Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
exactly. that idiot comedian turned leader should have matched Russia's troop build up one for one before now. now it's too late. you also have to wonder why they couldn't suppress these russkie loving separatists by now. this has gone on for 7 years now.
of course part of the answer is that the prior Ukraine leaders were Putin stooges who were under orders from Vladski not to do this. however this latest dude was openly against Russia and had months of warnings to act but didn't. fuck him
michael savage has a very interesting charge on zelensky.
Knowing where one started can help explain how we got to where we are now, thanks in part to actual history and the internets. But before we go there, just one sticky problem to get out of the way up front: TDS won't help you ignore actual history. GEPOTUS Trump was pretty well following O'Bammy's lead on Ukraine. That said, consider the following:
Way back in 2016, President Obama said something that was surprisingly cogent and astute in an interview in The Atlantic. While speaking with Jeffrey Goldberg, of all people, Obama articulated that the American people are simply not willing to go to war in Ukraine. To put it simply, the Ukraine is simply not a core American interest that is worth killing and dying over.
From The Atlantic:
Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.
I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.
“It’s realistic,” he said. “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there’s always going to be some ambiguity.” [Ed.: We tip our hat to Glenn Greenwald for digging up this old interview.]
And the American people understand this. According to the AP, the vast, vast majority of Americans oppose war with Russia...
Bonus material included at no additional charge:
There is an embedded video by Prof. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago in a 2015 lecture on the recent history of Ukraine (1hr, 14 mins) In case you want to know how we got here today.
Known pooh-flingers need not bother reading or watching any of the above.
Knowing where one started can help explain how we got to where we are now, thanks in part to actual history and the internets. But before we go there, just one sticky problem to get out of the way up front: TDS won't help you ignore actual history. GEPOTUS Trump was pretty well following O'Bammy's lead on Ukraine. That said, consider the following:
Way back in 2016, President Obama said something that was surprisingly cogent and astute in an interview in The Atlantic. While speaking with Jeffrey Goldberg, of all people, Obama articulated that the American people are simply not willing to go to war in Ukraine. To put it simply, the Ukraine is simply not a core American interest that is worth killing and dying over.
From The Atlantic:
Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.
I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.
“It’s realistic,” he said. “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there’s always going to be some ambiguity.” [Ed.: We tip our hat to Glenn Greenwald for digging up this old interview.]
And the American people understand this. According to the AP, the vast, vast majority of Americans oppose war with Russia...
Bonus material included at no additional charge:
There is an embedded video by Prof. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago in a 2015 lecture on the recent history of Ukraine (1hr, 14 mins) In case you want to know how we got here today.
Known pooh-flingers need not bother reading or watching any of the above.
Just like Bosnia and other regional conflicts, USA does not need troops there since those in the area can supply such. And it is in *their* interest to do so.
Doesn't mean we can't support them in other ways. And it is in our interest to do that. Besides answering the call for freedom for their people, they have alot of resources that benefits us.
So, it isn't right to turn our back on them. But it doesn't mean we have to spill our blood.
...answering the call for freedom for their people...
I think the Prof actually covers that briefly, i.e. the idea of us exporting Democracy and what not. Basically, not good. Though supporting them in some way, especially if they prevail, is fair.
But the idea of endless wars is bad business. Well... it's great business for some. But that is a whole other discussion.
I think the Prof actually covers that briefly, i.e. the idea of us exporting Democracy and what not. Basically, not good. Though supporting them in some way, especially if they prevail, is fair.
But the idea of endless wars is bad business. Well... it's great business for some. But that is a whole other discussion.
Maybe like we defended the Kurds....well before Trump threw them to the wolves.
Yeah, for a few days but Trump gave Ukraine offensive weapons that Obama refused to do. If you're going to tell a story, try telling the whole story or STFU.
While it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine’s military. Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.
The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank missiles, something long sought by Kiev.
