Maybe something happens, maybe it doesn't but under the senile moron Biden and his band of incompetents nothing ever started

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

We will see. So far nothing has been done. No agreement. Russias ok with us discussing it. Thats about it.

---

But we will continue to get breathless updates from Twitter randos stating that great things are happening.

---

That's the FACT:

1. We're talking
2. We HEARD Russia (Trump emissary there 5x?)
3. CIA meddling minimized
4. Relationships developed, some degree of trust
5. Putin talks w POTUS in Alaska
6. Z civil, making some needed concessions

Anarchistbear said:

---

Maybe something happens, maybe it doesn't but under the senile moron Biden and his band of incompetents nothing ever started

---

" U.S. policy towards the Russian invasion of Ukraine under the Biden administration focused on supporting Ukraine's defense, imposing severe sanctions on Russia, and strengthening the NATO alliance, while seeking to avoid direct military confrontation between the US/NATO and Russia.

Here's a breakdown of the Biden administration's approach:

Condemnation and Accountability: President Biden condemned Russia's actions as an "unprovoked and unjustified" invasion and a violation of international law. The administration vowed to hold Russia accountable for the war and for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Support for Ukraine:
Military Aid: The United States has been a leading provider of security assistance to Ukraine, delivering equipment and training necessary for Ukraine's defense. This has included various weapons systems, ammunition, and training programs, with the goal of enabling Ukraine to defend against Russian aggression. The total military assistance provided since the start of the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, amounts to $66.9 billion as of January 15, 2025.

Humanitarian Aid: The U.S. has provided significant humanitarian aid to Ukraine and countries assisting Ukrainian refugees, working with international organizations and NGOs.

Economic Aid: The U.S. has also provided economic assistance to help the Ukrainian government function and support its people during the conflict.

Sanctions on Russia:
The U.S., in coordination with allies, has imposed extensive sanctions on Russia, targeting its financial institutions, the Russian oil and gas industry, and top Kremlin officials. These sanctions aim to weaken the Russian economy and its ability to fund the war effort.
The sanctions have targeted Russian banks, limiting their access to the global financial system and freezing assets.

Export restrictions have been implemented to cut off Russia's access to vital technology needed for its military and industrial base.
The U.S. also banned imports of Russian oil and natural gas.

Strengthening NATO:
Biden emphasized the unity and determination of the NATO alliance in the face of Russian aggression.
The U.S. has increased its military presence in Europe, deploying additional forces to NATO's eastern flank to deter further Russian expansion and reassure allies. This includes rotational deployments and an enhanced NATO presence in the region. Finland and Sweden also joined NATO during this period, signifying a strengthening of the alliance.

Caution Regarding Escalation: While supporting Ukraine, the Biden administration was initially cautious about actions that could lead to direct conflict between NATO and Russia, particularly concerning the use of U.S.-provided weapons for strikes inside Russian territory. This stance evolved over time, with the U.S. eventually allowing Ukraine to use long-range weapons, such as the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), to hit targets inside Russia in defense of Ukrainian forces. This shift was partly influenced by the changing battlefield realities and a desire to strengthen Ukraine's negotiating position, potentially ahead of future peace talks.

Overall, the Biden administration's approach involved a multi-faceted strategy of strong support for Ukraine, economic pressure on Russia, and bolstering the NATO alliance, while carefully managing the risks of escalation. "
AI Overview

*In order to get what he wants out the invasion, Putin needed Trump back in the Oval so that he could manipulate him into giving him everything he wants. All he has to do is act like he thinks Trump is a Statesman for the Ages and tell him the 2020 Election was rigged.

lol, an uninformed generic opinion

^AI doesn't like to talk about the results of these allegedly principled stances:

-Well over 1 million Ukrainian soldiers dead. millions wounded or crippled.
-Collapse and destruction of Ukrainian economy and society, with mass emigration. Current population in Ukraine proper today is under 20M. In 1990, it was 52M.
-Ukraine lost 4 oblasts, about 20% of its territory.

Continued Nuland/Blinken/NATO policy will result in hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian deaths, further loss of territory to Ukraine, another 25%, all of historic 'Novorossyia' or the Russian-speaking territories, rump Ukraine landlocked.

Under a continuation of this policy, there is nothing we can do to stop this short of starting WW3 in earnest. The weapons cupboards are near empty, the military personnel situation is getting worse for Ukraine, and the sanctions have not worked and aren't going to.

The best time for a comprehensive, long-term deal with Russia is now, they only want an Istanbul Plus type of deal.

The sanctions policy has been roundly ignored by every country not in Europe including allies and has resulted in a new strategic realignment whereupon non European countries are indifferent or sympathetic with Russia

Ukraine has been used as a proxy against Russia resulting in Ukrainians dying instead of Europeans and Americans. This is not only cruel, it is untenable. But to what end?


The war is unwinnable yet no negotiations were initiated under Biden. Instead we have some 21st century trench warfare continuing without pause for something of no strategic threat to the US. Putin is a bad actor but American Presidents have effectively dealt with his type before- Stalin, Mao, Kruschev, Brezhnev. None of Biden's policies have dealt diplomatically or strategically with constraining Putin's ambitions. Instead, more money and more loss of Ukrainian life

Under Biden the US continued to carry NATO's water. Under Trump there is at least a realization that Europe has to be at the forefront of defending their own continent

Those same arguments could be used by any invading country against the target country that vigorously resisted the invasion. Heck, during WWII, Germany would have used those arguments against Western Europe…..had it meaningfully resisted.

With regard to the Reasonable Chance of Success principle of the Just War Theory as it relates to self defense:

Self-defense when facing existential threat: Some scholars argue that if a nation's continued existence and fundamental values are gravely threatened, it may be permissible to engage in self-defense regardless of the probability of success.
AI Overview

You are never going to convince me that the majority of Ukranians are fighting involuntarily against their will. If that was the case there wouldn't be 1M dead/wounded Russian soldiers.

The majority of Ukrainians are not fighting against their will in the war against Russia, according to Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/russia-ukraine-after-three-years-of-large-scale-war/

If the Ukrainians want to Custer Last Stand this thing it's their choice and on them. I don't for one minute think Trump or anyone making excuses for the Russian invasion give a rat's @$$ about the welfare of the Ukrainian people (It reminds me of MAGA shedding alligator tears when claiming sleepy Joe was so cruelly cast aside).

*Never fear, this thing is over, Putin will get everything he wants and Trump will get the Nobel for brokering such a great peace deal.

bearister said:

---

With regard to the Reasonable Chance of Success principle of the Just War Theory as it relates to self defense:

Self-defense when facing existential threat: Some scholars argue that if a nation's continued existence and fundamental values are gravely threatened, it may be permissible to engage in self-defense regardless of the probability of success.

---

What fundamental values? Ukraine, before the war, has been the poorest, most corrupt country in Europe, with a GDP per capita 4.5 times smaller than Russia before the war, despite the fact that Ukraine used to be the richest, most advanced, most industrialized part of the USSR, with the best agricultural land. It has completely botched its post-Soviet transition, while Russia righted the ship in the early 00s.

Ukraine has been the European hub of arms and human trafficking for decades, a failed state subsiding on western NGO money and military buildup. The post-Maidan regime repressed its minorities (not just Russian, but Hungarian and Romanian as well), shut down opposition media, the original Ukrainian Orthodox Church and suppressed the use of the Russian language, while enshrining ultranationalist Bandera ideology into its institutions, from its school curriculum to its renamed city sqaures and thoroghfares.

Quote:

---

The majority of Ukrainians are not fighting against their will in the war against Russia, according to Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/russia-ukraine-after-three-years-of-large-scale-war/

If the Ukrainians want to Custer Last Stand this thing it's their choice and on them. I don't for one minute think Trump or anyone making excuses for the Russian invasion give a rat's @$$ about the welfare of the Ukrainian people (It reminds me of MAGA shedding alligator tears when sleepy Joe was so cruelly cast aside).

*Never fear, this thing is over, Putin will get everything he wants and Trump will get the Nobel for brokering such a great peace deal.

---

Do you think all these videos of Ukrainian fathers being hunted on city streets and thrown into vans are all staged?

Even the more hardcore Ukrainians would never have done a Custer Last Stand is we hadn't egged them on and heavily armed them. They would have instead worked a compromise very early on and adopted the same type of tolerance for their ethno-linguistic minority as the Spaniards, Brits, Canadians or Belgians do.

Brookings is just selling the war, they are just another revolving door mouthpiece of the trillion dollar MIC complex manufacturing consent for a huge boondoggle of a war, and also proponents of the Great Game/Grand Chessboard policy along the lines of the Rand "Extending Russia" whitepaper advocating arming and pushing Ukraine into a war with Russia.

movielover said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

We will see. So far nothing has been done. No agreement. Russias ok with us discussing it. Thats about it.

---

But we will continue to get breathless updates from Twitter randos stating that great things are happening.

---

That's the FACT:

1. We're talking
2. We HEARD Russia (Trump emissary there 5x?)
3. CIA meddling minimized
4. Relationships developed, some degree of trust
5. Putin talks w POTUS in Alaska
6. Z civil, making some needed concessions

---

Maybe something good will come of this. I hope so! At this point in the war (now a seemingly endless stalemate), it seems right to negotiate an ending.

I'm just not going to get too excited until there's a real agreement.

bearister said:

---

Who is on the committee that makes the determination that a country doesn't measure up to certain moral and ethical standards and thus is free game for invasion and takeover?

---

She was the secretary, treasurer and president of that committee.

Cal88 said:

---

bearister said:

---

With regard to the Reasonable Chance of Success principle of the Just War Theory as it relates to self defense:

Self-defense when facing existential threat: Some scholars argue that if a nation's continued existence and fundamental values are gravely threatened, it may be permissible to engage in self-defense regardless of the probability of success.

---

What fundamental values? Ukraine, before the war, has been the poorest, most corrupt country in Europe, with a GDP per capita 4.5 times smaller than Russia before the war, despite the fact that Ukraine used to be the richest, most advanced, most industrialized part of the USSR, with the best agricultural land. It has completely botched its post-Soviet transition, while Russia righted the ship in the early 00s.

Ukraine has been the European hub of arms and human trafficking for decades, a failed state subsiding on western NGO money and military buildup. The post-Maidan regime repressed its minorities (not just Russian, but Hungarian and Romanian as well), shut down opposition media, the original Ukrainian Orthodox Church and suppressed the use of the Russian language, while enshrining ultranationalist Bandera ideology into its institutions, from its school curriculum to its renamed city sqaures and thoroghfares.

Quote:

---

The majority of Ukrainians are not fighting against their will in the war against Russia, according to Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/russia-ukraine-after-three-years-of-large-scale-war/

If the Ukrainians want to Custer Last Stand this thing it's their choice and on them. I don't for one minute think Trump or anyone making excuses for the Russian invasion give a rat's @$$ about the welfare of the Ukrainian people (It reminds me of MAGA shedding alligator tears when sleepy Joe was so cruelly cast aside).

*Never fear, this thing is over, Putin will get everything he wants and Trump will get the Nobel for brokering such a great peace deal.

---

Do you think all these videos of Ukrainian fathers being hunted on city streets and thrown into vans are all staged?

Even the more hardcore Ukrainians would never have done a Custer Last Stand is we hadn't egged them on and heavily armed them. They would have instead worked a compromise very early on and adopted the same type of tolerance for their ethno-linguistic minority as the Spaniards, Brits, Canadians or Belgians do.

Brookings is just selling the war, they are just another revolving door mouthpiece of the trillion dollar MIC complex manufacturing consent for a huge boondoggle of a war, and also proponents of the Great Game/Grand Chessboard policy along the lines of the Rand "Extending Russia" whitepaper advocating arming and pushing Ukraine into a war with Russia.

---

Even if everything you wrote about Ukraine above is true (and based on your posting history, that is highly doubtful), what difference does it make? None of that justifies Putin (who is equally corrupt and in many ways much worse) starting a war and being rewarded for it. Are you suggesting that Ukraine deserved being attacked and/or deserves to lose territory/the war because of what you wrote above? That is preposterous.

There is a reasoned position where a person can be in favor of the war ending now "on the least bad terms" which will, almost certainly, be bad for Ukraine vis-a-vis the status quo ante.

What seems totally unsupportable is to cheerlead and deflect for Russia/Putin as you do. One thing I know for certain - Putin/Russia have been a force of corruption, evil, and violence all over the world far in excess of whatever claims you make about Ukraine. You seem to actively root for Putin to win and it speaks volumes regarding our moral compass.

I hope the war ends because I've concluded it is a stalemate where Ukraine (and by extension its allies including the USA and EU countries) will eventually lose a war of attrition - and that the costs in blood and treasure do not justify continued fighting. I wish that was not so. But on that basis, Putin will be rewarded for starting the war. I view that as a bad but unavoidable result. You seem to welcome it.

Anarchistbear said:

---

lol, an uninformed generic opinion

---

Maybe you should stop giving them.

There are hundreds of videos online showing Ukrainians being kidnapped off the street for warfare. Millions have fled. I've met three Ukranian couples here, men of fighting age, we know why they're here, I never bring it up.

Just tonight a new podcaster to me said Ukraine is enlisting 16-year-old boys, and training 14 year olds. Disgusting.

What is your source for one million dead Russians?

Ukraine doesn't have enough airpower, artillery, ammo, or manpower to enact that kind of damage, especially since Russia has defensive air systems and are now employing a 3 / 6 / 6 (??) attack deployment with drones, after artillery, to further limit casualties. If they happen to stumble into a hornets nest after repeated air bombardment and multiple drones, only 3 men are at risk of death.

The Brookings Institute gave us Igor Danchenko.

FTR:

1. Joe Biden, Jake Sullivan, and Anthony Blinken gave us the disastrous Afghanistan pullout.

2. Some argue long term, demographics work against future Russian military moves, so if they wanted to acquire more of a buffer zone, now was the time.

3. On January 19th, 2022, Biden said: "During his long, rambling Jan. 19 press conference, President Joe Biden made yet another major policy misstep. Russia, he suggested would face but minor consequences if it restrained itself to but a "minor incursion" into Ukraine."

4. 5-6 attempts at serious discussions by Putin over the years, especially regarding NATO expansion eastward, were rebuffed.

5. It's easy to argue these gave Putin a flashing green light.

movielover said:

---

There are hundreds of videos online showing Ukrainians being kidnapped off the street for warfare. Millions have fled. I've met three Ukranian couples here, men of fighting age, we know why they're here, I never bring it up.

Just tonight a new podcaster to me said Ukraine is enlisting 16-year-old boys, and training 14 year olds. Disgusting.

What is your source for one million dead Russians?

Ukraine doesn't have enough airpower, artillery, ammo, or manpower to enact that kind of damage, especially since Russia has defensive air systems and are now employing a 3 / 6 / 6 (??) attack deployment with drones, after artillery, to further limit casualties. If they happen to stumble into a hornets nest after repeated air bombardment and multiple drones, only 3 men are at risk of death.

---

I ask again, why does the bolded matter?

A few simple questions for you - If I gave you a magic wand and you could produce whatever result you wanted from this war:

1. Who do you want to win - Russia or Ukraine? Who would surrender?
2. Would you restore all territory taken by Russia since the beginning of the war to Ukraine, or would you allow Russia to keep some or all of it?
3. Would you leave Putin in power or remove him and replace him with a pro-western leader?

French monitor (2015-2022): Ukraine, NATO provoked Russia in Don-bas war

"Benoit Par is a former French defense ministry analyst who worked as an international monitor in eastern Ukraine from 2015 to 2022.

"In his first interview with a US outlet, Par speaks to The Grayzone's Aaron Mat about the hidden reality of the Ukraine war in the Donbas region, where the US-backed Kyiv government fought Russia-backed rebels following the 2014 Maidan coup. Russia now demands that Ukraine accept its capture of the Donbas as a condition for ending the war.

"When it comes to which party is responsible for the failure to implement the Minsk accords, the 2015 peace pact that could have prevented the 2022 Russian invasion, Par says. "I will be very clear. For me the fault lies on Ukraine... by far." Par also warns that Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, who violently resisted the Minsk accords, remain a major obstacle to peace.

Par's new book, "What I saw in Ukraine: 2015-2022, Diary of an International Observer."

A few highlights of the interview:

- 6:00 - 9:00 - rare CNN clips showing Ukraine shelling Donbas / shell-shocked Donbas residents
- AZOV / Nationalists
- USA provoked Russia invasion says before SMO?
- 1:15:00 - not a genocide; but a cultural genocide (2021)
- 1:22:00 - Ukraine adds Crimea territory into its constitution (?); ergo, if Ukraine joins NATO, war w Russia is guaranteed (??)
- strong cultural and systemic taboos against even discussing negotiation/ compromise
- Biden rejected security guarantees for Russia?

BearGoggles said:

---

movielover said:

---

There are hundreds of videos online showing Ukrainians being kidnapped off the street for warfare. Millions have fled. I've met three Ukranian couples here, men of fighting age, we knojackets,
ey're here, I never bring it up.

Just tonight a new podcaster to me said Ukraine is enlisting 16-year-old boys, and training 14 year olds. Disgusting.

What is your source for one million dead Russians?

Ukraine doesn't have enough airpower, artillery, ammo, or manpower to enact that kind of damage, especially since Russia has defensive air systems and are now employing a 3 / 6 / 6 (??) attack deployment with drones, after artillery, to further limit casualties. If they happen to stumble into a hornets nest after repeated air bombardment and multiple drones, only 3 men are at risk of death.

---

I ask again, why does the bolded matter?

Answer: these items reveal Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to fight the war.

A few simple questions for you - If I gave you a magic wand and you could produce whatever result you wanted from this war:

1. Who do you want to win - Russia or Ukraine? Who would surrender?

A: Split decision based on Reality: Crimea, 2-4 oblasts to Russia; while Ukraine gets to keep the natural defensive positions, and fortifications they've made. Possibly include a no go zone. UKR saves Odessa. AZOV battalions gets shipped off to Serbia. Entice UKR abroad to come back, with incentives. Townhouse type accommodations for having 2 babies in 5 years; bigger, nicer accommodations for 3, 4 new children. Maybe Russia pitches in to help rebuild territories.

Then again w a magic wand, I'd go back to 2020 - and stop UKR from entertaining NATO. Set up a DMZ, and UKR neutrality. Stop all child traffickers and abusers, and ship them to Serbia w the baddest AZOV members. Share cells, no cameras.

2. Would you restore all territory taken by Russia since the beginning of the war to Ukraine, or would you allow Russia to keep some or all of it?

A. Some of it. See above.

3. Would you leave Putin in power or remove him and replace him with a pro-western leader?

A: Putin won, we FA and FO. Putin is pro-western. Those next in line allegedly much worse (militant).

With my wand I would also remove 90% of UKR corruption, heavily promote marriage and child birth to help rebuild UKR, and confiscate ill-gotten wealth from Z and his top thieves. Restore free elections, and kick out the CIA / State Department.

With my wand, I would require all of the military medical doctors from western Europe into Ukraine to provide survivors w solid medical care, and force the same countries to supply massive numbers of doctors trained in (fake) limb replacement. Start a UKR match making service.

Send 50% of American troops home from European bases. Maybe make Ukraine an immediate supplier of ammo and weapons to Europe and USA. (No longer corrupt.) Provide visas to native Western European men to help the provide marriage material for single Ukranian women.

---

movielover said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

movielover said:

---

There are hundreds of videos online showing Ukrainians being kidnapped off the street for warfare. Millions have fled. I've met three Ukranian couples here, men of fighting age, we knojackets,
ey're here, I never bring it up.

Just tonight a new podcaster to me said Ukraine is enlisting 16-year-old boys, and training 14 year olds. Disgusting.

What is your source for one million dead Russians?

Ukraine doesn't have enough airpower, artillery, ammo, or manpower to enact that kind of damage, especially since Russia has defensive air systems and are now employing a 3 / 6 / 6 (??) attack deployment with drones, after artillery, to further limit casualties. If they happen to stumble into a hornets nest after repeated air bombardment and multiple drones, only 3 men are at risk of death.

---

I ask again, why does the bolded matter?

Answer: these items reveal Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to fight the war.

A few simple questions for you - If I gave you a magic wand and you could produce whatever result you wanted from this war:

1. Who do you want to win - Russia or Ukraine? Who would surrender?

A: Split decision based on Reality: Crimea, 2-4 oblasts to Russia; while Ukraine gets to keep the natural defensive positions, and fortifications they've made. Possibly include a no go zone. UKR saves Odessa. AZOV battalions gets shipped off to Serbia. Entice UKR abroad to come back, with incentives. Townhouse type accommodations for having 2 babies in 5 years; bigger, nicer accommodations for 3, 4 new children. Maybe Russia pitches in to help rebuild territories.

Then again w a magic wand, I'd go back to 2020 - and stop UKR from entertaining NATO. Set up a DMZ, and UKR neutrality. Stop all child traffickers and abusers, and ship them to Serbia w the baddest AZOV members. Share cells, no cameras.

2. Would you restore all territory taken by Russia since the beginning of the war to Ukraine, or would you allow Russia to keep some or all of it?

A. Some of it. See above.

3. Would you leave Putin in power or remove him and replace him with a pro-western leader?

A: Putin won, we FA and FO. Putin is pro-western. Those next in line allegedly much worse (militant).

With my wand I would also remove 90% of UKR corruption, heavily promote marriage and child birth to help rebuild UKR, and confiscate ill-gotten wealth from Z and his top thieves. Restore free elections, and kick out the CIA / State Department.

With my wand, I would require all of the military medical doctors from western Europe into Ukraine to provide survivors w solid medical care, and force the same countries to supply massive numbers of doctors trained in (fake) limb replacement. Start a UKR match making service.

Send 50% of American troops home from European bases. Maybe make Ukraine an immediate supplier of ammo and weapons to Europe and USA. (No longer corrupt.) Provide visas to native Western European men to help the provide marriage material for single Ukranian women.

---

---

Thank you for answering. The most interesting thing to me is that with the imaginary wand, you're more than happy to reward Putin even if that works against USA/NATO/Ukrainian interests. You seem far more concerned about perceived flaws in Ukrainian governance/society than the corresponding issues in Russia. You offer not a single suggestion for reforming Russia and its failed democracy/economy. I think that's odd (and in my opinion wrong), but I do appreciate your setting forth your views for all to see.

Russia asked / demanded negotiations over NATO entering Ukraine 5, 6, 7 times. We stiffed him.

We put 12 secret CIA bases on his border, expelled his diplomats under false terms, and openly talk about breaking her apart to plunder her wealth.

You skipped over my specific demands that the EU pay a price for pushing the destruction of Ukraine while she sits back and does little.

Poland took in millions of Ukrainians, but is now fed up? The elite crooks of Ukraine allegedly travel around Europe spending in gaudy fashion, angering the locals.

You ignore Ukraine's corruption.

Putin won slowly but convincingly.

bearister said:

---

John Mearsheimer vs. Matt Duss: A Debate on Trump-Putin Summit, Ukraine, Russia & Paths to Peace | Democracy Now! https://www.democracynow.org/2025/8/15/matt_duss_john_mearsheimer_debate_ukraine

In this debate Mearsheimer opines the war in the Ukraine is driven by NATO and Matt Duss disagrees:

"MATT DUSS: Well, we got to this point because Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine and try to take it over. There's a longer history there, of course. I mean, Professor Mearsheimer has talked a lot about the growth of NATO and how Russia sees that as a threat. I think there is evidence that that is true. I mean, that others have claimed that, as well. U.S. officials throughout the 1990s, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, former head of the CIA Bill Burns, have all, in their time as diplomats, mentioned that this is a real problem for Russia, not just for Putin. However, that does not explain the entire problem. NATO alone was not the cause of this war.

Putin himself has made clear various times, most notably in a speech that he gave in June 2021, of his much grander vision of a kind of restored Russian imperium in which Ukraine was a part. So, I think the growth of NATO, you know, again, is part of Russia's larger grievance, but I do think Putin has made clear that he has a pretty grandiose historical conception of what he sees as a kind of renewed Russian empire, that is simply not consistent, certainly, with Ukraine's own sovereignty and independence, and I don't think it's consistent with a kind of a general approach to international affairs that is based in any kind of law or norms……….

I want to just respond to something Professor Mearsheimer said. I mean, it's baffling to hear him claim that there's no evidence that Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine and establish a new kind of Russian imperium. Putin has said this explicitly. I would encourage people to look at that June 2021 speech that I mentioned. He also, you know, landed troops outside Kyiv in February 2022 as part of the failed effort to topple Ukraine's government and install his you know, a friendly Russian government. Those Russian troops were not landed in Kyiv to go camping. So, that effort failed. But I think that's clear evidence that Putin's ambitions were much larger than the professor seems to claim."


*Matt Duss is executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and the former foreign policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders.

*I suppose because of the era in which I grew up, I have a difficult time with any analysis grounded on the premise that Russia is a victim and its actions are defensive. I suppose Yogi rejects outright, any opinions put forth by an ex Bernie associate.

---

If you want to see Mearsheimer getting his arse handed to him on this topic when actually having to debate with people who can challenge his points, have a look here:

https://munkdebates.com/debates/russia-ukraine-war/

I don't disagree with everything he says, and yes you can fairly criticize US and/or European policy towards Ukraine being needlessly provocative in the past. But Mearsheimer's argument about "who is at fault" always runs up against a brick wall when you bring up the things that Putin has explicitly said about wanting to recreate a Greater Russia that includes Ukraine. He ignores this stuff because it wrecks his argument entirely. He can't accept that Putin might actually just be waging a war of conquest, with past provocations as a weak pretext.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't realize that earlier link only had a brief clip of the debate. Here's the whole thing:

Putin SPOKE of uniting Ukraine.

The USA, NATO, and Victoria Nuland deployed and directed a soft coup and civil war.

"Several reasons might explain Russia's intensified bombing campaigns during ongoing peace negotiations:

Pressure tactic: Bombing campaigns during talks could be used to pressure Ukraine into making concessions in negotiations, demonstrating Russia's continued resolve and military capability, according to Al Jazeera. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has called the latest attacks "demonstrative and cynical," suggesting they aim to "maintain pressure on Ukraine and Europe, as well as to humiliate diplomatic efforts".

Weakening Ukraine's position: Intensified attacks could aim to weaken Ukraine's military and economy, potentially hoping to force Kyiv to accept unfavorable terms in a peace deal.

Seeking territorial gains: Continued military actions might be an attempt to capture more territory before a potential ceasefire or agreement is reached, strengthening Russia's bargaining position, notes The New York Times.

Bolstering domestic support: Escalating military actions could be used to rally support for Putin within Russia, especially if peace talks are perceived as not yielding the desired outcomes.

Responding to Ukrainian actions: Russia might claim that its intensified bombing is a response to Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory, such as cross-border drone strikes, says Reuters.

Timing of negotiations: The recent intensification of bombing happened around the time of high-level meetings involving US President Trump, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, and European leaders, where discussions around a ceasefire and potential peace deal took place. This could be a strategy to influence the outcome of those discussions by demonstrating continued Russian strength and resolve.

Leverage in "ceasefire vs. peace agreement" debate: Trump's shift away from demanding an immediate ceasefire towards prioritizing a comprehensive peace agreement, as Putin has been advocating, may incentivize Russia to continue fighting to maintain leverage during the peace negotiation process, according to CBS 17."
AI Overview

I support this message. Let the warpigs put boots on the ground, now, not 2030.

🇺🇸🇺🇦🇷🇺 “No boots on the ground, possible boots in the air!”

On US security guarantee for Ukraine pic.twitter.com/WDhOY6RfXk

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) August 19, 2025

🔥Karoline Leavitt made Jacqui Heinrich admit the war wouldn’t have happened under President Trump:

HEINRICH: “The President says this war wouldn’t have started if he were in office.”

LEAVITT: “It's true. Do you accept that?”

HEINRICH: “Probably.”

pic.twitter.com/LymlUx6WD5

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 19, 2025

As we hopefully inch toward some kind of peace agreement, it is worth recalling that Russia and Ukraine had reached a near agreement in Istanbul. That deal was destroyed by Western elites who told Ukraine to keep fighting and the result is that Ukraine now faces far worse terms: pic.twitter.com/fwP2GqK0N2

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) August 19, 2025

movielover said:

---

As we hopefully inch toward some kind of peace agreement, it is worth recalling that Russia and Ukraine had reached a near agreement in Istanbul. That deal was destroyed by Western elites who told Ukraine to keep fighting and the result is that Ukraine now faces far worse terms: pic.twitter.com/fwP2GqK0N2

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) August 19, 2025

---

"While there were direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul, including agreements on prisoner and war remains exchanges, they did not result in a ceasefire or a broader peace agreement. Both sides did agree to exchange 1,000 prisoners of war each, and to return the remains of 6,000 soldiers. However, negotiations on ending the war itself made little headway.

Key points about the Istanbul talks:
Prisoner and Remains Exchange:
A significant agreement was reached to exchange 1,000 prisoners of war from each side and return the remains of 6,000 soldiers.

No Ceasefire:
Despite discussions, a ceasefire agreement was not reached during the Istanbul talks.

Minimal Progress on Peace:
While the prisoner exchange was a positive step, little progress was made towards a broader resolution of the conflict.

Differing Expectations:
The talks were characterized by differing expectations and maximalist demands from both sides, particularly regarding Ukraine's potential neutrality and troop withdrawals."
AI Overview