sphere of influence with actions like the invasions of Chechnya and Georgia and the illegal annexation of Ukraine. Also, their invasion and seizure of the Donbass region with the assistance of local Russian separatists. But at the same time, the United States and the West also made mistakes that led to war. The first would be going back on their promise not to expand NATO eastward. The first Bush administration and the German government both gave Mikhail Gorbachev assurances this wouldn’t happen. But it did and NATO expanded all the way up to Russia’s doorstep. Then in 2014, the CIA directly assisted the opposition to Ukraine’s then Pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych who to be fair quite corrupt. In the process, we made a deal with the Devil and even worked with Neo-Nazis to accomplish these goals. After Yanukovych was gone and elections were held and Zelensky prevailed, the United States and NATO flooded the country with foreign weapons, built biolabs in Ukraine and teased Ukraine becoming a NATO member. On top of that, the West undermined the only hope for a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine with the Minsk Accords. So did the West also make proactive moves that led to war breaking out? Yes. Did Russia fight the war at least partially with legitimate security concerns in mind? Yes. But does that make the invasion of Ukraine justified? No. Putin still could’ve solved these issues by non-military means. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was still unacceptable and unprovoked aggression. While the West was doing concerning things in Ukraine that Russia rightly objected to, Ukraine still didn’t attack Russia. Nor was it okay for them to commit the atrocities they did in Ukraine. Whatever mistakes the West made (that would backfire on Ukraine), it doesn’t mean it was morally right to launch an all-out war on Ukraine to conquer it flagrantly violating international law. Russia could’ve addressed its legitimate grievances with the West in other ways. They could’ve had diplomatic talks with the American and Western heads of state. They could’ve made their case at the United Nations. They could’ve stayed out of the war in the Donbass. But they didn’t, they chose to invade another country and slaughter its people. If they were worried Biden wouldn’t do a deal. They could’ve hunkered down for four years and waited to see the results of the elections and in the meantime, did they’re best to stay on peaceful terms with America and NATO. They didn’t do so. The West’s provocative moves were wrong but so was their clear designs on conquering Ukraine to make it a buffer zone. That they didn’t have to do.
There isn't, and never was, a signed treaty about NATO not expanding East. The country represented by Gorbachev stopped existing in 1991. Do you find these details relevant?
Do you believe a promise by let's say president Taft to emperor Franz Joseph of the Habsburg Empire would be relevant and should be honored today?
On the other hand, Russia and US did actually sign a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal. Russia invaded Ukraine and US is now withdrawing all support.
Can you provide the name of one of the many biolabs that were built by US in Ukraine since May 2019 when Zelenskyy became president? I would like to read up on that.
I am aware of US paying through the Nunn-Lugar program for the conversion to civilian purposes of numerous former Soviet labs that had been doing bioweapons research, labs found on the territories of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and others, not just Ukraine.
I believe that Putin was pushed and pushed and pushed. The 1991 treaty stated the west would encroach no farther east. But, this kept happening and when NATO was invited onto the Ukraine/Russia border, war erupted. The war needs to stop and the warmongers need to shut the Fcuk up
Ukraine is governed by a corrupt atheist Christian-hating and persecuting dictator. He abolished all opposition political parties, shut down all media not in his control, and shut down elections. His leaders have been selling our military aid equipment all over the world including terror groups and other American-hating groups including Mexican drug cartels. We need to bring all of our equipment and personnel home from that area of the world. Putin is a typical communist thug like many others, but he controls the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. We need to get out of NATO and the UN and focus on bringing liberty back to our nation. We need to stop all trade with China, Russia, and any nation that does not boycott them. They will collapse without firing a shot.
"Russia was justified invading Ukraine"
Peter – That’s not the right question to ask. Did Russia have some legal standing or precedent to invade? NO but they had just cause for what they did! The EU Nations along with prior American administrations have been trying to coax Russia into war for many years so the important question is why, why so eager to go to war with a vastly superior force and you can bet it’s NOTYHING to do with Democracy.
After WW2 Russia was promised by multiple EU Leaders and America that NATO would not move 1 inch closer to Russia and yet that is exactly what was done. Eventually it was bad enough that we dropped an Aegis missile system close enough to Russia that an American equivalent would be if Russia were to place its S-400 system in Southern Canada or Mexico. If Russia did that how long do you think America would wait before declaring war? The real question is what is it that’s so important that these EU leaders would risk sacrificing their own nations just get Russia into a war?
The answer is plain/simple, DEBT!
Every EU Nation is in debt and the level of debt that their only realistic way out is to either default or find some way to offload the debt to another nation, a nation like Russia. Keep in mind that when this all started Trump wasn’t a factor and so America was expected to hop into war with the EU/NATO at a moment’s notice. With Trump in they still need to get rid of this debt, but they can’t assume America will help as they could before. Now it’s about dragging America into a war with Russia before America can withdraw from any such NATO obligations.
At the end of WW1 the Allied powers stuck Germany with everyone’s tab via the treaty of Versailles. It was so excessive/abusive that historians have since argued that it gave rise to power to the Nazi party. These EU leaders want a repeat of that but this time to stick Russia with the bill. The problem is that unlike WW1&2, America is determined to NOT be involved, and Russia has the people and equipment to severely defeat the EU nations; ALL-OF-THEM! The EU leaders are hoping to get this war going before America can formally withdraw from any/all NATO obligations. Even if they can’t and even if they are forced to make a treaty with Russia within a few months after, that will still be better for the EU leaders b/c then they’ll use that as justification to steal from their citizens what little wealth is still left. They’ll pull some BS like replacing their existing physical currencies with some crypto replacement. Whatever path they choose they absolutely will sacrifice everything to get rid of that debt b/c they KNOW it’s a ticking time-bomb. They’d prefer sticking Russia with the debt but either way is still a win for them b/c they will never be held accountable for what they are doing. The only way to put an end to this is to get a truce with Russia and then move towards removing every single corrupt EU leader there is and replace them with truly elected leaders and not just a new set of American puppets.
The decision to cut off military aid to Ukraine is Trump snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, much like he did in Afghanistan, for which he did not get the credit he deserved. It was said before of Trump that he's of the opinion of the last person who spoke to him, and in this term he's surrounded himself with people who embody the collective right-wing-Twitter brain. I would not call that strategy, but if governing by Twitter is one, I'd like to point that Biden had essentially the same strategy.
I don't like to make predictions, but here's one that I think it's safe to make: no country will ever willingly give up nuclear capabilities again in exchange for American security guarantees.
If NATO expansionism did provoke Russia into attacking - and it's now quite clear that this was the case - then from a certain point of view, Russia was justified. Doesn't mean it's good that this happened.
Zelensky in his capacity as the leader of Ukraine is a tragic figure no matter how tired of him many Americans are today. (Getting kind of tired of the hate; Zelensky's no saint but don't Americans have other people more deserving of that emotion?) Also, as long as 1) Putin is a dictator and the "pro-Zelensky dictator" people don't say anything about that, and 2) martial law is actually justified for once in recent world history, which it is, Trump is wrong to call Zelensky a dictator.
But Zelensky also made a few very consequential mistakes. Perhaps we can sympathize in that a leader whose country is being blown up and sliced off is more likely to make mistakes when at war than at peace. Fair. But they were made all the same, and mistakes don't miraculously cease to have consequences because they happened during a war. If anything, the consequences are greater.
Mistake #1: Zelensky chose to be a partisan ally rather than a national ally. He should have said "no comment" every time anyone asked him about Biden/Kamala vs. Trump or anything of the sort. Instead, he became a kind of Democrat. This meant that Trump and Vance couldn't trust him from the start. Zelensky has done the same in other countries as well: in Poland, which has a presidential election coming up soon, he has also taken sides even though Poles have done a lot for Ukraine. Now, the party least inclined to support Ukraine is gaining in the polls.
I would argue that it isn't that Zelensky is ungrateful, though his language is certainly lacking in tact. Rather: he is grateful to the Democrats and their allies in countries like Poland because to him, Dems = America. So when he's told he was ungrateful, he doesn't get it. It is like he is negotiating with a completely different country. This might be giving too much of the benefit of the doubt, but it's possible that occupied by a war as he was, Zelensky simply didn't get how deep the divide was in America and how consequential it would be to take sides; many in Europe don't understand that because of fake media narratives.
Mistake #2: he took foreign assistance way too much for granted.
Mistake #3: Zelensky is too much of a civilian. Bad as the Invasion of Poland was back in 1939, the country was run by military men who, however incapable in other respects, understood that there's a time when one has to stop fighting and retreat if you want to have a people left. If the casualty rates are as bad as they say, it's safe to say Zelensky doesn't understand this. That, or the Dems pushed him too hard and he was powerless to resist. (I hope we find that out one day if it's not already public)
Mistake #4: Zelensky is simply not made out to be a diplomat. If he's too emotionally affected by the war, that's understandable. But it doesn't mean he's in good shape to negotiate a ceasefire; he is, to use the term from Star Trek, "emotionally compromised." Everyone seems to understand that except Zelensky himself.
My guess is that the cutting off of military aid is a strategic calculation for the simple reason that most of Trump's other policies that rhyme with this have also been strategic calculations. However many cards Zelensky may or may not have, Trump appears to need the rare earth deal: especially if other sources fall into different spheres of influence (like South Africa). Vance is right about economic investment in things like this amounting to a security guarantee: TDS people will disagree (VDS?), in which case I invite people to look up the history of Czechoslovakia. People thought it might become a Western country after the war. Except that Stalin wanted a nuclear bomb and Czechoslovakia alone in the Soviet sphere (to the Kremlin's knowledge at the time) had uranium mines. Rare earth minerals are to our time what uranium was in 1945. And a lot of the resource-driven activity on Trump's part paints a picture of the US preparing for the emergence of a multipolar world we already, in fact, have in all but name and consolidation.
I hope Zelensky makes the deal. I'm tired of Dems gloating over the war as the beautiful Ukrainian people have been butchered. (As well as their counterparts on the Russian side, who are also a beautiful people) I agree with one person in the comments who said that Trump is running from a problem the US created; I think there's some truth in that but at the end of the day we'll just have to see.
It is obvious to me that Western assistance was always designed to assist Ukraine to defend but not to conclusively win. That is why weapons have only trickled in and were limited in range so they couldn't hit Russia proper. I also wonder whether NATO promises were a sham to string them along, because I see no rational reason why NATO would want Ukraine as a member - they bring nothing but arrive encumbered with huge liabilities.
In that context Zelensky should have settled for merely losing a smaller chunk of territory. USA isn't abandoning Ukraine since they are not formally allies, Trump is basically saying "you can't win so settle now" and forcing the issue by removing further aid. Not nice, but simply the truthful position.
Zelensky has shown the limits of his competence in diplomacy - look up the image of Ukrainian ambassador during the event, tells you all you need.
I think a better question would have been, “Did the imperialist policy of NATO back Russia into a corner so that there only option was to invade before it was full fledged NATO member, if not formally but in practice?”
There seems to be little appreciation about how much Russians fear invasion from Western Europe. This was told me by my college Russian teacher as well as my professor in a graduate level class on the Soviet Economy back in 1974.
We also seem to forget that the Warsaw Pact was a response to NATO. The Russians did not put nuclear warheads in Cuba until after we put them in Turkey.
Its quite mystifying why NATO pushed Russia's buttons with Ukraine & Georgia because even from their own self-interest it just doesn't make sense.
As to the Russian fear of "Western invasion" you need to evaluate whether that is a true motivation vs a rationalisation the Russian political class have constructed to justify their own historical imperialism. I've read a lot of Meirsheimer and his warnings were quite valid but contingent on one point: that Russia wouldn't revert into imperialist-mode sooner or later. In that context joining NATO for the ex-Communist nations was a smart move since they got in before Russia rebuilt its military capacity.
During my last year of graduate school I shared an apartment with an Oxford doctoral student who had come to the USA to do research. His contact was a friend of his Oxford advisor who taught government. This man’s academic claim to fame was studying the interaction between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. That is where I learned about the notion that the Soviet Union created the Warsaw Pact with defensive notions in mind. Anyway, I did not buy it at the time, but I believed my Soviet Economy teacher because she served as a CIA plant in the American Embassy in Moscow during the 1950’s. They lost 40,000,000 at least in WWII, so their memory was a lot longer than ours. When I was 14 the war was over for only 20 years so our culture in a sense revolved around WWII, what did your Dad do in the war? was a common question. The mental illness of my mother’s older brother who was a POW at age 18 still haunts me although he has been dead 61 years now. If I had been drafted and sent to Vietnam I think I would have suffered PTSD as well. Multiply the suffering of our WWII vets who saw combat by 30 or 40 and you get the Russian experience because their war was longer and their casualties way higher.
Peter - I know you like to give all sides a chance to speak which is the way we should go but when it comes to Destiny I'd ask you stop platforming him. Destiny is a special kind of danger. Unlike most, Destiny's has the illusion of being more intelligent the he really is. His eidetic like memory gives the illusion that he's smarter than he really is and that causes people to place trust in him they shouldn't. He sounds like as if he knows far more than he really does. Just imagine how much smarter the average person would sound if they had a photgrapoh9ic like memory.
Destiny is dangerous not b/c he's a highly intelligent and skilled individual on the left like a Bill Maher, but b/c most don't think twice to ask why does he sounds smart and yet make absurd claims.