Friday Talking Points -- A Grown Man Running Against A Six-Year-Old
Again, we open with a joke or two. From last weekend's White House Correspondents' Dinner, President Joe Biden got off a few good burns on the man he's running against:
The 2024 election is in full swing. And yes, age is an issue. I'm a grown man running against a six-year-old.
Age is the only thing we have in common. My vice president actually endorses me.
The headline comedian was Colin Jost (from Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update"), and his jokes were even better. He also touched upon the age issue:
I'm not saying both candidates are old, but you know Jimmy Carter is out there thinking: "I could maybe win this thing." He's only 99....
He also ripped into Donald Trump, especially over his current legal woes:
Can we just acknowledge how refreshing it is to see a president of the United States at an event that doesn't begin with a bailiff saying: "All rise"?
It is the best time in history to be a courtroom sketch artist. My God, the most famous man on Earth is on trial, and there's no cameras allowed. Just the artists, their pastels and their desire to make Trump look as bad as possible. Every sketch of Trump looks like the Grinch had sex with the Lorax.
Trump, of course, is still busy with his first criminal court case. It was a notable week in the trial, as Trump was held in contempt for the first time in this trial. Out of ten instances provided by the prosecution of Trump violating his gag order, the judge agreed with nine of them and fined Trump the maximum amount New York law allows -- for a total of $9,000. The judge also held a hearing on four more possible violations identified by the prosecution, all of which have happened since the previous such hearing. Jail time for any of these isn't really an option -- yet -- but may become more so now that Trump has officially been found in contempt of court (for any such future violations, in other words).
Trump told a whopper of a lie yesterday to the gathered reporters in the courthouse hallway, stating that the gag order would absolutely prevent him from testifying on his own behalf. This annoyed the judge so much that this morning (before the jury entered), he castigated Trump for saying this and told him directly that the gag order prevented no such thing and he'd be free to testify and say anything he liked.
The purpose of the lie is pretty obvious, though. Trump has been saying he's going to testify, but any sane defense lawyer would tell him that it would be the most monumentally stupid thing he could do -- so Trump is likely casting about for an acceptable excuse not to (one that didn't have anything to do with him, of course). It remains to be seen whether Trump will just keep on repeating the lie he told yesterday or come up with some new fanciful explanation, but the odds still have to be that he won't take the stand (since the prosecution would absolutely eviscerate him on cross-examination, obviously).
The big news about Trump in the courtroom remains the same -- he keeps falling asleep. He is being denied his steady stream of Diet Cokes in the courtroom, so this is probably just "caffeine deficiency syndrome" (so to speak), but it still is amusing to see the courtroom sketches of Trump snoozing through his own criminal trial. Trump tried to rewrite this reality by posting that he is not actually sleeping, stating: "I simply close my beautiful blue eyes, sometimes, listen intensely, and take it ALL in!!!" This was (of course) immediately ridiculed online (since it is so laughable and narcissistic, all at once).
Most of the testimony this week was to lay the groundwork for the big witnesses still to come. The payments to the two women who had extramarital affairs with Trump so that they would keep silent about it were traced from person to person. Technical evidence was admitted that will likely be relied upon later. Today, however, we got the first marquee witness: Hope Hicks.
Hicks was not a primary player in the whole hush-money payoff, but she was so close to Trump that she was aware of it all. To put this another way, she is just another building block leading up to the testimony (perhaps next week) from Stormy Daniels and/or Michael Cohen. Hicks did have some nice things to say about Trump on the stand today, but she also wove the web a bit tighter as she corroborated several facts attested to by the other big witnesses so far.
All in all, it wasn't exactly an explosive week of testimony, but the case is still building so the best is assumably yet to come. There are already rumors circulating that Trump is getting rather unhappy with his main lawyer, but that's nothing new for him. Will he try to torpedo the whole trial by attempting to fire his main lawyer at some point? That remains to be seen, although it is quite likely the judge wouldn't allow him to do so at this point in the trial.
Trump did take a break to go campaign this Wednesday, where he was notably having problems with the English language once again:
Slurring his words at a Waukesha, Wisconsin rally, Trump referred to Biden's "fake infrastrucker, ershure para," before settling on "a package of infrastructure." Minutes later, the 77-year-old launched into a rant about Master Lock, again slipping into incoherence.
In related Trumpian legal news, Peter Navarro's appeal was turned down cold by the Supreme Court this week, so he'll stay in jail (where he belongs).
In abortion news, Florida's Draconian 6-week abortion ban went into effect, which means pretty much the entire Deep South is now an "abortion desert." Florida women will now have to travel to either North Carolina or Virginia to get the healthcare that they need. Meanwhile, a handful of Republicans in Arizona wisely decided that their party had gone too far with the 1864 total ban on abortion, and the state senate voted this week to repeal the Civil War-era law. Due to legalities about when new laws take effect, this won't solve the problem immediately, but the governor is all ready to sign the repeal, so it'll happen as soon as is legislatively possible.
Trump, meanwhile, gave an extraordinary set of interviews to Time magazine, in which he doubled down on his current position on abortion. This can be summed up as: "Everyone wanted Roe v. Wade overturned" (which is a total lie, as pro-choice people had been fighting to avoid this for decades) and now that it is up to the states Trump can completely forget about the issue altogether and blame others for any problems. When asked specifics such as whether he'd be OK with states intrusively tracking women's pregnancies, Trump shrugged it all off. "Eh, it'd be up to the states," is essentially his new dismissal of everything abortion-related.
Team Biden immediately cut a new ad in response.
The Time article is definitely worth reading in full -- in fact, we would encourage those who have the time to actually read the full transcripts of the interviews with Trump -- as it all deals with what America could expect in Trump's second term, should he win. The answers are downright frightening on all fronts, not just abortion rights.
Speaking of downright frightening politicians, we must admit we've never seen a vice-presidential hopeful melt down in as spectacular fashion as South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem just did this week. She's releasing a new memoir and the publisher leaked a few tidbits to create some buzz. What erupted, however, might better be described as a buzz saw.
Noem recounted the story of taking a 14-month old puppy she owned to a gravel pit and shooting it (for being "untrainable"). For good measure, she also shot a goat she didn't like as well. This all went over with the public like a lead balloon. Noem then doubled down on the story, insisting that it showed how responsible she was, and how she was able to make the tough decisions when necessary.
Nobody bought it, though. She was universally reviled by both Democrats and Republicans and her admission even has now given birth to the "Congressional Dog Lovers Caucus." Her hopes of becoming Donald Trump's running mate now lay in tatters, due to her own self-inflicted injury.
And we have to close our wrap-up this week with a rather amusing note, from a different disgraced Republican politician. I guess George Santos needs some quick cash to pay his lawyers or something, because he announced this week that he'll be selling short video appearances on Cameo as his drag personality "Kitara Ravache."
You ready for the punchline? He swears that 20 percent of the proceeds will go to charity! Maybe next he could try selling the Brooklyn Bridge on EBay? Grifters gotta grift, after all....
We begin with an Honorable Mention award, for Representative-Elect Tim Kennedy in New York. This week, Kennedy won a special House election to replace a retiring Democrat, which not only holds the seat but (once he is sworn in) will reduce the Republican majority back down to a one-vote margin.
But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, for a very odd reason. In an unprecedented pre-emptive move this week, Jeffries let it be known that Democrats would actually vote to save Republican Mike Johnson's speakership. This is rather astonishing, since in normal times the opposition party would automatically vote against any speaker from the other side of the aisle. But we do not live in normal times.
We did write about this earlier in the week, noting that Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene's grandstanding move to force a vote on her "motion to vacate the chair" -- which she is now promising will happen next week -- is now destined to fail.
Democrats are going to help Johnson defang the extremist Chaos Caucus within his own ranks. Like we said -- unprecedented! But it makes a certain amount of sense, seen through the lens of "the devil you know rather than the devil you don't." Johnson has indeed given free rein to the crazies within his own caucus up until now -- but only to a crucial point. After that point is reached (at the absolute last possible moment), Johnson bows to reality and passes all the must-pass bills the government needs to keep functioning. And he does so without trying to ram ultra-conservative poison pills down the Democrats' throat, since he knows that the Senate and the White House are both run by Democrats. So he's the devil Democrats know -- one that they can actually work with, at least to a certain minimal degree.
If M.T.G. were allowed to oust the second speaker in American history, it would doubtless be a political benefit for Democrats, who could all campaign on the fact that when you put Republicans in charge, all you get is pure chaos. But it might also mean a House Speaker getting elected who is a complete raving lunatic, which would not bode well for the rest of this year in the House.
Jeffries could have played his cards close to the vest and only insinuated that he'd help out Johnson when the time came. Instead, he made a public announcement this week. This relegates the whole "motion to vacate" to a mere circus sideshow, instead of putting it in the center ring where Greene truly wanted it to be.
Jeffries is no fool, though. Some Democrats grumbled that he didn't get any sort of clear quid pro quo out of Johnson -- some sort of "power-sharing arrangement" that would increase Democrats' power in the House. But this is a one-time deal for Johnson. If in the future more "motion to vacate" votes happen, Johnson will likely be on his own unless he does make some sort of deal with Democrats for their support.
For taking an unprecedented and brave course of action -- even though it cuts against the grain of raw partisanship -- Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.
[Congratulate House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]
This first one is just, well... weird. But we hesitate to give it any kind of award, since the politician in question isn't really a Democrat to begin with.
Don Blankenship, the former head of the Massey Energy Company who spent a year in prison for violating coal-mining safety standards (which led to an explosion which killed 29 mineworkers), is running to replace outgoing Senator Joe Manchin... as a Democrat. He has previously run for Senate as both a Republican and an Independent, but now apparently thinks his chances will improve in the Democratic primary. But he's not a Democrat -- not even a "West Virginia Democrat" (see: Joe Manchin). The head of the West Virginia Democratic Party disavowed his candidacy, referring to Blankenship "as he'll forever be known: federal prisoner 12393-088."
But as a late-night comic pointed out this week, Blankenship's campaign ads are downright bizarre. He ends his most recent three video ads by saying (you cannot make this stuff up, folks): "If they tell you I fell out of bed and hung myself: I didn't." This wasn't just one gaffe, it seems to actually be his main campaign slogan. Just bizarre all around, but as we said we can't really consider him a Democrat so we have ruled he is ineligible for any award.
Instead, we're giving this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to Representative Henry Cuellar, who was just federally indicted (with his wife) on bribery charges for apparently receiving $600,000 from two foreign entities (an oil company owned by the Azerbaijan government, and a bank in Mexico City).
Of course, Cuellar is innocent until proven guilty and all of that sort of thing, but it certainly doesn't look good for him:
The Department of Justice indicted Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and his wife, Imelda Cuellar, on Friday for bribery, unlawful foreign influence and money laundering. The indictment comes more than two years after the federal law enforcement agency raided his home in Laredo, Texas.
Between 2014 and 2021, the Cuellars accepted about $600,000 in bribes from an oil and gas company owned by the government of Azerbaijan, and a Mexico City-based bank, the DOJ charges. In exchange for the bribes from the Azerbaijani company, Henry Cuellar "promised to influence U.S. foreign policy in favor of Azerbaijan," including in its dispute with neighboring Armenia, according to the DOJ indictment.
And in exchange for the funds from the Mexican bank, the federal government alleges that Henry Cuellar "agreed" to use his "influence" against anti-money laundering measures in Congress and the executive branch that "threatened" the bank's interests. He also said he would support legislation to "block federal regulation of the payday lending industry."
The couple hid the payments using layers of middlemen and a series of shell companies under Imelda Cuellar's name, according to the DOJ indictment. If convicted, the couple could serve up to 20 years prison, though lighter sentences are more likely.
Cuellar denies everything, of course. But until his court case concludes, we are tentatively going to just go ahead and award him this week's MDDOTW in the meantime.
[Contact Representative Henry Cuellar on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]
Volume 750 (5/3/24)
[Editorial milestone note: Yes indeedy, that number is correct. This is the 750th "Friday Talking Points" column! We have been diligently providing talking points to Democrats for (checks the record) an astonishing 17 years now. So here's to pushing forward until we get up to four digits!]
We've got a single theme for today's talking points, and it is to highlight things that President Biden has very quietly been doing of late.
There is a reason for this flurry of activity, and it is called the "Congressional Review Act." This was passed by Newt Gingrich (it was part of the "Contract With America," in fact) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Since then, it had only been used once -- until Trump took office. Trump used it over a dozen times, to kill Obama regulations he didn't like.
The law says that Congress can quickly overturn any federal rule made by a president, within a certain period of time. So presidential rules that appear very late in a president's term are still fair game for the incoming Congress. This is how Trump used it, and the obvious fear is that any late-posted rule could also suffer the same fate if Republicans sweep the November elections.
With the clock ticking and the safe window about to slam shut, Biden has been moving forward on a number of rules his administration has been working on for a very long time. So today's talking points all highlight some of the good things Biden has been doing (since you probably won't hear much about them in the mainstream media -- oh, and kudos to HuffPost for presenting a full list of what Team Biden has been up to of late). All of these except the final one have appeared as new rules within the last few weeks.
More overtime pay
This is the latest chapter in a continuing story. President Barack Obama tried to raise this, then Trump lowered it, and now Biden has made his move to make the law more generous again.
"I believe that working Americans deserve overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours a week. Overtime pay is a big deal for most workers -- especially those who aren't paid that much to begin with. Some big corporations have been getting away with calling low-level workers 'managers' and paying them with a salary -- which doesn't take into account how many hours they have to work. The corporations thus get a bunch of free hours from these workers, who don't even make more for working a 60-hour week than a 40-hour week. There is a rule that forces employers to pay overtime rates to the lowest-paid workers, but Donald Trump set the bar for it too low, at only $35,500. Joe Biden just raised that to cover every worker who makes $58,600 or less. This will ensure over four million Americans will now get paid for their overtime, which will come as a huge relief to their families. What's more, Biden's new rule states that the threshold rate will be reset every three years to account for inflation. Joe Biden is fighting hard for the workers of America to be paid what they are worth and to stop corporations from stealing their labor for free."
Airline refunds
This is a pretty universal headache, so making things better should really be big news.
"Joe Biden just changed the game for America's flying public. Airlines will now be forced to issue automatic cash refunds for cancelled flights or flights that are delayed more than a few hours. If your checked bag is not delivered within 12 hours after you land, your checked-bag fee will now be refunded. Fees for seat selection or internet connections will also be refunded if the airline fails to provide the service. The airlines will also have to disclose up front what their fees are for checked or carry-on bags and for cancelling or changing a reservation. This will all save consumers a whopping 500 million dollars per year. Joe Biden understands how regular Americans get annoyed at all the little games the airlines like to play with them, and he's putting a stop to some of the worst. Think about that the next time you fly."
Protecting patients
More good news....
"The Biden administration just reinstated federal discrimination protections for all L.G.B.T. patients seeking healthcare, so they cannot be treated differently by insurance companies or hospitals. Gay people should never be turned away from receiving healthcare simply because of who they are. They should not have to pay more for things like fertility benefits either. Biden also moved to make abortion records just as private as all other medical records in this country, which will allow healthcare providers to deny access to this information to others, since it could be used to prosecute them in the states that have taken the freedom of bodily autonomy away from women. Women who travel across state lines to get the reproductive healthcare they need will not have to worry about the police in their home state having access to their health records. Joe Biden is fighting for nondiscrimination and privacy in healthcare law."
Protecting the environment
This is another very big deal worth bragging about.
"The Biden administration is also -- for the first time ever -- limiting greenhouse gas emissions from certain power plants. They are tightening up regulations for mercury gas and coal ash as well as speeding up construction of new power transmission lines. These new rules will apply to both coal-fired and natural gas power plants and will eventually cut their emission of carbon by 90 percent. New homes will now also have to be built with dramatically increased energy efficiency, which will save consumers a whopping $2.1 billion on energy bills. All you have to do is look around at the extreme weather events already happening with regularity to see that climate change is real and must be addressed for our children's future. Joe Biden is doing so -- because this is the only planet we have."
Healthier meals for students
Keep in mind that the "suburban mom vote" could decide the presidential election.
"The Biden administration just unveiled new nutrition standards for school lunches and breakfasts. This will limit the amount of sugar in kids' meals and reduce the amount of sodium allowed. This will also make it easier for schools to buy locally-grown or raised foods, and will limit the percentage of food they can serve that is grown or raised outside of the United States -- so it is a big win for American farmers as well as the parents of all schoolchildren. Kids should be able to get healthy meals at school instead of junk food larded up with salt and sugar. Joe Biden is going to make sure that happens for everyone's kids."
A tokin' gesture?
OK, we have to admit we didn't think that title up ourselves, we saw it as a random comment on an article on what Biden just did and thought it was pretty funny....
"For the first time in modern history, the U.S. government is retreating on the insanity of the federal War On Weed. When the government first came up with an official list of 'dangerous substances,' Richard Nixon was president. To make it easier to jail his political opponents (mostly Black people and hippies), marijuana was classified at the highest level of dangerousness. This has been federal law ever since. To show you how insane this is, marijuana is considered by the feds to be more dangerous than fentanyl. Is there anyone out there who believes such poppycock? But that's what the law has said all along. Finally -- finally! -- this is going to soon change. Marijuana will be moved down this list, which will change things for the better almost overnight. It's not the end of the road for the fight to dismantle the wrongheaded War On Weed, but it is the biggest and most significant step ever taken -- and the first such step that actually moves the country in the right direction. Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama -- who both admitted youthful recreational marijuana use themselves -- took this step. But Joe Biden just did."
Seniors about to get a huge break on prescription drug prices
Unfortunately, when this was passed as part of Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, it was built into the law that the benefits wouldn't actually start until after the presidential election -- so people aren't actually seeing these benefits yet, for the most part. But that shouldn't stop Democrats from Biden on down tooting this horn as loudly and as many times as they can, because it is all a very big deal indeed.
"America's seniors are about to get an enormous break on the costs they bear for prescription drugs. Starting next year, all prescription drug out-of-pocket costs for patients on Medicare will be capped at $2,000 per year. This means that whenever you hit that ceiling -- whether it be late in the year, or in January for those who have incredibly expensive prescriptions -- that is all you will have to pay for the entire rest of the year. Everything else will be paid by Medicare, not the patient. This is going to be a life-changer for millions of American families. In fact, it will save lives. It will be a huge relief for so many families. Medicare is also now going to be negotiating prices with the big drug companies, which should lower costs for everyone too. Added with lower costs for insulin, free vaccines, and penalties for drug makers whose prices exceed the rise of inflation, and you can see that the Biden administration is fighting to bring down prescription drug prices for everyone and stop the big Pharma companies from ripping so many Americans off."
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
With all that is available with which to bash TFG, I was initially disappointed that you elected to dwell on Joe’s accomplishments.
But now that I reviewed your Talking Points (Happy 750th!) I think that you made the right choice.
Trump will win 12 states, max.
Elizabeth,
WHY is having Ukraine in NATO a “bad idea?” Please be specific!
Speaking only for myself of course, I don't particularly think that having Ukraine in NATO is a bad idea. But I don't see it happening any time soon. As we all know, bringing in a new member takes the unanimous agreement of current members. It took some doing to get that for Finland and Sweden, and I suspect that Ukraine would be harder.
I don't recall there being a serious question about NATO membership for Ukraine. I recall disagreement about how Biden should have handled the issue. When you're a superpower dealing with a pipsqueak regional power, you have to worry about how it will affect not only the situation in that region, not only that plus how it will be seen by other pipsqueaks around the world, but both of those and how it will be seen by the other superpower and by the major powers. Credibility is worth its weight in whatever's more valuable than platinum. Don't make noise about something there’s no real chance you'll follow through on.
Caddy,
I've already discussed in great detail why I think the idea of Ukraine in NATO has been a bad idea, since the break-up of the Soviet Union through to today. Despite all the bravado surrounding Ukraine's potential membership coming from the US and NATO, there doesn't seem to be any realistic prospect of it ever happening.
Ironically, Putin's unwise actions have resulted in the very thing he sought to avoid. Which is to say the continued expansion of NATO! Of course, as I have mentioned once or twice before, Finland and Sweden might as well be in a different universe from Ukraine when it comes to NATO admitting new members.
I've been told this place is archived - maybe Kick can help you find my remarks addressing this subject. And, after you read what I wrote, you might consider taking a look at your responses back to me to understand why I'm a bit reticent about rehashing it all again. Ahem.
Two males have sex and produce a Trump?
It makes perfect sense when you consider that all three of them are literally works of fiction.
7 very good talking points this week! All positive news about what the Democrats who control two of the three branches of government are improving and protecting the lives and livelihoods of the voters.
Senator Sanders, while not technically a Democrat, deserves at least an honorable mention for MIDOW. Criticism of Israel by a gentile inevitably triggers accusations of anti-semitism. Sen. Sanders' criticism of Netanyahu's merciless Gaza campaign carries incredible weight.
The protests on American universities have captured the news media's attention, resulting as usual in the most extreme and violent getting the most screen time. Sen. Sanders also helps short-circuit the partisan opportunism of many GOP politicians - who decry antisemitism even as they've endorsed a xenophobic, antisemitic presidential candidate.
'“No Mr Netanyahu, it is not antisemitic or pro-Hamas to point out that, in a little over six months, your extremist government has killed over 34,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 78,000, 70% of whom are women and children,” Sanders said.
The two-and-a-half minute video listed a catalogue of further consequences of the war in the Palestinian coastal territory, including the destruction of infrastructure, hospitals, universities and schools, along with the killing of more than 400 health workers.'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/27/bernie-sanders-benjamin-netanyahu-israel-gaza-war
Stuff here is archived, but not easily searchable. I'm not finding anything about why Ukraine in NATO would be bad. It's a little like discussing whether it would be good to have Bertrand Russell be the next pope: it's not going to happen, and assumptions about how we would get to the impossible situation outweigh analysis of the situation itself.
The British empire broke up, and became the Commonwealth. Relations between the former Raj (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) and the rest of the world don't go through London. The Russian empire hasn't been resolved. The regime in Moscow is revanchist, and that tendency would still would be there if Putin's longstanding health issues force him into retirement. The only way to get to a decent political system in what is now Russia is for it to become post-imperial. It's like if the US heard about the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas and thought "ooh, more manifest destiny -- there's a bunch of other land in between, but we're sure to get there eventually." That kind of outright conquest doesn't work in a world with twentieth-century technologies of war (and nothing in the twenty-first has reversed that). A US with 1850s-US politics just wouldn't work now. It probably wouldn't end quite as badly as it did in the actual nineteenth century, but it wouldn't go well. A Russia whose identity is based on the implicit premise that its troops are destined, sooner or later, to roll all the way to Lisbon, Capetown, and Taipei can't do much better than a US based on the same 1850s outlook would. Ukraine in NATO would be a step in the right direction for Russia. I don't think Russia is headed toward civil war and separation, but it has to become post-imperial somehow.
Dan,
...it's not going to happen (Ukraine in NATO, for example), and assumptions about how we would get to the impossible situation outweigh analysis of the situation itself (like what is happening on the ground in Ukraine today).
Couldn't have said it better myself! :)
No doubt it will take far longer for Ukraine to join NATO than Finland and Sweden, but I missed the explanation(s) about why Ukraine won’t make it into NATO and also why it’s a bad idea for both Ukraine and NATO.
Elizabeth please note I’m not jumping down your throat now that you’re engaging with Weigantia rather than seemingly regurgitating Rooskie propaganda or channeling your inner Neville Chamberlain.
Perhaps we should send Russia some pie
Pie for Palestine.
You can't spell Palestine without pie
Ukraine won't make it into NATO any time soon, because you need to not have a war going on during the process of joining. Even after that, the current members of the alliance will still have reason to see Ukraine more as a country that they'll have to help defend against Russian attack, rather than primarily as a country that can help defend them. Getting unanimity is not easy.
As for why it's a bad idea, I can't help you there. I don't think it is, and I don't know why Elizabeth would think so.
(Also, I make no claims about whether or not that's what she actually said. I sort of think she did, but what I'm reasonably sure of is that she considered it a bad idea for Biden to have talked about it the way he did at some point.)
Please correct me if I'm wrong Elizabeth, but my recollection is that you felt that Ukraine joining NATO, or even the process of trying to get it to join, would be provoking Russia. By expanding NATO's influence further into Russia's former sphere of influence, it would make Russia feel weak and cornered, provoking them to lash out to try to save face rather than watch as their former territories gained strength around them.
Did I get that right?
That’s my recollection, too.
While your recollections are fairly accurate, if incomplete, the history of NATO expansion is pretty clear. So is the unique historical relationship between USSR/Russia/Ukraine.
I think the question you all should consider is this: why has NATO, in general, and neo-cons in the US (some of the same crew who heralded the 2003 US invasion of Iraq), in particular acted so duplicitously over the course of the expansionary period in ostensibly laying the groundwork for eventual Ukrainian membership?
Given the situation Ukraine finds itself in today, what more need I say about its NATO membership being a bad idea? What on earth is good about it!?
Elizabeth please note I’m not jumping down your throat now that you’re engaging with Weigantia rather than seemingly regurgitating Rooskie propaganda or channeling your inner Neville Chamberlain.
rotflmao
And, in case anyone (read: Caddy) needs more reasons why Ukraine in NATO is a bad idea, this should suffice.
What's unique about having formerly been subjugated as part of an empire? If India, Canada, and the US can be countries, rather than being territories under the control of London, why should Ukraine be eternally subject to the dominion of Moscow as far as its foreign policy is concerned?
Wars do not end with treaties. No war has ever ended with a treaty. Treaties are mere formalities that happen when wars have already ended. Wars end when all but one side has lost the will or the ability to fight. General Skibitsky is correct that merely maneuvering the enemy off of Ukrainian soil would not end the war: that would destroy neither their will to fight nor their ability to do so. Territory does not matter, except insofar as it affects capacity or will. Any territory that Ukraine might concede would both prove to the enemy that invasion is in their interests (increasing their will to fight) and provide them with the resources of the stolen land (increasing their ability to do so).
The only acceptable outcome is to force Russia into unconditional surrender.
Heh.
Yeah, because things have gone so well for Ukraine during the last decade or so.
why should Ukraine be eternally subject to the dominion of Moscow as far as its foreign policy is concerned?
That's easy ... it shouldn't be.
Sigh.
Was that question intended to be rhetorical? Up until putin decided to scale up his invasion, Ukraine was doing pretty well. In all likelihood one reason why he did so is because Ukraine was doing well, in spite of being invaded for a decade.
Rhetorical? No, that's not my style.
You think Ukraine has been doing well since 2014 and only getting better through 2024? Seriously?
I suppose things are going well for our side in that other war, too. ;)
No, through 2022 when the invasion went full scale.
The other war is going as it must.
"That other war" means Iran, its proxies, and the Bibi administration versus people in Israel and Gaza who wouldprefer to remain alive, I presume? I don't think we have a side in that one. Depending on who "we" refers to, anyway. Any reasonable person would favor the latter side, but most people and all governments seem to favor the former.
You don't think the US has a side in that war!!!???
Or that it is empowering the seige of Gaza?
Joshua,
Must everyone be killed or starved to death or removed from the Gaza strip before this war can end?
Do I have to define the meaning of 'we', now? Good God.
What's unique about having formerly been subjugated as part of an empire?
Nothing.
What does the historical relationship between the USSR/Russia/Ukraine entail? A helluva lot more than subjugation and empire.
Must I define unique? :)
Caddy
How would we feel if Russia somehow recruited Canada into some sort of "military alliance against the U.S."??
As I said, most people and all governments seem to be on the side of Iran and the Bibi administration. I am not. So there is no "we" that's all on one side, and includes both me and my government.
And yes, the Holodomor goes beyond mere subjugation. But not in a direction that would be a point in favor of granting Moscow dominion over Ukrainian foreign policy.
Also, the Holodomor is, alas, not all that unique. Governments have used famine as a weapon against subjugated populations regularly for as long as there have been governments.
Dan,
WE are having a conversation - with regard to Ukraine/Russia, at least - that is akin to two ships passing in the night.
The unique nature of the totality of their relationship - geopolitically, culturally, historically, and every other which way - is what largely makes Ukraine's membership in NATO unlikely to occur and what makes Ukraine different in that regard from Sweden and even Finland.
I wish it wasn't necessary to keep repeating things that should go without saying.
Re [35], Russians are entitled to feel however they feel. Russia is not entitled to wars of conquest. Expansionist empires can always manipulate their own feelings into support for conquest of whatever territory seems vulnerable. "Fifty-four forty or fight" didn't fizzle out because of a change in feelings. It fizzled because the prospects for a war with Britain were insufficiently favorable. And if Canada wanted to apply for membership in the Warsaw Pact (in its new and diminishedform as the CSTO), that would be rightfully their decision to make.
I don't know whether everyone in this conversation favors the same side in the war in Israel/Palestine. It seems unlikely.
So long as the decision of whether Ukraine will apply for NATO membership can only be made in Moscow, not Kyiv, that's Russian dominion over Ukrainian foreign policy. There's nothing about cultural similarity that can possibly provide any justification for such dominion.
Dan[40],
I agree with ALL of that, wholeheartedly.
Does that surprise you. ;)
And if Canada wanted to apply for membership in the Warsaw Pact (in its new and diminished form as the CSTO), that would be rightfully their decision to make.
And, I surmise you would then be in support of the US doing what it needed to do to prevent Canada from joining a military alliance with Russia ...
Are we having fun yet? :)
[41] Yes, it does. I'd definitely gotten the impression that you regarded the unique historical connection as justifying having that decision made in Moscow.
[42] The only US roles in that decision that I would support would be (1) ensuring that it doesn't give Canada any reason to feel any need for such an alliance, and (2) sharing information with Canada documenting the fact that such an alliance would foreseeably lead to outcomes that Canada wouldn't like. Of course, if Manifest Destiny were still central to US policy, then the alliance would presumably be the lesser evil for Canada.
[Re. 41] Nothing justifies what Putin has done in Ukraine. And, I have never said nor intimated that anything did.
[Re. 42] Fair enough. :)
Too bad Putin didn't choose the course of action you would have supported in the Canadian analogy, eh?
"Must everyone be killed or starved to death or removed from the Gaza strip before this war can end?"
Nope, Hamas just needs to stop fighting and return whatever hundred or so hostages remain. That would be sufficient, but they do seem determined to force their constituency into death and starvation instead.
Yes, Joshua, I think you are right to say that Hamas could end the US-empowered Israeli siege of Gaza by doing what you suggest.
Israel would then, presumably, have a decision to make. Continue the war as they have been waging it, anyway, in order to put an end to Hamas, once and for all or change strategy and take a more surgical and clandestine approach to rooting out the rest of Hamas. But, whatever route Israel takes, so long as there is no political component to the effort of eliminating Hamas that accounts for the rights of the Palestinian people, it's hard to see how Israel can ever achieve peace and security for all of its citizens.
What happens if Hamas does not agree to stop fighting and release all of the remaining hostages and Israel continues to block aid to Gaza and flatten what is left of it? I mean, where would that leave Israel in its struggle for a democratic, secure and peaceful state of existence?
"Full-Blown Famine" in Northern Gaza
I'd definitely gotten the impression that you regarded the unique historical connection as justifying having that decision made in Moscow.
In reality, I actually regarded the unique historical connection as justifying that decision being made in Ukraine, encouraged by the US and NATO and EU. Imagine how that course of action would have positively impacted on the
sovereignty and security and prosperity of Ukraine.
Now, some people around here are convinced that Putin would have invaded Ukraine, regardless. Of course, the same people would argue that Putin has his sights on the rest of Europe, as well. Heh.
By that decision in [50], I mean the decision not to seek membership in NATO.
"Of course, the same people would argue that Putin has his sights on the rest of Europe, as well. Heh."
not most of europe, just the historical Russian empire, circa 1894. and if they did argue that, they'd be right.
"What happens if Hamas does not agree to stop fighting and release all of the remaining hostages and Israel continues to block aid to Gaza and flatten what is left of it? I mean, where would that leave Israel in its struggle for a democratic, secure and peaceful state of existence?"
closer than any "deal" that leaves Hamas intact and with the capability of striking again.
not most of europe, just the historical Russian empire, circa 1894. and if they did argue that, they'd be right.
Hardly. They are ascribing far too much capability to Russia, given how, ah, well Russia is doing in a non-NATO country.
What makes them think Russia would do better invading a NATO country!?
and yes, it truly is terrible for the children of Gaza, that their leadership is unable to accept the situation as it is (Israel left right and center determined to end Hamas rule at nearly all costs), rather than as they'd imagine it to be (Israel internally divided and subject to outside influence). i'm not claiming moral superiority here, just pointing out the reality of the situation. it really does suck, but that's where we are.
Do you think Hamas is Israel's only concern?
"They are ascribing far too much capability to [insert imperial power here]"
...said Neville Chamberlain and every other poor soul with a signed treaty and a promise of non-aggression.
Not a great analogy.
"Do you think Hamas is Israel's only concern?"
do you think cancer is the only potential cause of death?
I asked because you seem to think that Israel could wipe out Hamas - and all of Gaza and its people along with it - and that would be the end of it. In other words, defeating Hamas is worth committing genocide ie the end justifies the means.
All I am saying is that if Israel continues on its current path, even if it eliminates every vestige of Hamas, it will still have the fight of its life on its hands to ensure a democratic, secure and peaceful Jewish state ... and, then, would the ends still have justified the means?
do you think cancer is the only potential cause of death?
Another bad analogy. Where's Dan when you need him!?
I think we better call it a night. :)
holy strawman argument batman! (panda #11 for those playing at home)
"All I am saying is that if Israel continues on its current path, even if it eliminates every vestige of Hamas, it will still have the fight of its life on its hands to ensure a democratic, secure and peaceful Jewish state ..."
that isn't even remotely all you're saying. but let's play the game; if Israel engages in a permanent ceasefire, thereby allowing Hamas to continue its leadership role in gaza, it would still have the fight of its life, plus hamas. from the Israeli perspective, after October 7 a long-term ceasefire with Hamas still in charge has no upside.
"and, then, would the ends still have justified the means?"
who said anything about justification? it's clearly unjust. it's also necessary. not easy things to reconcile, but again, that's where we are.
...if Israel engages in a permanent ceasefire, thereby allowing Hamas to continue its leadership role in gaza, it would still have the fight of its life, plus hamas. from the Israeli perspective, after October 7 a long-term ceasefire with Hamas still in charge has no upside
I completely agree with that. I'm just saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat(fish) and one way could be far better the one underway now.
Oh, and enough with the panda nonsense. It's so juvenile.
Good night.
who said anything about justification? it's clearly unjust. it's also necessary. not easy things to reconcile, but again, that's where we are.
Indeed. Now, you may be beginning to understand how I have been feeling about having every bloody thing I write here having to do with Ukraine or Gaza misconstrued due to a simple failure to put a little effort into understanding without jumping to easy conclusions.
Over and out. :)
we can't hold others responsible for reading what we write, rather that some other thing that we purportedly meant to write but didn't.
I spend way too much time here and you are making it easier for me to walk away ... even though I'm finding it hard to do that this night. :(
During a war, the differences within a side are relatively inconsequential, no matter how important they may become later. WWII was won with contributions that prominently included American trucks and Soviet blood. The enmity that would develop after 1945 did not matter much to the events of 1944.
Likewise, it's possible that discord between Hamas and the Bibi administration could become consequential later, or between Bibi and Iran, or between Iran and Hamas. For now, though, there are two sides: people who are set on maintaining a hellscape where every day's forecast calls for a heavy rain of high explosives, versus people who want to live under conditions where they can have a reasonable expectation of surviving any particular week. Divisions within each side don't really matter.
It might be an interesting thought exercise to contemplate what an Israeli administration might do if it wanted to get rid of Hamas, instead of doing its utmost to recruit more fighters and donors for Hamas; or what Hamas would do if it wanted freedom and dignity for Palestinians. But it would be nothing more than a thought exercise.
it's also necessary
"Necessary" can mean two things.
First, it can refer to propositions that are not contingent, but are true in all possible worlds, like the basic statements of arithmetic. The actions in question clearly aren't "necessary" in that sense. The Israeli government could choose to turn against Hamas. Of course I don't think it will any time soon, but it could.
Second, "necessary" can mean necessary for some purpose. Often, the word is used without stating the purpose, as a way of insinuating that the purpose in question is supposed to be beyond question. In general, it shouldn't be. In this instance, it very much shouldn't be.
@dan,
Fair point. In this case it is both kinds of necessary. To anyone familiar with the conflict, there exists no other way Israel could or would respond to the events of October 7. A supermajority of Israelis believe that the state's very existence depends on responding to every politically motivated attack on its citizens with disproportionate force, and damn the torpedoes.
There is news of a possible cease-fire.
It's not particularly plausible that Israel would have opposed Hamas instead of doing its utmost to recruit more Hamas fighters and Hamas donors, as it actually did. But it's possible as a hypothetical that it could have responded differently, and it's possible that it might change course in the future. Israel does not absolutely have to be set on its own destruction the way it is.
And even if Israel is set on doing whatever is necessary for its own destruction, there are other means it could use. Simply having all Israelis emigrate, and then disbanding the government-in-exile, for example, would accomplish that end. Recruiting for Hamas isn't necessary for the destruction of the Israeli state. It's merely the means that's politically easiest. Likewise, killing Gazans isn't necessary for the goal of recruiting more Hamas fighters and donors. They could use money to fund Hamas directly, deep-fake video to make it look as though the IDF was committing atrocities, and propaganda to tell prospective fighters and donors around the world that Hamas is the best solution. Killing large numbers of people isn't even a particularly efficient way of doing it, because people tend to start being perceived as statistics after some point.
Mezzomamma,
No ceasefire ... Israel needs to finish the war and Hamas needs a finish to the war ... and never the 'twain shall meet.
It's just the way it is.
nypoet22
13
You can't spell Palestine without pie
Or please :)
You also can't spell Palestine without penalties.
Elizabeth Miller
4
I've already discussed in great detail why I think the idea of Ukraine in NATO has been a bad idea, since the break-up of the Soviet Union through to today.
I must have missed that discussion "in great detail." I recall a lot of Biden blaming and bashing but no "great detail" about why "Ukraine in NATO has been a bad idea."
Despite all the bravado surrounding Ukraine's potential membership coming from the US and NATO, there doesn't seem to be any realistic prospect of it ever happening.
What you actually posted more resembled it was never going to happen in the past and never going to happen in the future and that no other commenter here would admit that. (paraphrasing, of course)
No offense, but I would wager without hesitation that the founding fathers of the United States in 1776 would find infinite humor in the prospect that the Kingdom of Great Britain would ever be one of America's closest of friends and allies.
Ironically, Putin's unwise actions have resulted in the very thing he sought to avoid.
So wasn't it you who claimed NATO was "never" going to become part of NATO? Rhetorical question; it was you. And wasn't Putin's invasion (not for the first time) of Ukraine allegedly because he wanted to keep Ukraine out of NATO? So Ukraine is (still) out of NATO, and if Ukraine was never (your term) going to be part of NATO either in the past or in the future, why would Putin ever need to seek to avoid such a thing? I double dog dare you to (finally) connect the dots.
Of course, as I have mentioned once or twice before, Finland and Sweden might as well be in a different universe from Ukraine when it comes to NATO admitting new members.
Then you gave ridiculous reasons (my opinion) why they're so different from Ukraine where NATO is concerned when they're actually not.
I've been told this place is archived - maybe Kick can help you find my remarks addressing this subject.
You help him. I think it would be a waste of his (or anyone's time) to read it... so I'll do him a favor and not.
And, after you read what I wrote, you might consider taking a look at your responses back to me to understand why I'm a bit reticent about rehashing it all again. Ahem.
If he hasn't read it, then how did he already respond to it? Duh.
C. R. Stucki
35
How would we feel if Russia somehow recruited Canada into some sort of "military alliance against the U.S."??
I would "feel" like (some) Canadians have lost their damn minds. In other words, no different than I already feel. :)
Kick,
Quit while you're not completely lost as you are not making a lot of sense.
Relax and have a great rest of the evening!
Elizabeth Miller
63
Oh, and enough with the panda nonsense. It's so juvenile.
It isn't "juvenile" in the sense you mean it here, but it is most definitely written so that even a juvenile can understand and recognize when someone -- for instance, you -- are spewing an argument from fallacy:
20 Logical Fallacies That Dumb People Use To Win Arguments, And How To Spot Them
The call word is "panda." :)
Elizabeth Miller
78
Quit while you're not completely lost as you are not making a lot of sense.
I have no control over the abilities of other commenters when it comes to understanding English. Therefore, if you cannot make "a lot of sense" out of my posts, then you might definitely want to reconsider who is "completely lost." Just saying.
Relax and have a great rest of the evening!
I always do... with or without your approval. :)
@dan [72-73],
you obviously disagree with me (and around 80% of israelis) about how necessary the present war is toward the goal of israeli survival, but that's their decision to make, not ours.
JL
Joshua,
Of course it is their decision to make. That goes without saying. But, we are still allowed to voice our opinions on that decision and call it out for what it is. This is a blog, after all.
Joshua,
Israel does have options. They don't have to kill or starve everybody to be secure.
Do you ever wonder what might happen if Israel had acted in ways that actually help the Palestinian people in Gaza instead of starving them to death. What if Israel did everything in its mighty power to improve the lives of the people of Gaza and the West Bank while at the same time explaining how Hamas and other terrorist organizations are only in it for the cycle of violence and power.
Israel Tells Rafah residents to evacuate to ...
At some point, when the atrocities become sufficiently extreme, it becomes everyone's responsibility to intervene.
And once again, not only does Israel not have to pursue its own destruction by recruiting for Hamas: it does not have to pursue its own destruction at all. It could have engaged with both regional powers, seeking to get Iran to stop funding and supplying Hamas, and to get Saudi to pressure Qatar (and whoever else in the region had lots of people who had already been funding Hamas) to crack down on such funding. It could have engaged with both superpowers, seeking to have them put additional pressure on the regional powers, and to put pressure on others who fund Hamas in Algeria, Turkey, Sudan, and elsewhere. It could have very effectively thwarted Hamas's main immediate goal of keeping Gazans in misery and humiliation, and thus unable to organize any meaningful political alternative to Hamas. There was an enormous amount of sympathy for Israel following 10/7, and it was entirely foreseeable that a policy of indiscriminate thousandfold vengeance would destroy that sympathy.
Elizabeth Miller
83
Israel does have options.
Doesn't that also "go without saying"? Rhetorical question.
They don't have to kill or starve everybody to be secure.
Non-serious and another strawman argument, Elizabeth. Obviously, Israel has no plans to "kill or starve everybody" for any reason. Full disclosure: I'm not privy to Israel's actual plans, but these repetitive strawman arguments you favor are so outlandish as to be infinitely laughable, among other things.
Do you ever wonder what might happen if Israel had acted in ways that actually help the Palestinian people in Gaza instead of starving them to death.
I sometimes wonder why you ask a shit-ton of questions while frequently ending them with a period instead of the proper punctuation, thus making them seem more like accusations that actual questions.
What if Israel did everything in its mighty power to improve the lives of the people of Gaza and the West Bank while at the same time explaining how Hamas and other terrorist organizations are only in it for the cycle of violence and power.
What if a commenter kept repetitively asking questions that seemed more like accusations?
Israel Tells Rafah residents to evacuate to ...
Why would Israel do that if they wanted to "kill or starve everybody"? Rhetorical question.
Did you see where Israel wants them to go? Obviously not. ;)
Dan,
Your ideas for options are serious and good ones.
Unfortunately, the art of diplomacy has fallen by the wayside in favour of military options ... for reasons that I guess should be obvious, if disheartening.
Dan,
At some point, when the atrocities become sufficiently extreme, it becomes everyone's responsibility to intervene.
Indeed.
i don't even know where to start. how do you judge when "atrocities become sufficiently extreme," and if they are extreme, how extreme? who's reporting it, how reliable are they, and to what extent is their information accurate? why intervene against our ally over a difference of opinion as to whether or not their response to an ACTUAL atrocity is justified or useful? you seem very willing to impose your view on Israel, but not all that willing to accept the possibility that their own perspective might be valid.
Joshua,
It sounds like you are trying very hard to dismiss what our own eyes can see and what our own ears can hear when the IDF spokesmen speak.
Are all news reports accurate? Of course, not. Are critically thinking people able to discern fact from fiction? Absolutely.
For example, when the IDF says that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, what is a thinking person supposed to do with such an assertion?
"Are critically thinking people able to discern fact from fiction?"
not on your life.
You can't possibly mean that.
That's amusing because you come across as being able to do just that. Perhaps your critical thinking skills are unique in the world.
[84] The sole criterion by which an "actual" atrocity is contrasted with merely killing tens of thousands of civilians and making millions homeless, apparently, is the identity of the victims. Or is it just that "actual" atrocities don't kill as many people.
As I have said repeatedly, if not all that recently, Hamas is evil and should be destroyed. The killing that Israel is doing in its effort to recruit for Hamas is evil mainly because it’s completely unjustified large-scale killing, humiliation, and displacement of members of a disadvantaged group. But the fact that it’s being done in the service of recruiting for Hamas is a significant additional aggravating factor.
@dan,
your snark is noted, and the customary eyeroll proferred.
Unnecessarily dismissive.
he's intentionally reversing israel's purpose and conflating it with Hamas' purpose to make a point. it's sarcastic and non-serious.
the definition of genocide includes an element of intent. the state of israel writ large is trying NOT to harm so many civilians; those who ARE harmed are numerous and not insignificant, but it's unintentional. the goal is to ELIMINATE hamas' military capability in gaza, and it's Hamas who intentionally puts civilians in harm's way as a propaganda strategy. based on the response of the global Left (liz and dan included), that strategy seems to be working.
JL
The only part I'm being sarcastic about is the description of killing 1200 people as an "actual" atrocity, in contrast to the killing of tens of thousands, which must presumably be considered "virtual" or something.
Israel's response absolutely was and is damaging to Israel itself, and beneficial to Hamas. That effect absolutely was and is foreseeable. Characterizing the absolutely foreseeable effect of Israel's actions as Israel's apparent intent is overstatement, but not sarcasm. Israel is at least willfully disregarding its own well-being, in its quest for bloody vengeance, if not actively seeking to harm itself.
It's the nature of politics: a political interaction is one wherein all of us together are stupider and more mean-spirited than any of us would be individually. The Bibi government and its core supporters benefit by harming Israel, and unless they're unfathomably stupid, they know it.
I'm also not being sarcastic, or ironic or anything similar, in saying that Hamas is evil. Hamas absolutely is evil, and the fact that Israel's actions foreseeably help Hamas absolutely makes those actions worse.
[14]
dsws wrote,
Even after that, the current members of the alliance will still have reason to see Ukraine more as a country that they'll have to help defend against Russian attack, rather than primarily as a country that can help defend them.
You mean that Ukraine isn’t defending Europe by defending itself?
Ukraine is both the largest non-Russian country in Europe and has the largest non-Russian military. They have more combat experience than any other European country and besides that “breadbasket of Europe” feature there have been a ton of newly discovered resources in the east and in the Sea of Azov. I’d say Europe needs Ukraine to a far greater degree than you think.
It makes a great deal of sense for Ukraine to have closer ties with Europe and, indeed, join the EU. This will probably be a big part of any deal to end the war.
[38]
Elizabeth wrote,
WE are having a conversation - with regard to Ukraine/Russia, at least - that is akin to two ships passing in the night.
The unique nature of the totality of their relationship - geopolitically, culturally, historically, and every other which way - is what largely makes Ukraine's membership in NATO unlikely to occur and what makes Ukraine different in that regard from Sweden and even Finland.
I wish it wasn't necessary to keep repeating things that should go without saying.
Oh yeah, why? How does Russian subjugation of Ukraine over the last three centuries make Ukrainians less eligible to join NATO? Poland and the Baltics were similarly ruled by Russia so should they not be in NATO?
Frankly, my dear, this is where you sound like a Putin apologist.
Joshua,
I understand the reflex to be dismissive but understanding can only be improved by way of respectful engagement without insulting the intelligence of fellow commenters.
I wish it could be that we are able to voice an opinion based on a fair amount of knowledge without being accused of simple-minded parroting of propaganda and/or being part of the "global Left", implying God knows what.
Genocide, as a legal term, does indeed have a necessary element of intent which is decided by courts. Of course, Israel and the US are under no obligation to abide by what the International Criminal Court says. However, both countries will become more isolated so long as they stay the course.
Caddy,
Oh yeah, why? How does Russian subjugation of Ukraine over the last three centuries make Ukrainians less eligible to join NATO? Poland and the Baltics were similarly ruled by Russia so should they not be in NATO? Frankly, my dear, this is where you sound like a Putin apologist.
SIGH.
You continue to ask the wrong questions and imply that I have asserted something that I have not.
Again and for the last time, the Ukrainian/Russian/Soviet historical relationship is about a helluva lot more than you seem to think. All of which makes Ukraine different and unique among countries who have joined NATO.
Assad and Putin massacre hundreds of thousands of civilians and not a peep from the Left. Israel is defending itself as judiciously as it can under the circumstances and is being held to a far higher standard than even we Americans held ourselves to when we invaded and occupied Iraq under Dubya.
Israel is not committing genocide. If it were it would have simply sealed off Gaza back in October and bombed the hell out of the whole place — end of Hamas and end of two million Palestinians!
So I’ve no clue how you view it differently and why Ukraine should be treated any differently than freedom-loving peoples in Finland and Poland and the Baltic. I’ll stop asking if you elaborate…
Israel has killed 30 times more children in Gaza than Russians have in Ukraine over the last two years plus.
Do you not know anything about Ukraine/Russia/USSR beyond your subjugation argument?
What’s your source?
AS for the history of relations between Ukraine and Russia, I have read about this over the years from a variety of resources but here is something I just found in a matter of minutes ...
https://www.historyhit.com/ukraine-and-russia-history-ussr/
What’s your source [for saying that 30 times more children killed in Gaze since October 2023 than by Russians in Ukraine in more than two years]?
The United Nations.
Caddy,
What’s your source [for saying that 30 times more children killed in Gaze since October 2023 than by Russians in Ukraine in more than two years]?
The United Nations.
...according to the Hamas reporting service, who have reported statistical near impossibilities which are clearly fabrications, and admitted to inflating their numbers by at least a third.
do you know anything about anything, beyond your own echo chamber?
The numbers have not been disputed by any international agency that I know of.
And, I've already told you that I am an idiot. ;)
I also know that you are the expert on anything that matters. ;)
Sigh.
By the way, how's life your little echo chamber.
This is how you are coming across here ... for your information. Ahem.
"I wish it could be that we are able to voice an opinion based on a fair amount of knowledge"
I wish you were too.
Enough!
[109]
Okay, this article summarizes just how tough on Ukraine Russia has been going back two centuries. If anything it justifies Ukraine’s desire to escape Russian domination rather than justifying Russia’s invasions. Care to post something germane? And why is Ukraine in NATO such a bad idea? You haven’t come close to answering my query.
Nothing justifies Russia's invasions.
I'm done with you.
Yer done, huh?
Before you go, please tell me why you think that Ukraine in NATO is such a bad idea