Wish I could vote for him.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-leaders-lying-putin-invasion-ukraine

It's good etiquette to post a summary

Bidens leg hairs said:

---

It's good etiquette to post a summary

---

Tucker excoriates our leadership then shows clip of Nigel Farage a few years ago. Nigel says we need to make clear that Ukraine will not become part of NATO. Doing so would chill Putin a bit. Putin could be a useful limited ally against Islamic extremism and could help stabilize the ME. Get over our personal dislike for him.

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

Tucker excoriates our leadership then shows clip of Nigel Farage a few years ago. Nigel says we need to make clear that Ukraine will not become part of NATO. Doing so would chill Putin a bit. Putin could be a useful limited ally against Islamic extremism and could help stabilize the ME. Get over our personal dislike for him.

---

It's too late for that now. HTH.

Biden and others were making to much money to worry about things like that.

Tucker is an idiot if he really believes that this was about NATO membership, and disingenuous in his angle otherwise. After Putin created territorial disputes in Ukraine it wasn't possible for them to join per NATO charter. So, that's just lazy isht.

Much of that assumes Putin wouldn't attempt to seize other countries if not provoked. An argument can be made that Putin would still attempt to seize other countries no matter what course of action or provocation Western countries took.

Look at the statements being made by people in power in Russia are openly stating about reunification of the Soviet Union. The people in power in Russia have delusions of grandeur regarding the failed Soviet Union.

my pathetic 2 cents

Rossticus said:

---

Tucker is an idiot if he really believes that this was about NATO membership, and disingenuous in his angle otherwise. After Putin created territorial disputes in Ukraine it wasn't possible for them to join per NATO charter. So, that's just lazy isht.

---

yes we know you incapable of any other thought. Farge is right here.

richardag said:

---

Much of that assumes Putin wouldn't attempt to seize other countries if not provoked. An argument can be made that Putin would still attempt to seize other countries no matter what course of action or provocation Western countries took.

Look at the statements being made by people in power in Russia are openly stating about reunification of the Soviet Union. The people in power in Russia have delusions of grandeur regarding the failed Soviet Union.

my pathetic 2 cents

---

Yep. Additionally, Putin started gearing up for this economically in 2018 at the latest as is evidenced by verifiable actions previously discussed in the Ukraine thread. He didn't just pull this out of his butt.

aezmvp said:

---

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

Tucker excoriates our leadership then shows clip of Nigel Farage a few years ago. Nigel says we need to make clear that Ukraine will not become part of NATO. Doing so would chill Putin a bit. Putin could be a useful limited ally against Islamic extremism and could help stabilize the ME. Get over our personal dislike for him.

---

It's too late for that now. HTH.

---

True, but we need to remind people how we got here and who led us here. It also is the way out in the end, poking Putin is always going to get him to react. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it but we need to be a hell of a lot smarter about it. Trump seemed to understand that. He spoke softly about Putin but he also drew very clear lines about what he would and what he wouldn't put up with and slapped the crap out of Putin's hands when he crossed them. Instead we now have an inconsistent foreign policy that seems very reactive and focused on tough words and actions that make no sense.

More importantly though we need to embrace our new role in a post Globalization world. That means we fiercely protect our own interests but if it isn't in our interests we need to step back. Unless we want to be a true empire and all that entails in terms of forcing our will on other countries we need to realize that other countries are going to do things we don't like but we need to keep the eye on the ball on what OUR interests are or else we are begging for more quagmires.

Valtrex11 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Tucker is an idiot if he really believes that this was about NATO membership, and disingenuous in his angle otherwise. After Putin created territorial disputes in Ukraine it wasn't possible for them to join per NATO charter. So, that's just lazy isht.

---

yes we know you incapable of any other thought. Farge is right here.

---

No he's wrong and so are you. Unequivocally.

Prove that there is evidence to support NATO altering their charter to allow Ukraine to join despite their territorial disputes or that Russia planned to withdraw from Crimea and Donbas to thereby resolve these disputes and allow for NATO membership to become a renewed threat.

Lay out your evidence for that case.

So Russia wanted to control its neighbor by having a pro Russian president installed .Hmmm where have I heard this before? Monroe Doctrine, multiple regime changes in central and south America. Invading of Panama and Granda.....I am not supporting what Putin did here but Frage is right here poke the Russian bear and it will fight back.

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

Tucker excoriates our leadership then shows clip of Nigel Farage a few years ago. Nigel says we need to make clear that Ukraine will not become part of NATO. Doing so would chill Putin a bit. Putin could be a useful limited ally against Islamic extremism and could help stabilize the ME. Get over our personal dislike for him.

---

What has poor ole Putin ever done to warrant our "personal dislike" for him? We are just being meanies to him because we don't like him and now he is acting out.

Farge is right I wouldn't expect the dummies on this board to understand his point .

Valtrex11 said:

---

So Russia wanted to control its neighbor by having a pro Russian president installed .Hmmm where have I heard this before? Monroe Doctrine, multiple regime changes in central and south America. Invading of Panama and Granda.....I am not supporting what Putin did here but Frage is right here poke the Russian bear and it will fight back.

---

Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 without being "poked". Unless Ukraine's will and ability to begin circumventing Russian interference/influence in internal politics constitutes "poking".

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

Farge is right I wouldn't expect the dummies on this board to understand his point .

---

His point isn't defensible by the actual evidence. If a point fails in the face of evidence then those who keep advancing it despite its logical failure are the dummies.

Congratulations.

Agreed it's an oversimplification. It might have increased political pressure on Putin not to invade as he couldn't sell the people and powers that be that Ukraine is a security threat. But who knows how tangible that would be given he is a dictator with few significant political foes and, as you allude to, there are more significant strategic and economic reasons why Russia invaded.

Cuban missle crisis we did notmallow Cuba to make its own decision as sovereign nation we threatened war like Russia. Its not entirely different...

Farge's argument was to bring Putin to the table negotiate the future of Ukraine.

Rossticus said:

---

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

Farge is right I wouldn't expect the dummies on this board to understand his point .

---

His point isn't defensible by the actual evidence. If a point fails in the face of evidence then those who keep advancing it despite its logical failure are the dummies.

Congratulations.

---

Exhibit A

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

Farge is right I wouldn't expect the dummies on this board to understand his point .

---

His point isn't defensible by the actual evidence. If a point fails in the face of evidence then those who keep advancing it despite its logical failure are the dummies.

Congratulations.

---

Exhibit A

---

You are indeed. Can't argue for your point to save your life.

Rossticus said:

---

Valtrex11 said:

---

So Russia wanted to control its neighbor by having a pro Russian president installed .Hmmm where have I heard this before? Monroe Doctrine, multiple regime changes in central and south America. Invading of Panama and Granda.....I am not supporting what Putin did here but Frage is right here poke the Russian bear and it will fight back.

---

Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 without being "poked". Unless Ukraine's will and ability to begin circumventing Russian interference/influence in internal politics constitutes "poking".

---

The US has the Monroe Doctrine saying no foreign military in the entire Western Hemisphere. A massive buffer.

When the USSR broke up in the early 90's we agreed no NATO in Ukraine. Russia wanted a buffer state so missiles weren't right on the border. (Remember the Cuban missile crisis…same thing with sides reversed.)

There is also the fact that Ukraine has actually been Russia since Peter the Great in the 1700's. From 1700ish-1991 this land was Russia. We peeled it off when the USSR collapsed. Easy to see how Russians view it as their land.

You cannot take simplistic view ignoring history.

Rossticus said:

---

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

Farge is right I wouldn't expect the dummies on this board to understand his point .

---

His point isn't defensible by the actual evidence. If a point fails in the face of evidence then those who keep advancing it despite its logical failure are the dummies.

Congratulations.

---

Exhibit A

---

You are indeed. Can't argue for your point to save your life.

---

Some quote about suffering fools here

What a useless article.

Tex117 said:

---

What a useless article.

---

This guy is on your side of the argument lol...I feel vindicated.

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Hydrocele_aggie said:

---

Farge is right I wouldn't expect the dummies on this board to understand his point .

---

His point isn't defensible by the actual evidence. If a point fails in the face of evidence then those who keep advancing it despite its logical failure are the dummies.

Congratulations.

---

Exhibit A

---

You are indeed. Can't argue for your point to save your life.

---

Some quote about suffering fools here

---

You bring one to mind.

"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Valtrex11 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Valtrex11 said:

---

So Russia wanted to control its neighbor by having a pro Russian president installed .Hmmm where have I heard this before? Monroe Doctrine, multiple regime changes in central and south America. Invading of Panama and Granda.....I am not supporting what Putin did here but Frage is right here poke the Russian bear and it will fight back.

---

Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 without being "poked". Unless Ukraine's will and ability to begin circumventing Russian interference/influence in internal politics constitutes "poking".

---

The US has the Monroe Doctrine saying no foreign military in the entire Western Hemisphere. A massive buffer.

When the USSR broke up in the early 90's we agreed no NATO in Ukraine. Russia wanted a buffer state so missiles weren't right on the border. (Remember the Cuban missile crisis…same thing with sides reversed.)

There is also the fact that Ukraine has actually been Russia since Peter the Great in the 1700's. From 1700ish-1991 this land was Russia. We peeled it off when the USSR collapsed. Easy to see how Russians view it as their land.

You cannot take simplistic view ignoring history.

---

False argument, unless you believe we should return the US to the American Indians. Or maybe pretty much the known world to Greece after Alexander the Great. How far back in history would you like to go?

Valtrex11 said:

---

Cuban missle crisis we did notmallow Cuba to make its own decision as sovereign nation we threatened war like Russia. Its not entirely different...

Farge's argument was to bring Putin to the table negotiate the future of Ukraine.

---

Negotiating on behalf of another country with their main foe on the merits and limits of its existence has always worked out so well....

Valtrex11 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Valtrex11 said:

---

So Russia wanted to control its neighbor by having a pro Russian president installed .Hmmm where have I heard this before? Monroe Doctrine, multiple regime changes in central and south America. Invading of Panama and Granda.....I am not supporting what Putin did here but Frage is right here poke the Russian bear and it will fight back.

---

Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 without being "poked". Unless Ukraine's will and ability to begin circumventing Russian interference/influence in internal politics constitutes "poking".

---

The US has the Monroe Doctrine saying no foreign military in the entire Western Hemisphere. A massive buffer.

When the USSR broke up in the early 90's we agreed no NATO in Ukraine. Russia wanted a buffer state so missiles weren't right on the border. (Remember the Cuban missile crisis…same thing with sides reversed.)

There is also the fact that Ukraine has actually been Russia since Peter the Great in the 1700's. From 1700ish-1991 this land was Russia. We peeled it off when the USSR collapsed. Easy to see how Russians view it as their land.

You cannot take simplistic view ignoring history.

---

NATO is already on their border and there are no US missile installations. Ukraine was unable to join NATO due to territorial disputes and even if they were, the absence of US missiles in other NATO border states invalidates that "concern". Your Cuban comparison is therefore a false one.

Even IF we're to assume that UKRAINE in NATO was a near term possibility it would not have been in violation of any official agreement, treaty, legally binding document, etc.

NATO doesn't constitute a "foreign military presence". NATO is a collective defensive alliance made up of 30 nations, almost all of which are European, and lend their combined forces in the interest of collective defense. Your Monroe doctrine comparison is a false equivalency as NATO is neither an independent sovereign entity nor a foreign military presence or power.

Ukraine had been fighting for their independence for centuries yet losing and being ground into submission by Russia. They were not peeled off of Russia against their will by "we" upon the death of the Soviet Union. They chose to be independent when the opportunity availed itself.

Putin's desire to maintain hegemony over historically conquered peoples that he sees as rightful Russian vassals is not remotely a justification for his actions.

Valtrex11 said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

What a useless article.

---

This guy is on your side of the argument lol...I feel vindicated.

---

I mean, not really.

Rossticus said:

---

Tucker is an idiot if he really believes that this was about NATO membership, and disingenuous in his angle otherwise. After Putin created territorial disputes in Ukraine it wasn't possible for them to join per NATO charter. So, that's just lazy isht.

---

Mostly.

NATO accepting the Baltic countries into the alliance created a lot of fear in Russia. From Russia's perspective, those three countries went from controlled satellites to adversaries at the flip of a switch. The West did not appreciate the fact that while on the surface it was a strategic gain for NATO, it sowed the seeds for Putins support from the hardliners in Russia to reclaim the Russian empire, starting with Ukraine.

Ukraine courting NATO membership gave Putin free reign to forcibly reestablish the old Russian empire, with him as a modern Czar.

Hope you were flying to Delaware OP

Central Committee said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Tucker is an idiot if he really believes that this was about NATO membership, and disingenuous in his angle otherwise. After Putin created territorial disputes in Ukraine it wasn't possible for them to join per NATO charter. So, that's just lazy isht.

---

Mostly.

NATO accepting the Baltic countries into the alliance created a lot of fear in Russia. From Russia's perspective, those three countries went from controlled satellites to adversaries at the flip of a switch. The West did not appreciate the fact that while on the surface it was a strategic gain for NATO, it sowed the seeds for Putins support from the hardliners in Russia to reclaim the Russian empire, starting with Ukraine.

Ukraine courting NATO membership gave Putin free reign to forcibly reestablish the old Russian empire, with him as a modern Czar.

---

Therein lies the problem. Russia feels that they're owed controlled satellites and, due to their historically and currently despotic actions undertaken in order to maintain control, they know that if control is lost these countries will not voluntarily choose to remain aligned with Russia but instead seek political and economic insulation as well as military protection from Russia.

This is a problem of Russia's own creation in viewing themselves as being owed the privilege of exploitation over other peoples.