China and Russia both play a role in the US becoming as divided as it has through effective psyops and propaganda against the left and right.

It’s being used against us like artillery to weaken an opponent and set the battlefield.  It’s an effective tactic to use against an adversary that enjoys military superiority and geographic isolation from its competitors.

This. Absent the Ukrainian Money Laundering Machine and gas pipeline stuff, this conflict is just another Chechnya and the world would blithely ignore it.

The US Leftists and Fake Republicans insist we stop Putin. The Euro-Globalists insist we stop Putin. Media and Hollywood insist we stop Putin.

Those groups are NEVER for what’s right and good. They’re NEVER pulling for the little guy. They’re NEVER right about the causes they support.

It’s ALL about the money.

Putin's master strategy of hitting civilian targets, absolutely has kept the western left motivated.  Yeeting inaccurate S-300s and Kh-22s at infrastructure, which will inevitably hit apartment complexes, has kept the normally anti-war liberals on board with supplying Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has avoided retaliation in kind, and wins the PR war.

A pure WW1/2 meat grinder between armies in some unpronoucable name cities would have indeed been thought of as a Chechnya situation by the western left/middle after a few months.

You seem like a nice guy.  I mean that sincerely, too.  

I don't see the hypocrisy in my post.  You cast aspersions about my patriotism, and I wrote that you should be grateful to the left for their wider support of aid to Ukraine.  I'm just stating a fact.  Here's some evidence that the left, by a significant margin, is the largest supporter of endless Ukraine aid -

Wapo story

CNN story

NY Magazine story

Forbes story



It's quite a while for those that will be unemployed because of an unnecessary economic downturn.




See above articles.  So conservatives in the US are the new "surrender monkeys"?  Just weak, self-hating, and cowardly?  Hmmmm.  Don't agree.  Maybe they just want to use our tax dollars and resources to protect our own country and defend it from the literal invasion and sabotage that's occurring as I type this?



I've seen a lot of hate and vitriol coming from all sides of this situation.  I wish it was more fact-based and less emotional.  That goes for me, too.  I ain't perfect by any stretch of the imagination.




I'd agree that TRUE conservatives, when they support using our military for direct action scenarios, want to be decisive and not play around for years with nation building.  I might be in the minority but I didn't really think Bush and Cheney were real conservatives.  Some might argue, but it's just my opinion.  



The "spirit" of the memorandum isn't meaningful, or enforceable.  That's just too vague and nobody cares.  Agreements among NATO members are a whole different story.  Ukraine isn't a NATO member state.  Also, how did we "inhibit" Ukraine?  Because we didn't give them more free stuff earlier?  Sorry, not convincing.



I think most people who pay a lot of their income to the government would like their contribution to not be thrown away or given to thieves. Some of us can pay the President's salary with their federal tax burden.  Not sure how much support you're going to get for not wanting an accounting of where the tax dollars are going here.  



Bold emphasis and font size / color change added by me, to be clear.  Ok, this is where you're really off in fantasy land.  You're suggesting that we invade Russia, destroy it's military, topple it's government, occupy it, and install a fresh new government that's friendly to US interests.  You also suggest that doing this will somehow save money in the long term.  Really?  That's simply not going to happen.  That's crazy.  If we can't do that in Iraq or Afghanistan, then we aren't going to do that in Russia.  In your post you even write that our track record of such recent adventures is a poor one.  Why would this be different?  You must understand that such an action would mean total nuclear war.  Hundreds of millions of people would die.  Life as we know it would be over.  Total destruction.  Everybody dead or sent back to the Stone Age.  Not to mention the fact that, despite what some believe, Russia does have allies too.  Not sure China would sit out the US invading and reworking the global map like that.  I dunno about you man, but this is really cringe in how far out there it is.  



It could reasonably be argued that your beliefs are the product of Ukrainian or Neo-conservative propaganda as well.  I know it's often considered treasonous to look at things from the perspective of "the other side".  But if you were Russia, having Ukraine be an armed member of NATO would be a serious security threat.  We have the Monroe doctrine for the same reason.  It would be like Mexico or Canada being a member of the Soviet Union.  It would be a problem, just as it was when Cuba had missiles pointed at us.  So, I get their argument for not wanting that.  As I wrote in the previous post, Ukraine could have understood the basic realities of the world and embraced being a buffer state.  When life hands you lemons.....  They could be making money right now and not be in the current hellscape in which they find themselves.  Sometimes things just aren't perfect in the world.  We can work to improve things, and we will.  But this idea that we're just going to invade and erase Russia from the globe without horrible and unacceptable costs isn't realistic.  It's downright nuts.

You guys love to trot this out, but I've never seen a good explanation of exactly how Ukraine as a NATO aligned state would present a legitimate threat to Russia. Obama pulled the only US armored division in Europe back to the states in 2012. Germany's forces are a joke. Poland didn't go nuts with military spending until last year, in response to Russia's actions. What's the theory, that Ukraine would suddenly launch a unilateral invasion targeted at Moscow?

I also find that constant screeching about the Cuban missile crisis amusing. That crisis occurred because with the technology of the day, it was believed that Medium Range Ballistic Missiles could potentially be used for a decapitating first strike, making nuclear war winnable. That is no longer the case, and no one in their right mind would imagine today that we would station nuclear weapons in Ukraine. When the Soviets stationed conventional forces in Cuba, spent decades training Cuban forces, and established the biggest SIGINT base outside the Soviet Union in the country there was no crisis.

I'm not going to bother quoting Putin.  You can look that up for yourself if you're genuinely interested in Russia's justification for the invasion.  It's out there if you want to read it.  It IS funny to me that Putin bothers to explain it to his people using adult language, in contrast to our own politicians.  Right or wrong, he did do that.  We can't even expect Biden to explain BarroonGate without fabrication.  That's not a defense of Putin and / or his decisions, or Russia's actions.  Though it'll probably be framed that way by some (it always is).

As for nuclear weapons in Ukraine, I was just responding to a gentleman who lamented that the US supported taking the Soviet nukes out of Ukraine, because they could today be utilized to either deter or destroy Russian forces.  There was the Bay of Pigs situation in Cuba, so you're just factually not correct there.  Cuban missile crisis was the following year.

But we're the good guys!

Even when we are guarding the criminal gang in DC and posting photos of our Gestapo tactics.

I know this is really hard for some of you but, not wanting to give Ukraine a blank check isn’t being pro Russian.

I understand that Russia's propaganda says that NATO is a threat. I'm asking you if that makes any objective sense.




Bay of Pigs was 1961, prior to Soviet forces in Cuba. The Soviets started building the Lourdes SIGINT station in 1962 and operated it until 2002. The Soviets stationed a combat brigade in Cuba from 1962 to 1993. It is a simple, plain, historical fact that we allowed the Soviets to maintain conventional forces in Cuba for decades with no event analogous to Russia's invasion of Ukraine or the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It doesn't matter what I think.  Other nations (ours too) sometimes do things that make sense to them at the time.  Sometimes it's a self-serving deception and corrupt, other times it's just stupidity or a misunderstanding.  Hindsight's a bitch.




By "allowed", you mean the attempted proxy invasion that went really badly and was a deep embarrassment as well as sanctions that are still active to this day?  So anything short of invasion is "allowed"?  That's a pretty binary way of looking at things.  Our policies are more nuanced than that because, well, they have to be.  I'm not privy to spy craft stuff, but I am under the impression it's complex and often imperfect.  We helped a lot of commies learn to fly out of helicopters south of the border.  So you're suggesting all of our anti-communist training, equipment, and other aid in our hemisphere in the last 70 years was really a half-hearted fake?  Even with all the cool TV shows and movies showing how we would even help drug kingpins if it meant killing communists?  C'mon, man.  ;)

What I'm hearing is, "no, it doesn't make any sense to anyone who actually thinks about it."




Soviet troops in Cuba occurred in response to the Bay of Pigs, not the other way around. Much like US forces training Ukrainian forces occurred in response to Russia's aggression, not the other way around.




I'm suggesting that the idea that we would never have allowed Soviet troops in North America is objectively untrue.

But, uh....  Those skills have been put to use in Ukraine since 2014, with Green Berets and members of the Army's National Guard advising and training Ukrainian forces at Yavoriv Combat Training Center in western Ukraine.

ETA - Are we starting with Crimea, or the latest invasion here?  

Yes, as your article says, "After Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014.... The U.S. military also quickly stepped in to help, with the Army's Green Berets taking on a critical role in training Ukrainian forces."

Ah, fair enough.  I guess the Russians would say that the vote to secede from Ukraine and join Russia would justify that. But I see your point.

That said, I guess we’ll see what happens.

Lol @ "the vote to secede from Ukraine and join Russia". Fun story about the referendum: there were two options on the ballot. Option 1, unification with Russia. Option 2, secession from Ukraine. Very fair referendum, not suspicious at all.

Voting these days seems suspicious everywhere.

Anyway, I think I’ve said my piece on this way too many times. Learned a lot too from other folks here, as always. Grateful for that.

Gonna tap out and get some stuff done that I’ve been procrastinating on.

We're here to help you decide. Your vote matters.

I am well aware that the left is more in favor of aid than the "right" which is horribly embarrassing.  What I said was that the left's support is being driven by the news and will lose interest instead of the left driving the news.  Your articles do not address that.  I put forth the quote "House Democrats’ Progressive Caucus released — and almost immediately retracted — a letter urging President Biden to pursue diplomacy alongside delivering military support." from your linked article as evidence I'm right.

I find it curious that the WaPo story divided Democrats into Liberal and Moderate/Conservative while all Republicans were lumped together.  I'm curious what it would look like if you broke down the Republicans into Moderates/Conservatives and, uh, how would WaPo label non-Moderate Republicans?  (It really should be broken down into Trump believers and conservatives.)

If by unnecessary you are referring to Trump's horrible handling of Covid, his insane socialist spending spree, the Federal Reserve's attempt to paper over it, and Biden piling on more straw then I agree completely.  If you somehow believe a recession is avoidable and unnecessary after the last three years of stupidity then you're a fool.

Nice job non-hypocritically casting aspersions on my patriotism by implying I oppose securing the border and defending against sabotage of the US.  We can easily do that and support Ukraine and cut spending all at the same time.  Helping Russia destroy itself in Ukraine will save money and help protect America and our prosperity.

No, conservatives are not weak, self-hating, cowardly, surrender monkeys.  There are a lot of people that identify as conservative who forgot the lessons of the Cold War, have become demoralized, are suffering from BDS (Biden Derangement Syndrome) to the point they will cut off their nose to spite their face, and/or are getting their "news" from Cucker Tardlson, Gateway Pundit, and other sources that repeat literal Russian propaganda.

I'd argue that TRUE conservatives also want to be decisive and not play around when backing an (potential) ally defending themselves.

By definition the spirit of the law isn't enforceable so I don't understand your point or how it could negate my statement that we still owe Ukraine due to the spirit of the law.

Within the last couple decades US government has actively influenced Ukraine to disarm and destroy munitions and prohibited sales of defense goods to Ukraine.

Nice income brag/dissing me by implying I'm poor.  I'm sure no hypocrisy was meant.

I didn't say I didn't want an accounting.  I said that the constant reeee-ing by the anti-Ukrainians for an audit endless () audits is a dishonest push to impede aid and generate new things to reeee about and no attempt to correct any problems discovered will be enough to stop the reeee-ing.

Your continuing ability to read the exact opposite of what I said is amazing.  You even bolded where I unnecessarily dismissed the obviously ridiculous idea of invading and occupying Russia with the statement "for which we don't have a good track record recently."

Try addressing what I actually said: Russia and its' allies are an endless cost and helping Ukraine minimizes that cost.


No, it can't be reasonably argued.

Outside of paranoia Ukraine joining NATO is not a security threat to Russia.  We can affirm that Russia knows this by noting that Russia has hollowed out its' forces along the borders of actual NATO countries.  Looking at it from their side that makes no sense otherwise.

I agree that Ukraine could have avoided being Russia's bitch via invasion and occupation by voluntarily being Russia's bitch.  That's not a compelling argument.

How in the hell will sitting back and letting Russia genocide Ukraine improve things for them?  I have GOT to hear this plan even though I find it difficult to believe that someone who opposes helping Ukraine defend themselves and is complaining about rebuilding costs would lift a finger if they lose.

When you post pro-Russian propaganda, parrot Russian talking points you aren’t being neutral one bit

Concur.  One party, two labels or one coin, two sides but still same-same.

Just like Kosovo right?

Conservatives oppose it, neocons love anything that drains the coffers and strengthens government. Neocons aren’t conservatives

No true Scotsman…

Your hero Zelensky has been bombing the Donbass for 8 years and the death toll was at 14,000+ before Russia intervened. Kiev mainly hits civilian targets because, well,
those people didn't want to be a part of the corrupt puppet-regime out of Kiev. Voldemort Zelenskyy went to war against half his country, that is indefensible. When your
country has separatists your country has serious problems, but is murdering them the right course of action when all they want is to exercise the right of self-determination?

May I suggest a greater interest in geopolitics and a viewing of 'Ukraine on Fire' produced by Oliver Stone?

The famous Bucha massacre has enough doubt about its authenticity that I am more inclined to believe Ukraine did it to pin on Russia. The pro-Ukro-Natsie propaganda
is super thick and already has a reputation for endless fakes a la 'Ghost of Kiev' and the use of video game footage for example. Can't blame them though--they HAVE to
boost morale and fool their benefactors. The billions in aid must keep flowing otherwise they'd be deemed a Lost Cause and the money would likely dry up.


You seem still stuck in the 1984 "Red Dawn" Soviet Russia era. They aren't commies anymore. Look at the Feral Gub'mint to get an idea of rising communism....

And when you load mags to be used against American protesters you're not being neutral either.

But did you die?

Attached File