All Things Russia & Ukraine

[NattyBohChamps04]

The term is gaslighting

[old salt]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/uk ... st-ukraine

Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis

Liberal??

Yeah, Bush was a liberal. And no, it doesn't matter which one I'm talking about here. Both espoused right wing ideologies, and it's RIDICULOUS that a man teaching this cr*p at Harvard needs to be told that the liberals wouldn't have one single solitary troop any-freaking-where in Europe, let alone the Middle East. They'd leave NATO to it, and would have FORCED NATO to take care of business post Soviet fall-------the very thing that you want, Old Salt.

Every freaking policy he mentioned was right-wing. 100% of them. But sure, make a bunch of nonsense up, and give it the liberal tag.

Libs want NATO and the UN to rule the roost. Like it or not? THAT is what a real lefty-liberal would want. Don't believe me? Ask one.

The greatest tragedy about Russia’s potential invasion is how easily it could have been avoided.

Liberalism sees world politics differently. Instead of seeing all great powers as facing more or less the same problem—the need to be secure in a world where war is always possible—liberalism maintains that what states do is driven mostly by their internal characteristics and the nature of the connections among them. It divides the world into “good states” (those that embody liberal values) and “bad states” (pretty much everyone else) and maintains that conflicts arise primarily from the aggressive impulses of autocrats, dictators, and other illiberal leaders

Who the firetruck does he think he's fooling here? If his students are THIS stupid? They need to change their entry requirements.

This is, verbatim, right wing American foreign policy thought. Commies v. Democracy ring a bell anywhere? Who the F does he think came up with that one? Pot-smoking, barely conscious, sandal wearing lefties? You're either with us, or against us? He thinks a liberal came up with that? Freedom Fries? That was a liberal term, was it, Professor? Right.

Do you know what a liberal policy looks like from your era, OS? Nixon choosing TRADE over a Cold War with China. Brilliance, defined. We'd STILL be running duck and cover drills in 2022 if it weren't for Nixon's liberal genius on this particular issue.

For liberals, the solution is to topple tyrants and spread democracy, markets, and institutions based on the belief that democracies don’t fight one another, especially when they are bound together by trade, investment, and an agreed-on set of rules

The is literally the right wing CIA Post WWII handbook. Like EXACTLY what they did in Iran, Nicaragua, and coups we'll never hear about, I'm sure. The firetruck this is liberalism. A liberal would NEVER use force to topple a regime, or use the CI freaking A to do the dirty work of cowards hiding in DC.

Yet with a weak hand to play, the U.S. negotiating team is apparently still insisting that Ukraine retain the option of joining NATO at some point in the future, which is precisely the outcome Moscow wants to foreclose. If the United States and NATO want to solve this via diplomacy, they are going to have to make real concessions and may not get everything they might want. I don’t like this situation any more than you do, but that’s the price to be paid for unwisely expanding NATO beyond reasonable limits.

I love how the good professor glosses over Russia taking Ukraines nukes away, and reneging on that deal like it's just a footnote. They signed a paper saying they'd respect Ukraine's borders. Remember that, Professor? Naaaahh, who cares about that....let's blame "the Squad" for getting us in this mess, instead of Putin.

Let them keep their nukes, and guess what, Professor? Ukraine doesn't need to join NATO anymore, and can remain neutral for another hundred years.

But sure, this is all AOC's and her liberal buddies at work. Totally. Obviously.

I wouldn't take Prof. Walt's advice on where to take my car to be serviced, let alone ask him about how to handle Putin.

Critical reading = Fail.
You are trapped in your "team mentality" thinking everything can be slotted in one of two US political parties.
The author did not mention AOC & the squad, but you did, for some reason.

You obviously don't understand the difference between big L & little l liberalism.
This was the interventionist policy pursued by both the neo-con (R)'s & interventionist (D)'s.
For example -- how were Obama & HRClinton different in attacking Libya from Bush invading Iraq ?
She came, she saw, he died.
Nixon to China was realism -- to split China from Russia & to hasten the end of the Vietnam War.
There has been little difference in the CIA's "initiatives", no matter which party is in power.

The author is referring to little l liberalism, as opposed to realism in foreign policy.
...liberalism maintains that what states do is driven mostly by their internal characteristics and the nature of the connections among them. It divides the world into “good states” (those that embody liberal values) and “bad states” (pretty much everyone else) and maintains that conflicts arise primarily from the aggressive impulses of autocrats, dictators, and other illiberal leaders. For liberals, the solution is to topple tyrants and spread democracy, markets, and institutions based on the belief that democracies don’t fight one another, especially when they are bound together by trade, investment, and an agreed-on set of rules.

https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/02/realis ... the%20like.

The only time the author uses an upper case L is to begin a sentence.
You understand the distinction. You just want to argue, troll with trivial "team" smack, & waste my time in responding.

[a fan]

Critical reading = Fail.
You are trapped in your "team mentality" thinking everything can be slotted in one of two US political parties.
The author did not mention AOC & the squad, but you did, for some reason.

I was joking when I brought her up.

You obviously don't understand the difference between big L & little l liberalism.

Of course I do. Pretty hard to make it through four years of philosophy, and not know that he was trying to shoehorn into his entirely
made up definition of the word "liberalism" into a foreign policy piece.

This was the interventionist policy pursued by both the neo-con (R)'s & interventionist (D)'s.

Oh, I agree. Now I know you remember my posts.....how many times did I tell you that Obama was center right? And that Hillary was even
further to the right than Obama? You remember, so don't pretend like I'm laying this off on a party....i'm laying this off on right win leadership.

Know who that includes? Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and as we're about to see.....and the reason I made the post in the first place.....Biden.

Biden ain't gonna take the tack that you and I suggested.....which by the way, is the liberal tack......let the EU handle it. Not our problem. We agreed on that point, remember?

Is Biden doing that? Nope. He's arming the Ukrainians. Now remember my posts....how many times have I mocked America's desire to "arm the right group? You remember. Dozens of times, OS. "Arming the right group" is the right wing American solution to any problem.

Not the liberal path.

There has been little difference in the CIA's "initiatives", no matter which party is in power.

Yep! My point exactly.

So again----remember how hard I laughed at Right Wing America calling Obama a raving lefty lunatic. Now here YOU are acknowledging my point that not only is Obama not a lefty? He's no different than any of the other Presidents I listed above. Thank you for acknowledging that, I appreciate it.

The author is referring to little l liberalism, as opposed to realism in foreign policy.

I know. It's a made up definition. Whole cloth. He's lying, is a better way to put it. What he's describing is "US foreign policy post WWII". Using the word liberal is not only wrong...it serves to try and make it sound like Reagan and Clinton were different. Notice his criticism hilariously starts with Clinton.....and ignores that, for f*ck sake, even a five year old can see that this paragraph applies to every single one of our Presidents since WWII:

...liberalism maintains that what states do is driven mostly by their internal characteristics and the nature of the connections among them. It divides the world into “good states” (those that embody liberal values) and “bad states” (pretty much everyone else) and maintains that conflicts arise primarily from the aggressive impulses of autocrats, dictators, and other illiberal leaders. For liberals, the solution is to topple tyrants and spread democracy, markets, and institutions based on the belief that democracies don’t fight one another, especially when they are bound together by trade, investment, and an agreed-on set of rules.

We invaded Korean based on the above paragraph. And Vietnam. And fixed the Iranian election. And armed the Afghanis. And invaded Iraq. And invaded Iraq again. And then Syria. And, and, and, and.....

You understand the distinction. You just want to argue, troll with trivial "team" smack, & waste my time in responding.

Nope. I'm pointing out "US foreign policy since WWII" is what got us in this mess in Ukraine. And that this professor from Harvard is using the same line of thinking that got us where we are with Ukraine to try and fix the problem.

That's why I commented.....this 60+ yo man is using the same thinking that got us in this hole in the first place.

[old salt]

I assume you approve of the Marshall Plan, our occupation of Japan & our decades long presence in S Korea, ...& the results.
How 'bout NATO solidarity leading to the outcome of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany & evolution of democracies in former Warsaw Pact nations & the former Soviet Baltic nations ? That was all US post WW II foreign policy. You're obsessed with only the negative.
That all turned out well & was little l liberalism.
We failed in not anticipating the impact on Russia & the inevitable response.
We failed to appreciate the difference between Warsaw Pact nations that were forced to be Soviet satellite states & former Soviet republics which were historically part of greater Russia.
That is where our liberalism needed to be tempered with a dose of realism, ...which is what we are getting now.

[seacoaster]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... -controls/

"The Biden administration is threatening to use a novel export control to damage strategic Russian industries, from artificial intelligence and quantum computing to civilian aerospace, if Moscow invades Ukraine, administration officials say.

The administration may also decide to apply the control more broadly in a way that would potentially deprive Russian citizens of some smartphones, tablets and video game consoles, said the officials.

Such moves would expand the reach of U.S. sanctions beyond financial targets to the deployment of a weapon used only once before — to nearly cripple the Chinese tech giant Huawei.

The weapon, known as the foreign direct product rule, contributed to Huawei suffering its first-ever annual revenue drop, a stunning collapse of nearly 30 percent last year.

The attraction of using the foreign direct product rule derives from the fact that virtually anything electronic these days includes semiconductors, the tiny components on which all modern technology depends, from smartphones to jets to quantum computers — and that there is hardly a semiconductor on the planet that is not made with U.S. tools or designed with U.S. software. And the administration could try to force companies in other countries to stop exporting these types of goods to Russia through this rule.

“This is a slow strangulation by the U.S. government,” Dan Wang, a Shanghai-based technology analyst with research firm Gavekal Dragonomics, said of Huawei. The rule cut the firm’s supply of needed microchips, which were made outside the United States but with U.S. software or tools.

Now officials in Washington say they are working with European and Asian allies to craft a version of the rule that would aim to stop flows of crucial components to industries for which Russian President Vladimir Putin has high ambitions, such as civil aviation, maritime and high technology.

“The power of these export controls is we can degrade and atrophy the capacity of these sectors to become a key source of growth for the Russian economy,” said a senior Biden administration official, who, like others in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

On Sunday, the State Department ordered the departure of all family members of U.S. Embassy personnel serving in Kyiv, citing the “threat of Russian military action.” The evacuation comes as the Biden administration weighs sending thousands of U.S. forces, as well as armaments, to the Baltic states and Poland to reinforce NATO, officials said. The officials stressed that no final decision has been taken on possible troop deployments, which were first reported by the New York Times. The United States is not planning to send any additional troops to Ukraine. There are about 200 military trainers in Ukraine. Most are Florida National Guard personnel.

The effort to use export controls could face head winds from American and European business interests that fear using export controls could lead to Russian retaliation in other spheres — and eventually cause foreign companies to seek to design U.S. technology out of their products. That’s because the extension of the rule beyond a single company like Huawei to an entire country or entire sectors of a country is unprecedented.

“It’s like a magic power — you can only use it so many times before it starts to degrade,” said Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think tank. “Other countries will say, ‘Oh, man, the U.S. has total control over us. We’d better find alternatives.’”

Russia is vulnerable because it doesn’t produce consumer electronics or chips in large quantities, analysts say. In particular, it doesn’t make the highest-end semiconductors needed for advanced computing, an area dominated by Taiwan, South Korea, the United States, Europe and Japan.

Cutting off the country’s chip imports “would invariably hit the Russian leadership’s high-tech ambitions, whether in artificial intelligence or quantum computing,” said Will Hunt, an analyst with Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.

The administration has not yet decided whether to restrict the export control to strategic sectors or extend it to everyday devices, officials said. Either way, said Paul Triolo, chief of technology policy at the Eurasia Group, “this would be weaponizing the U.S. semiconductor supply chain against an entire country.”

The pairing of financial sanctions with export controls would inflict pain immediately and over time. The impact of financial sanctions, which could apply to Russia’s largest banks as well as to civilian aerospace, maritime or emerging tech firms, would probably be felt first, experts say. Banking sanctions in particular probably would drive up Russian inflation and trigger a devaluation of the ruble, they say. Export controls, on the other hand, build over time as the cumulative effect of companies shutting off sales to Russia begins to hurt industrial production.

“If the objective is to impose severe and overwhelming costs on Russia’s economy, the combination of sanctions on major Russian banks and the export control would go a long way towards that, absolutely,” said Kevin Wolf, a former senior Commerce Department official who once headed the agency that implements export controls.

If the restrictions are applied broadly, they could also drive up prices for consumer electronics in Russia, analysts said.

Amid Ukraine invasion scare, U.S. and Europe lean on sanctions threat to stop Putin

The administration says it also may hit Russia with an export ban similar to those against Iran, Cuba, Syria and North Korea. Such a ban, experts say, probably would apply to basic electronics, aircraft parts, telecommunications items and software. But the United States exports relatively little in this area to Russia, so the measure would have limited effect unless other countries impose similar bans of their own.

Germany, which is Russia’s largest trading partner in Western Europe and is highly dependent on Russian energy, is in close” discussions with the United States on sanctions, said a German Embassy official, declining to comment further.

Targeted use of the foreign direct product rule could be a blow to Russia’s military, which relies on a type of chip called Elbrus that is designed in Russia but manufactured in Taiwan at a chip foundry called TSMC, according to Kostas Tigkos, an electronics expert at Janes Group, a U.K.-based provider of defense intelligence.

If the United States barred TSMC from supplying those chips to Russia, as it successfully barred TSMC from supplying Huawei, that would have a “devastating effect,” Tigkos said.

In a statement, TSMC said it “complies with all applicable laws and regulations” and that it has a “rigorous export control system in place … to ensure export control restrictions are followed.”

Analysts say that Western multinational firms probably would comply with the export controls. All U.S. chipmakers include clauses in their contracts requiring customers to abide by U.S. export rules. The United States also has a powerful stick to compel compliance: It could place any scofflaw companies on the Commerce Department Entity List, a blacklist of sorts that effectively bars U.S. firms from selling them their technology.

Russian government officials downplayed the potential impact.

The Russian state-owned defense and tech industry conglomerate Rostec said in a statement that while some foreign components are used in civilian products, Russia has begun to make many components on its own. “The possible imposition of additional sanctions will primarily hit the interests of American companies working for export,” Rostec said. “But we have managed and will manage again, albeit not immediately, but very quickly — we have proven this more than once.”

China could also provide an escape valve for Russia, analysts say.

The country is a big supplier of electronics to Russia. In 2020, it accounted for some 70 percent of Russia’s computer and smartphone imports, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Three of the top five smartphone brands in Russia are Chinese, according to market-research firm International Data Corporation.

Liu Pengyu, spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, suggested that Beijing would not look kindly on extraterritorial control by the United States. “China is always opposed to any country’s unilateral sanctions and so-called long-arm jurisdiction on other countries based on domestic law,” he said in a statement.

Chinese manufacturers could choose to continue selling to Russia even if they use U.S. technology in their products, and it would be difficult, for instance, to monitor Chinese smartphone sales to Russia, IDC analyst Simon Baker said.

Experts, however, said there are ways to police noncompliance. The Commerce Department often gets tips from firms about rule-breaking competitors. Its investigators scan shipping data. They also get intelligence shared from other U.S. agencies.

If Chinese firms wound up supplying Russia in violation of the rule, that would leave Washington with a major diplomatic dilemma: whether to sanction them, even if they make ordinary — not military — goods.

After the Trump administration applied the foreign direct product rule to Huawei in August 2020, the company’s smartphone sales plummeted. Earlier in 2020, it led the world in such sales. Today, it’s fallen to 10th place, according to IDC.

The most important goal now is deterrence, officials and analysts said, and that means threatening the most severe sanctions — such as severing the largest Russian banks from the U.S. financial system, said Edward Fishman, adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Export controls wouldn’t have as immediate an effect, said Fishman, a former State Department official in the Obama administration.

But, he said, they are a good move.

“The United States has no interest in aiding Russia’s technological and industrial capacity,” he said, “so long as Putin is using it to bully neighbors and attack democracy.''

[Kismet]

a fan is going to LOVE this news

"CNN now reporting: Biden administration now in final stages of identifying specific military units to send to Eastern Europe to deter Russia. Next steps likely to be prep orders and then deployment orders once final decision several US officials tell CNN."

[Farfromgeneva]

I love blaming nato for Putin’s bellicose behavior. Can I get that guy to write narratives for all my behavior that’s not perfect as well? He’s probably be terrific at victim blaming and shaming as well.

And, of course, lawyers bankers and academics provide no value to society…until this one.

[PizzaSnake]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... -controls/

"The Biden administration is threatening to use a novel export control to damage strategic Russian industries, from artificial intelligence and quantum computing to civilian aerospace, if Moscow invades Ukraine, administration officials say.

The administration may also decide to apply the control more broadly in a way that would potentially deprive Russian citizens of some smartphones, tablets and video game consoles, said the officials.

Such moves would expand the reach of U.S. sanctions beyond financial targets to the deployment of a weapon used only once before — to nearly cripple the Chinese tech giant Huawei.

The weapon, known as the foreign direct product rule, contributed to Huawei suffering its first-ever annual revenue drop, a stunning collapse of nearly 30 percent last year.

The attraction of using the foreign direct product rule derives from the fact that virtually anything electronic these days includes semiconductors, the tiny components on which all modern technology depends, from smartphones to jets to quantum computers — and that there is hardly a semiconductor on the planet that is not made with U.S. tools or designed with U.S. software. And the administration could try to force companies in other countries to stop exporting these types of goods to Russia through this rule.

“This is a slow strangulation by the U.S. government,” Dan Wang, a Shanghai-based technology analyst with research firm Gavekal Dragonomics, said of Huawei. The rule cut the firm’s supply of needed microchips, which were made outside the United States but with U.S. software or tools.

Now officials in Washington say they are working with European and Asian allies to craft a version of the rule that would aim to stop flows of crucial components to industries for which Russian President Vladimir Putin has high ambitions, such as civil aviation, maritime and high technology.

“The power of these export controls is we can degrade and atrophy the capacity of these sectors to become a key source of growth for the Russian economy,” said a senior Biden administration official, who, like others in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

On Sunday, the State Department ordered the departure of all family members of U.S. Embassy personnel serving in Kyiv, citing the “threat of Russian military action.” The evacuation comes as the Biden administration weighs sending thousands of U.S. forces, as well as armaments, to the Baltic states and Poland to reinforce NATO, officials said. The officials stressed that no final decision has been taken on possible troop deployments, which were first reported by the New York Times. The United States is not planning to send any additional troops to Ukraine. There are about 200 military trainers in Ukraine. Most are Florida National Guard personnel.

The effort to use export controls could face head winds from American and European business interests that fear using export controls could lead to Russian retaliation in other spheres — and eventually cause foreign companies to seek to design U.S. technology out of their products. That’s because the extension of the rule beyond a single company like Huawei to an entire country or entire sectors of a country is unprecedented.

“It’s like a magic power — you can only use it so many times before it starts to degrade,” said Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think tank. “Other countries will say, ‘Oh, man, the U.S. has total control over us. We’d better find alternatives.’”

Russia is vulnerable because it doesn’t produce consumer electronics or chips in large quantities, analysts say. In particular, it doesn’t make the highest-end semiconductors needed for advanced computing, an area dominated by Taiwan, South Korea, the United States, Europe and Japan.

Cutting off the country’s chip imports “would invariably hit the Russian leadership’s high-tech ambitions, whether in artificial intelligence or quantum computing,” said Will Hunt, an analyst with Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.

The administration has not yet decided whether to restrict the export control to strategic sectors or extend it to everyday devices, officials said. Either way, said Paul Triolo, chief of technology policy at the Eurasia Group, “this would be weaponizing the U.S. semiconductor supply chain against an entire country.”

The pairing of financial sanctions with export controls would inflict pain immediately and over time. The impact of financial sanctions, which could apply to Russia’s largest banks as well as to civilian aerospace, maritime or emerging tech firms, would probably be felt first, experts say. Banking sanctions in particular probably would drive up Russian inflation and trigger a devaluation of the ruble, they say. Export controls, on the other hand, build over time as the cumulative effect of companies shutting off sales to Russia begins to hurt industrial production.

“If the objective is to impose severe and overwhelming costs on Russia’s economy, the combination of sanctions on major Russian banks and the export control would go a long way towards that, absolutely,” said Kevin Wolf, a former senior Commerce Department official who once headed the agency that implements export controls.

If the restrictions are applied broadly, they could also drive up prices for consumer electronics in Russia, analysts said.

Amid Ukraine invasion scare, U.S. and Europe lean on sanctions threat to stop Putin

The administration says it also may hit Russia with an export ban similar to those against Iran, Cuba, Syria and North Korea. Such a ban, experts say, probably would apply to basic electronics, aircraft parts, telecommunications items and software. But the United States exports relatively little in this area to Russia, so the measure would have limited effect unless other countries impose similar bans of their own.

Germany, which is Russia’s largest trading partner in Western Europe and is highly dependent on Russian energy, is in close” discussions with the United States on sanctions, said a German Embassy official, declining to comment further.

Targeted use of the foreign direct product rule could be a blow to Russia’s military, which relies on a type of chip called Elbrus that is designed in Russia but manufactured in Taiwan at a chip foundry called TSMC, according to Kostas Tigkos, an electronics expert at Janes Group, a U.K.-based provider of defense intelligence.

If the United States barred TSMC from supplying those chips to Russia, as it successfully barred TSMC from supplying Huawei, that would have a “devastating effect,” Tigkos said.

In a statement, TSMC said it “complies with all applicable laws and regulations” and that it has a “rigorous export control system in place … to ensure export control restrictions are followed.”

Analysts say that Western multinational firms probably would comply with the export controls. All U.S. chipmakers include clauses in their contracts requiring customers to abide by U.S. export rules. The United States also has a powerful stick to compel compliance: It could place any scofflaw companies on the Commerce Department Entity List, a blacklist of sorts that effectively bars U.S. firms from selling them their technology.

Russian government officials downplayed the potential impact.

The Russian state-owned defense and tech industry conglomerate Rostec said in a statement that while some foreign components are used in civilian products, Russia has begun to make many components on its own. “The possible imposition of additional sanctions will primarily hit the interests of American companies working for export,” Rostec said. “But we have managed and will manage again, albeit not immediately, but very quickly — we have proven this more than once.”

China could also provide an escape valve for Russia, analysts say.

The country is a big supplier of electronics to Russia. In 2020, it accounted for some 70 percent of Russia’s computer and smartphone imports, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Three of the top five smartphone brands in Russia are Chinese, according to market-research firm International Data Corporation.

Liu Pengyu, spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, suggested that Beijing would not look kindly on extraterritorial control by the United States. “China is always opposed to any country’s unilateral sanctions and so-called long-arm jurisdiction on other countries based on domestic law,” he said in a statement.

Chinese manufacturers could choose to continue selling to Russia even if they use U.S. technology in their products, and it would be difficult, for instance, to monitor Chinese smartphone sales to Russia, IDC analyst Simon Baker said.

Experts, however, said there are ways to police noncompliance. The Commerce Department often gets tips from firms about rule-breaking competitors. Its investigators scan shipping data. They also get intelligence shared from other U.S. agencies.

If Chinese firms wound up supplying Russia in violation of the rule, that would leave Washington with a major diplomatic dilemma: whether to sanction them, even if they make ordinary — not military — goods.

After the Trump administration applied the foreign direct product rule to Huawei in August 2020, the company’s smartphone sales plummeted. Earlier in 2020, it led the world in such sales. Today, it’s fallen to 10th place, according to IDC.

The most important goal now is deterrence, officials and analysts said, and that means threatening the most severe sanctions — such as severing the largest Russian banks from the U.S. financial system, said Edward Fishman, adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Export controls wouldn’t have as immediate an effect, said Fishman, a former State Department official in the Obama administration.

But, he said, they are a good move.

“The United States has no interest in aiding Russia’s technological and industrial capacity,” he said, “so long as Putin is using it to bully neighbors and attack democracy.''

Real question is, will Taiwan “spike the cannons” (destroy chip foundries) if the Chinese appear to be close to invading or succeeding in takeover?

“ Targeted use of the foreign direct product rule could be a blow to Russia’s military, which relies on a type of chip called Elbrus that is designed in Russia but manufactured in Taiwan at a chip foundry called TSMC, according to Kostas Tigkos, an electronics expert at Janes Group, a U.K.-based provider of defense intelligence.”

[jhu72]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/uk ... st-ukraine

Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis[/i}

Liberal??

Yeah, Bush was a liberal. And no, it doesn't matter which one I'm talking about here. Both espoused right wing ideologies, and it's RIDICULOUS that a man teaching this cr*p at Harvard needs to be told that the liberals wouldn't have one single solitary troop any-freaking-where in Europe, let alone the Middle East. They'd leave NATO to it, and would have FORCED NATO to take care of business post Soviet fall-------the very thing that you want, Old Salt.

Every freaking policy he mentioned was right-wing. 100% of them. But sure, make a bunch of nonsense up, and give it the liberal tag.

Libs want NATO and the UN to rule the roost. Like it or not? THAT is what a real lefty-liberal would want. Don't believe me? Ask one.

The greatest tragedy about Russia’s potential invasion is how easily it could have been avoided.

Liberalism sees world politics differently. Instead of seeing all great powers as facing more or less the same problem—the need to be secure in a world where war is always possible—liberalism maintains that what states do is driven mostly by their internal characteristics and the nature of the connections among them. It divides the world into “good states” (those that embody liberal values) and “bad states” (pretty much everyone else) and maintains that conflicts arise primarily from the aggressive impulses of autocrats, dictators, and other illiberal leaders

Who the firetruck does he think he's fooling here? If his students are THIS stupid? They need to change their entry requirements.

This is, verbatim, right wing American foreign policy thought. Commies v. Democracy ring a bell anywhere? Who the F does he think came up with that one? Pot-smoking, barely conscious, sandal wearing lefties? You're either with us, or against us? He thinks a liberal came up with that? Freedom Fries? That was a liberal term, was it, Professor? Right.

Do you know what a liberal policy looks like from your era, OS? Nixon choosing TRADE over a Cold War with China. Brilliance, defined. We'd STILL be running duck and cover drills in 2022 if it weren't for Nixon's liberal genius on this particular issue.

For liberals, the solution is to topple tyrants and spread democracy, markets, and institutions based on the belief that democracies don’t fight one another, especially when they are bound together by trade, investment, and an agreed-on set of rules

The is literally the right wing CIA Post WWII handbook. Like EXACTLY what they did in Iran, Nicaragua, and coups we'll never hear about, I'm sure. The firetruck this is liberalism. A liberal would NEVER use force to topple a regime, or use the CI freaking A to do the dirty work of cowards hiding in DC.

Yet with a weak hand to play, the U.S. negotiating team is apparently still insisting that Ukraine retain the option of joining NATO at some point in the future, which is precisely the outcome Moscow wants to foreclose. If the United States and NATO want to solve this via diplomacy, they are going to have to make real concessions and may not get everything they might want. I don’t like this situation any more than you do, but that’s the price to be paid for unwisely expanding NATO beyond reasonable limits.

I love how the good professor glosses over Russia taking Ukraines nukes away, and reneging on that deal like it's just a footnote. They signed a paper saying they'd respect Ukraine's borders. Remember that, Professor? Naaaahh, who cares about that....let's blame "the Squad" for getting us in this mess, instead of Putin.

Let them keep their nukes, and guess what, Professor? Ukraine doesn't need to join NATO anymore, and can remain neutral for another hundred years.

But sure, this is all AOC's and her liberal buddies at work. Totally. Obviously.

I wouldn't take Prof. Walt's advice on where to take my car to be serviced, let alone ask him about how to handle Putin.

... well you know that Neville Chamberlin was a liberal ...

[Kismet]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/uk ... st-ukraine

Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis[/i}

Liberal??

Yeah, Bush was a liberal. And no, it doesn't matter which one I'm talking about here. Both espoused right wing ideologies, and it's RIDICULOUS that a man teaching this cr*p at Harvard needs to be told that the liberals wouldn't have one single solitary troop any-freaking-where in Europe, let alone the Middle East. They'd leave NATO to it, and would have FORCED NATO to take care of business post Soviet fall-------the very thing that you want, Old Salt.

Every freaking policy he mentioned was right-wing. 100% of them. But sure, make a bunch of nonsense up, and give it the liberal tag.

Libs want NATO and the UN to rule the roost. Like it or not? THAT is what a real lefty-liberal would want. Don't believe me? Ask one.

The greatest tragedy about Russia’s potential invasion is how easily it could have been avoided.

Liberalism sees world politics differently. Instead of seeing all great powers as facing more or less the same problem—the need to be secure in a world where war is always possible—liberalism maintains that what states do is driven mostly by their internal characteristics and the nature of the connections among them. It divides the world into “good states” (those that embody liberal values) and “bad states” (pretty much everyone else) and maintains that conflicts arise primarily from the aggressive impulses of autocrats, dictators, and other illiberal leaders

Who the firetruck does he think he's fooling here? If his students are THIS stupid? They need to change their entry requirements.

This is, verbatim, right wing American foreign policy thought. Commies v. Democracy ring a bell anywhere? Who the F does he think came up with that one? Pot-smoking, barely conscious, sandal wearing lefties? You're either with us, or against us? He thinks a liberal came up with that? Freedom Fries? That was a liberal term, was it, Professor? Right.

Do you know what a liberal policy looks like from your era, OS? Nixon choosing TRADE over a Cold War with China. Brilliance, defined. We'd STILL be running duck and cover drills in 2022 if it weren't for Nixon's liberal genius on this particular issue.

For liberals, the solution is to topple tyrants and spread democracy, markets, and institutions based on the belief that democracies don’t fight one another, especially when they are bound together by trade, investment, and an agreed-on set of rules

The is literally the right wing CIA Post WWII handbook. Like EXACTLY what they did in Iran, Nicaragua, and coups we'll never hear about, I'm sure. The firetruck this is liberalism. A liberal would NEVER use force to topple a regime, or use the CI freaking A to do the dirty work of cowards hiding in DC.

Yet with a weak hand to play, the U.S. negotiating team is apparently still insisting that Ukraine retain the option of joining NATO at some point in the future, which is precisely the outcome Moscow wants to foreclose. If the United States and NATO want to solve this via diplomacy, they are going to have to make real concessions and may not get everything they might want. I don’t like this situation any more than you do, but that’s the price to be paid for unwisely expanding NATO beyond reasonable limits.

I love how the good professor glosses over Russia taking Ukraines nukes away, and reneging on that deal like it's just a footnote. They signed a paper saying they'd respect Ukraine's borders. Remember that, Professor? Naaaahh, who cares about that....let's blame "the Squad" for getting us in this mess, instead of Putin.

Let them keep their nukes, and guess what, Professor? Ukraine doesn't need to join NATO anymore, and can remain neutral for another hundred years.

But sure, this is all AOC's and her liberal buddies at work. Totally. Obviously.

I wouldn't take Prof. Walt's advice on where to take my car to be serviced, let alone ask him about how to handle Putin.

... well you know that Neville Chamberlin was a liberal ...

Actually he was a a member of the CONSERVATIVE Party in the UK (same as Churchill)

Now NATO member states starting to send military assets to the Eastern flank
French troops to Romania
Danish F-16s to Lithuania
Dutch F-35s to Bulgaria
Spanish Frigate to the Black Sea

Putin also announces Naval live fire exercises off the coast of Ireland in the coming weeks. Ireland is not a NATO member but is a member of the EU.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60113233

[MDlaxfan76]

I assume you approve of the Marshall Plan, our occupation of Japan & our decades long presence in S Korea, ...& the results.
How 'bout NATO solidarity leading to the outcome of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany & evolution of democracies in former Warsaw Pact nations & the former Soviet Baltic nations ? That was all US post WW II foreign policy. You're obsessed with only the negative.
That all turned out well & was little l liberalism.

I thought for a moment above that you were going to go all-in for small l "liberalism" on this post, Salty. That said, what aspect are you describing as "liberalism"?

#2 in this definition?

lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun
noun: liberalism
1.
willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
3.
the doctrine of a Liberal Party or (in the UK) the Liberal Democrats.
Translate liberalism to
Use over time for: liberalism

Or, perhaps this first paragraph?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy.[11] Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism.[12][13][14]

We failed in not anticipating the impact on Russia & the inevitable response.
We failed to appreciate the difference between Warsaw Pact nations that were forced to be Soviet satellite states & former Soviet republics which were historically part of greater Russia.
That is where our liberalism needed to be tempered with a dose of realism, ...which is what we are getting now.

But then you abandoned liberalism to "realism" or "realpolitik" when it comes to Russia specifically...because what was once part of Russia's empire, whether Soviet or former Czarist Russa, must not be considered worthy of independence, "consent of the governed", "democracy" etc...nope, what Russia (Vlad) wants, realpolitik says they must get...

[a fan]

I assume you approve of the Marshall Plan, our occupation of Japan & our decades long presence in S Korea, ...& the results.

Now you're reading more into what I posted-----I didn't make a judgement one way or the other about our Post WWII foreign policy in that post.

What I'm refuting is the Professor's ridiculous premise that the labels he is assigning make even a lick of sense.....he's telling us we used realism from WWII until Clinton arrived, and switched to liberalism. This is utter buffalo bagels, and dead wrong.

We've had the same foreign policy, regardless of President, since WWII ended. And it's this foreign policy that led to the Ukraine mess. It's the paragraph I cited from the good professor in my last post.


And as you and I agreed, we need to CHANGE from this policy, and stay out of the UK militarily. Biden ain't doing that....he's sending arms to Ukraine, just like every single President before him would have done. Meet the new boss, same as the old bo

How 'bout NATO solidarity leading to the outcome of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany & evolution of democracies in former Warsaw Pact nations & the former Soviet Baltic nations ? That was all US post WW II foreign policy.

No! It was NOT US foreign policy! My point exactly! THAT was the OPPOSITE of American foreign policy, which operated in parallel to NATO.

NATO is what you and I have been championing here in 2022.....let the EU deal with Putin. And if NATO nations are threatened? NATO responds....NOT the US.

We failed in not anticipating the impact on Russia & the inevitable response.
We failed to appreciate the difference between Warsaw Pact nations that were forced to be Soviet satellite states & former Soviet republics which were historically part of greater Russia.

Now we're back to thinking like "US Foreign Policy Since WWII".

Russia took away Ukraines nukes----their ability to remain neutral as a sovereign nuclear power----and isn't holding up their end of that agreement. "US Foreign Policy Since WWII" wants to ignore that Putin has reneged...and assumes that Ukraine is owned by Putin. Sorry mate, Ukraine can do as they wish.

NATO....the New US Foreign Policy tack that Old Salt and a fan want to pursue? It says: reinforce NATO countries, and if Ukraine wants to join NATO, Putin can F off, as he breached the Budapest Memorandum by massing at Ukraine's border.

Don't like it? Give Ukraine their nukes back, and they can live as a neutral nation, which is what they wanted in the first place, no?

[get it to x]

I assume you approve of the Marshall Plan, our occupation of Japan & our decades long presence in S Korea, ...& the results.

Now you're reading more into what I posted-----I didn't make a judgement one way or the other about our Post WWII foreign policy in that post.

What I'm refuting is the Professor's ridiculous premise that the labels he is assigning make even a lick of sense.....he's telling us we used realism from WWII until Clinton arrived, and switched to liberalism. This is utter buffalo bagels, and dead wrong.

We've had the same foreign policy, regardless of President, since WWII ended. And it's this foreign policy that led to the Ukraine mess. It's the paragraph I cited from the good professor in my last post.


And as you and I agreed, we need to CHANGE from this policy, and stay out of the UK militarily. Biden ain't doing that....he's sending arms to Ukraine, just like every single President before him would have done. Meet the new boss, same as the old bo

How 'bout NATO solidarity leading to the outcome of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany & evolution of democracies in former Warsaw Pact nations & the former Soviet Baltic nations ? That was all US post WW II foreign policy.

No! It was NOT US foreign policy! My point exactly! THAT was the OPPOSITE of American foreign policy, which operated in parallel to NATO.

NATO is what you and I have been championing here in 2022.....let the EU deal with Putin. And if NATO nations are threatened? NATO responds....NOT the US.

We failed in not anticipating the impact on Russia & the inevitable response.
We failed to appreciate the difference between Warsaw Pact nations that were forced to be Soviet satellite states & former Soviet republics which were historically part of greater Russia.

Now we're back to thinking like "US Foreign Policy Since WWII".

Russia took away Ukraines nukes----their ability to remain neutral as a sovereign nuclear power----and isn't holding up their end of that agreement. "US Foreign Policy Since WWII" wants to ignore that Putin has reneged...and assumes that Ukraine is owned by Putin. Sorry mate, Ukraine can do as they wish.

NATO....the New US Foreign Policy tack that Old Salt and a fan want to pursue? It says: reinforce NATO countries, and if Ukraine wants to join NATO, Putin can F off, as he breached the Budapest Memorandum by massing at Ukraine's border.

Don't like it? Give Ukraine their nukes back, and they can live as a neutral nation, which is what they wanted in the first place, no?

Conflict here is completely unnecessary and avoidable. When Putin took Crimea, it was to assure a port for the Russian navy. Here, if we just said we're not admitting Ukraine into NATO we create a buffer between Russia and Eastern Europe. Vlad doesn't want NATO troops on his border, but we're determined to give them to him, even if it means war.

[jhu72]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/uk ... st-ukraine

Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis[/i}

Liberal??

Yeah, Bush was a liberal. And no, it doesn't matter which one I'm talking about here. Both espoused right wing ideologies, and it's RIDICULOUS that a man teaching this cr*p at Harvard needs to be told that the liberals wouldn't have one single solitary troop any-freaking-where in Europe, let alone the Middle East. They'd leave NATO to it, and would have FORCED NATO to take care of business post Soviet fall-------the very thing that you want, Old Salt.

Every freaking policy he mentioned was right-wing. 100% of them. But sure, make a bunch of nonsense up, and give it the liberal tag.

Libs want NATO and the UN to rule the roost. Like it or not? THAT is what a real lefty-liberal would want. Don't believe me? Ask one.

The greatest tragedy about Russia’s potential invasion is how easily it could have been avoided.

Liberalism sees world politics differently. Instead of seeing all great powers as facing more or less the same problem—the need to be secure in a world where war is always possible—liberalism maintains that what states do is driven mostly by their internal characteristics and the nature of the connections among them. It divides the world into “good states” (those that embody liberal values) and “bad states” (pretty much everyone else) and maintains that conflicts arise primarily from the aggressive impulses of autocrats, dictators, and other illiberal leaders

Who the firetruck does he think he's fooling here? If his students are THIS stupid? They need to change their entry requirements.

This is, verbatim, right wing American foreign policy thought. Commies v. Democracy ring a bell anywhere? Who the F does he think came up with that one? Pot-smoking, barely conscious, sandal wearing lefties? You're either with us, or against us? He thinks a liberal came up with that? Freedom Fries? That was a liberal term, was it, Professor? Right.

Do you know what a liberal policy looks like from your era, OS? Nixon choosing TRADE over a Cold War with China. Brilliance, defined. We'd STILL be running duck and cover drills in 2022 if it weren't for Nixon's liberal genius on this particular issue.

For liberals, the solution is to topple tyrants and spread democracy, markets, and institutions based on the belief that democracies don’t fight one another, especially when they are bound together by trade, investment, and an agreed-on set of rules

The is literally the right wing CIA Post WWII handbook. Like EXACTLY what they did in Iran, Nicaragua, and coups we'll never hear about, I'm sure. The firetruck this is liberalism. A liberal would NEVER use force to topple a regime, or use the CI freaking A to do the dirty work of cowards hiding in DC.

Yet with a weak hand to play, the U.S. negotiating team is apparently still insisting that Ukraine retain the option of joining NATO at some point in the future, which is precisely the outcome Moscow wants to foreclose. If the United States and NATO want to solve this via diplomacy, they are going to have to make real concessions and may not get everything they might want. I don’t like this situation any more than you do, but that’s the price to be paid for unwisely expanding NATO beyond reasonable limits.

I love how the good professor glosses over Russia taking Ukraines nukes away, and reneging on that deal like it's just a footnote. They signed a paper saying they'd respect Ukraine's borders. Remember that, Professor? Naaaahh, who cares about that....let's blame "the Squad" for getting us in this mess, instead of Putin.

Let them keep their nukes, and guess what, Professor? Ukraine doesn't need to join NATO anymore, and can remain neutral for another hundred years.

But sure, this is all AOC's and her liberal buddies at work. Totally. Obviously.

I wouldn't take Prof. Walt's advice on where to take my car to be serviced, let alone ask him about how to handle Putin.

... well you know that Neville Chamberlin was a liberal ...

Actually he was a a member of the CONSERVATIVE Party in the UK (same as Churchill) -- YES. I am well aware. A republican that used to hang out on this forum once spent time trying to sell that bit of nonsense.

Now NATO member states starting to send military assets to the Eastern flank
French troops to Romania
Danish F-16s to Lithuania
Dutch F-35s to Bulgaria
Spanish Frigate to the Black Sea

Putin also announces Naval live fire exercises off the coast of Ireland in the coming weeks. Ireland is not a NATO member but is a member of the EU.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60113233

[old salt]

I assume you approve of the Marshall Plan, our occupation of Japan & our decades long presence in S Korea, ...& the results.
How 'bout NATO solidarity leading to the outcome of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany & evolution of democracies in former Warsaw Pact nations & the former Soviet Baltic nations ? That was all US post WW II foreign policy. You're obsessed with only the negative.
That all turned out well & was little l liberalism.

I thought for a moment above that you were going to go all-in for small l "liberalism" on this post, Salty. That said, what aspect are you describing as "liberalism"?

#2 in this definition?

lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun
noun: liberalism
1.
willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
3.
the doctrine of a Liberal Party or (in the UK) the Liberal Democrats.
Translate liberalism to
Use over time for: liberalism

Or, perhaps this first paragraph?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy.[11] Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism.[12][13][14]

We failed in not anticipating the impact on Russia & the inevitable response.
We failed to appreciate the difference between Warsaw Pact nations that were forced to be Soviet satellite states & former Soviet republics which were historically part of greater Russia.
That is where our liberalism needed to be tempered with a dose of realism, ...which is what we are getting now.

But then you abandoned liberalism to "realism" or "realpolitik" when it comes to Russia specifically...because what was once part of Russia's empire, whether Soviet or former Czarist Russa, must not be considered worthy of independence, "consent of the governed", "democracy" etc...nope, what Russia (Vlad) wants, realpolitik says they must get...

I agree with the definition of liberalism in the articles I posted & linked.

I also agree that our post cold war foreign policy has been too much liberalism & not enough realism.

We did not abandon realism when it came to Russia. We tried, it failed. It's not up to us to deem whether Russians are worthy of democracy. They had that option twice in the 20th century & rejected democracy twice.

We chose to expand NATO east of Germany, this was the inevitable result as predicted by Kennan & Kissinger.
It was fine to encourage democracy but an overreach to agree to defend their borders.
Finland, Sweden, Austria & Switzerland have not needed NATO to defend them.

[old salt]

Danish F-16s to Lithuania
Dutch F-35s to Bulgaria

It's only 2 x F-35's as part of the regular rotational NATO air policing mission.
The USAF sends F-16's from Aviano AB, Italy when it is our turn.

[Kismet]

Danish F-16s have been deployed to Baltic States since late last year - they are deploying again to Lithuania this week

https://ac.nato.int/archive/2021/danish ... ic-mission

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_191040.htm

NATO Allies send more ships, jets to enhance deterrence and defence in eastern Europe

Read it for yourself

[old salt]

Danish F-16s have been deployed to Baltic States since late last year - they are deploying again to Lithuania this week

https://ac.nato.int/archive/2021/danish ... ic-mission

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_191040.htm

NATO Allies send more ships, jets to enhance deterrence and defence in eastern Europe

Read it for yourself

You are making my point. These deployments are in support of NATO's " long standing " air policing mission.

Nothing new, not a big deal. NATO's been doing this since Crimea was annexed. It just was not newsworthy before.

[a fan]

Conflict here is completely unnecessary and avoidable. When Putin took Crimea, it was to assure a port for the Russian navy.

He already had that, lease on ports for Russian navy. It was a pointless venture. What's Putin going to do with that port? Run drills?

If he REALLY thinks someone is going to invade? That's China, my man. You're looking in the wrong direction. It's 2022, not 1960.

Here, if we just said we're not admitting Ukraine into NATO we create a buffer between Russia and Eastern Europe. Vlad doesn't want NATO troops on his border

So give Ukraine their nukes back. Then they don't need NATO OR Putin. Fake problem solved.

Putin gave up their right to whine about this when they signed the Budapest Memo.

.....but we're determined to give them to him, even if it means war.

We're not the one's who are at fault here. A sovereign country can do what they want. Kinda the whole point of being a sovereign country.

Would you let Putin or anyone else decide what America can and can't do? F no.

As more and more US arms arrive in Ukraine, Putin will realize that this ain't gonna be a couple of dudes with carbines shooting at each other from trenches. This is going to be big boy war, with casualties in the 1,000's, if not worse. And for what? And then comes the economic punishment.

Putin is using another 70 year old guys gameplan------preemptive war. Start a war to prevent a war. Anyone remember THAT brilliant military theory? Oh yeah, that worked out GREAT for Bush, and the Dems who signed on for it.

If NATO was going to (snicker) invade? We would have done it in 1990-95, when the entire region was in chaos. No one lifted a finger. Why? Because again, it's not 1960 anymore, and who the F wants to invade Russia? We already have their best hockey players...so what would be the point?

It's all 1980's thinking by men in their 70's who don't know how to change how they look at the world. So Putin, predictably, masses at the border.


And Biden, of course, is running his play calls from the same 70 year old guy "the Cold War never ended" playbook. It's all so stupid.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Conflict here is completely unnecessary and avoidable. When Putin took Crimea, it was to assure a port for the Russian navy.

He already had that, lease on ports for Russian navy. It was a pointless venture. What's Putin going to do with that port? Run drills?

If he REALLY thinks someone is going to invade? That's China, my man. You're looking in the wrong direction. It's 2022, not 1960.

Here, if we just said we're not admitting Ukraine into NATO we create a buffer between Russia and Eastern Europe. Vlad doesn't want NATO troops on his border

So give Ukraine their nukes back. Then they don't need NATO OR Putin. Fake problem solved.

Putin gave up their right to whine about this when they signed the Budapest Memo.

.....but we're determined to give them to him, even if it means war.

We're not the one's who are at fault here. A sovereign country can do what they want. Kinda the whole point of being a sovereign country.

Would you let Putin or anyone else decide what America can and can't do? F no.

As more and more US arms arrive in Ukraine, Putin will realize that this ain't gonna be a couple of dudes with carbines shooting at each other from trenches. This is going to be big boy war, with casualties in the 1,000's, if not worse. And for what? And then comes the economic punishment.

Putin is using another 70 year old guys gameplan------preemptive war. Start a war to prevent a war. Anyone remember THAT brilliant military theory? Oh yeah, that worked out GREAT for Bush, and the Dems who signed on for it.

If NATO was going to (snicker) invade? We would have done it in 1990-95, when the entire region was in chaos. No one lifted a finger. Why? Because again, it's not 1960 anymore, and who the F wants to invade Russia? We already have their best hockey players...so what would be the point?

It's all 1980's thinking by men in their 70's who don't know how to change how they look at the world. So Putin, predictably, masses at the border.


And Biden, of course, is running his play calls from the same 70 year old guy "the Cold War never ended" playbook. It's all so stupid.

Putin wants to fight the war in Ukraine instead of at home….like us. If he doesn’t go there, Ukrainian army will show up in Russia.