By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
drkohler said:

I was watching the speech of Joe Biden. I was absolutely horrified of what I saw. An old man who couldn't even give a speech for more than three minutes without starting to mumble and incoherently utter meaningless part-phrases. Is this guy senile?

That was the moment when Putin decided he can go after the Ukraine without fear of any reprisals. Seeing his worst "enemy" on tv with such an absolutely catastrophic performance was the get-go sign.

Now we will see umpteen politicians going on tv declaring "we are with the Ukraine",  "Putin bad guy" and all these blatherings really shows that the West has no guts. I give the Ukraine about 48 hours before their politicians run and the country is in Putin's full control.

And this WAS avoidable, but not with a quasi senile US president. And let's face it, the US would have had to bite the bullet and lead the coward pack (Europeans, all talk, no action).

The Ukrainians called upon the United States and Western powers more broadly to, as applicable, abandon the Nord Stream 2 oil pipeline between Russia and Germany and impose serious economic sanctions on Russia immediately like at least a month ago. That was their position. But we knew better! How would the Ukrainians know what's best for Ukraine? Or, more correctly, the corresponding sanctions bill here in the United States was being sponsored by Republicans, so the White House decided, for that reason, that they could not support it. (cue eye roll) Instead, the administration decided to use the threat of sanctions as "leverage" against any not-so-neo colonial ambitions that Putin might have here. That sure showed him.

In theory, the Biden Administration's tempered actions were intended to tamp down hostilities in order to restart negotiations with Putin over the Ukrainian issue. ...I just find that whole premise remarkable as well. Once more we see the basic problem here: Where was the say of the Ukrainians in their own fate? Why was their fate to be negotiated by two other countries? (I'm describing an independent Ukraine in the past tense because, let's get real, we know what the outcome of this war will be.) But of course it's also just naive! Moscow was never looking to negotiate with anyone here, they were testing out where the limits are: What gets a firm response and what doesn't.

This whole mentality reminds me very much of another foreign policy disaster that took place just six months ago when the Taliban overran Kabul in Afghanistan. We had decided, in this case under our previous administration, to negotiate that country's fate with the Taliban to the exclusion of its elected government. The effect was to de-legitimize the very state that tens of thousands of Afghans had given their lives for and overwhelmingly supported despite its many faults. We knew better than the Afghans what was good for Afghanistan! In reality, of course, the Taliban was never interested in negotiating peace, they were simply interested in de-legitimizing the Afghan government and we actively helped them do so. Same basic principle applies here to the situation in Ukraine. Putin was never interested in negotiating peace, he was interested in de-legitimizing Ukraine and its sovereignty and we actively helped him do so.


We should listen to our allies more I guess is what I'm trying to say here. The Kurds. The Afghans. The Ukrainians. Their fates demonstrate our need of listening and caring more about our allies in this world, lest we one day awaken to find ourselves without any because we've sold them all out for convenience.

That would be my assessment.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 24 February 2022