Empire of Lies and brainless zombies

[Wezil]

Yeah, our PM and a couple cabinet Ministers were sanctioned as well. I'm sure they are going to miss vacationing in their Siberian dacha.

[pchang]

I wonder why US and Canadian Oligarchs don't have big mansions in Moscow while Russian Oligarchs have big mansions in London?

[PLATO]

No you don't

[Geronimo]

Now everything that Trump did with regards to Putin makes sense:




Source:
https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/...32314894917645

I hope, the US population is smart enough to not reelect Trump in 2024 ... unfotunately I am pessimistic in these regards

Trump was a terrible president but you do realize that almost every bullet point listed for trump is either grossly inaccurate or even the opposite of the truth.
truth.

[pchang]

No. Only the last item is misleading.

[Geronimo]

Trump endlessly lobbied to increase NATO members military expenditures....an attempt to weaken NATO how?

He certainly held up military aid for 55 days but his predecessor and successor held up aid to Ukraine even longer. Indefinitely for some aid.

Trump shared counter terrorism information but not methods or sources.

Of US presidents more sanctions were placed on Russia under trump than under his predecessors or even his successors until the invasion actually began.

And finally Putin certainly wanted the US to remain a party to arms control treaties that Russia was no longer observing.

Trump has so many appalling deficiencies I'm amazed people feel any need to invent new ones.

Laziness maybe? Mass gas lighting?

[-Jrabbit]

A lot of despicable activity by Trump -- stuff that would have been career-enders for any prior POTUS -- ended up being somehow normalized and accepted. Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm before he could run. Trump kept everything, used his properties for official events, and it was all somehow OK. And that was just the tip of the iceberg. I won't quote chapter and verse; I'll just agree that Trump has many appalling deficiencies. Fortunately, one of the side effects of the current war is to cast Trump's Putin love in sharp relief, right down to massive praise for the alleged brilliance of an invasion plan that we now know was clearly deficient in many ways. Frankly, he looks like an idiot, and it's hard to ignore.

[Geronimo]

I do love that he called the invasion "smart" right before it festered into a total fuster cluck for Russia

[Wezil]

That should have been a huge red flag for Putin. If Trump thinks it is smart is just might be time to reevaluate.

[N35t0r]

So Trump was the harshest US president against Russia in the past 20 years, yet somehow he's not in the list of US officials sanctioned by Russia (but his opponent in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, is)? Odd.

You'll also have to forgive me if I don't believe that Trump's threats of leaving NATO were a smart ploy in order to force the other members to increase military spending. It's hard to believe coming from the same guy who would sharpie a hurricane warning map in order to avoid admitting he made a mistake.

[-Jrabbit]

Agreed re NATO. I don't think Trump wanted to kill NATO, but I'm pretty damned sure he wanted to nerf it so as to remove the threat to his buddy, Putin. He (rightly IMHO) pressured the EU countries to pony up their fair share, and of course alienated most of Europe in the process. Which also pleased Vlad.

[Proteus_MST]

We are also talking about the guy who talked to Putin with only an interpreter present and forbade that any transcripts of the talk be made.

Which is, at least, highly unusual

[-Jrabbit]

Pretty sure that's an illegal act for any POTUS.

[Egbert]

I am getting the very distinct impression that this situation has changed from Putin confidently fighting to subjugate the Ukraine to Putin desperately fighting to keep his job.

This situation looks really bad for Putin. It is a bad situation for the Ukraine who whist getting hurt look increasingly likely to fight off the Russians.

A draw would be satisfactory for the Ukraine but may herald the end of Putin as the ruler of Russia.

[Geronimo]

So Trump was the harshest US president against Russia in the past 20 years, yet somehow he's not in the list of US officials sanctioned by Russia (but his opponent in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, is)? Odd.

You'll also have to forgive me if I don't believe that Trump's threats of leaving NATO were a smart ploy in order to force the other members to increase military spending. It's hard to believe coming from the same guy who would sharpie a hurricane warning map in order to avoid admitting he made a mistake.

I think the Russians are only sanctioning Dems to try to stir the pot politically in the US. It makes perfect sense to do so since they know the sanctions are otherwise entirely symbolic. Extreme partisan division is the most harmful outcome they could hope for. And obviously, bipartisan unity with respect to Russia is very undesirable to them. As for choosing to appear to favor republicans over choosing to favor Democrats in such a strategy, republicans were the obvious choice not just because of notorious comments by noted conservatives but also because of a conservative president so recently investigated for Russian collusion, despite no evidence that it ever occurred.

His threats to leave NATO were stupid and I maintain that he weakened NATO. However, if he wished to undermine NATO, using rhetoric aimed at increasing its funding was stupid as the ploy could in fact have plausibly lead to NATO being strengthened. Trump had a huge array of powerful options to kill NATO and he exercised none of them.

[-Jrabbit]

Frankly, I sincerely doubt that Trump even had a fundamental awareness of what NATO is, how it was formed, or why it exists. He really only sees the world as a series of entries on a balance sheet.

[Wezil]

I don't think Trump could have exited NATO without incredible dissent in his own party and government. The impulse may have been there but not the political capital.

[N35t0r]

He didn't need to actually exit to make NATO look weak / sow distrust among members.

[Geronimo]

DP

[BeBMan]

As far as NATO members upping their spending goes it's fair to say that Putin was finally successful where numerous US presidents - incl. Trump - failed...

He basically made NATO great again.

[PLATO]

So what happens in NATO once peace rings out? If Ukraine becomes the buffer state that Russia wants (Neutral but with a military and security guarantees), then that just leaves the Balkins boardering the murderous Russians (assuming the Fins don't decide to join up). I doubt they would attempt to attack through Ukraine again after the fierce resistance they are facing this time.

Also, if Ukraine does become an armed nuetral, who do they buy their weapons from? What happens if their "neutral" army starts to become powerful enough to threaten areas like Crimea (assuming, of course, that the Russians get Crimea in a settlement)?

[Geronimo]

So what happens in NATO once peace rings out? If Ukraine becomes the buffer state that Russia wants (Neutral but with a military and security guarantees), then that just leaves the Balkins boardering the murderous Russians (assuming the Fins don't decide to join up). I doubt they would attempt to attack through Ukraine again after the fierce resistance they are facing this time.

Also, if Ukraine does become an armed nuetral, who do they buy their weapons from? What happens if their "neutral" army starts to become powerful enough to threaten areas like Crimea (assuming, of course, that the Russians get Crimea in a settlement)?

The resulting treaty should be treated as face saving garbage. Russia already wiped their arses with several treaties relevant to war against Ukraine so maybe the best approach would be to place Ukraine in NATO anyway and explain that the strategic circumstances had changed. Wait for a time that was convenient for Ukraine and inconvenient for Russia.

[BeBMan]

So what happens in NATO once peace rings out? If Ukraine becomes the buffer state that Russia wants (Neutral but with a military and security guarantees), then that just leaves the Balkins boardering the murderous Russians (assuming the Fins don't decide to join up). I doubt they would attempt to attack through Ukraine again after the fierce resistance they are facing this time.

Also, if Ukraine does become an armed nuetral, who do they buy their weapons from? What happens if their "neutral" army starts to become powerful enough to threaten areas like Crimea (assuming, of course, that the Russians get Crimea in a settlement)?

Much depends on stuff we don't know yet - how long is the war going on, what is the outcome, what is the specific conditions/peace settlement, how will Russia look post-war. Do we still get Putin's Russia, WeakPutin, HyperPutin+++ (or equivalent).

If a "neutral" Ukraine would be like Sweden/Finland/Austria they could purchase arms where they want, or even produce some of their own, like Sweden for example.

As for NATO - currently troops levels in eastern Europe are going up, there's also talk about strong perma-presence. Despite Putin's whiny "NATO's encircling us" propaganda this has never really been the case militarily - countries joined politically, but military presence remained rather low. That is changing now for as long as needed.

Personally I'd like to see a return to meaningful security regime incl. arms control at some pt - but right now it's not the time, and also for some reason all those important ppl like Putin don't seem to listen to me

[pchang]

It struck me that the thread title is a very good description of Russia.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

In Soviet Russia, YOU own news outlet that lies to PUTIN.