Derrrrp.She's called Putin Hitler. She's part of the problem.
What can I say?She called Putin Hitler. She's part of the problem.
What can I say?
Launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country and people might call you names.
Eventually, Putin will recover from this insult.
Right you are.It escalates the tensions. Just as they say "we don't negotiate with terrorists," "we don't negotiate with Hitler." It's an incredibly stupid thing for her to have said.
Right you are.
Name calling is right up there with Vlad's nuclear threats in terms of escalation.
Thank goodness she didn't call Putin a pipsqueak.
Nobody has said "Don't negotiate".It's not just name-calling. It's a stupid strategy to make it so there's no negotiating with Putin,
Putin had already brought possible use of nukes into the discussion.which makes it even more likely for Putin to launch the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth. Then the stupid USG mother****ers will launch the second largest nuclear arsenal on Earth.
Nobody has said "Don't negotiate".
Russia/Ukraine meetings occurred on Monday, I believe.
Putin had already brought possible use of nukes into the discussion.
That was before Fiona Hill called him names.
Putin had already brought possible use of nukes into the discussion.
Okay...you've convinced me.Do you think that the USG would negotiate with someone they're calling Hitler? The people that say that shit want to escalate the war so they can try to shift the 'world order' even more in their favor. They're willing to risk nuclear war. They're at least half of the problem. 'They' being some people in the USG.
Okay...you've convinced me.
I think we should all get together with Vlad the impaler, and tell him what a strong powerful leader he is.
We'll tell him those naughty neo-Nazi drug addicts forced him into this very dumb invasion.
Then, we can show home movies of Vlad, shirtless, riding a mighty stallion.
After that, we do a group hug,
Vlad is mollified and we can all get back to despoiling the planet in a conventioal, non-nuclear manner.
Cardinal:For the past two days, I’ve become increasingly unsettled by the international sanctions against Russia because I believed they would be perceived as an attack on Russia, thereby denying Putin an off ramp and escalating the possibility he would resort to nuclear weapons. By contrast, I have fully supported arming and supplying Ukraine because not only is that an attack on the invasion (a semantic but important distinction), but it also follows the seventy year rule book that states that Russia and the US may arm each other’s enemies to the teeth, but they may not fire at each other (this is incidentally why the proposal of a no fly zone is so catastrophically stupid). But to the point, my resolve has been notably squishy when it comes to these sanctions, as well as every business and financial institution cutting ties with Russia. It all seemed over the top and it alarmed me.
However, I think this interview with Fiona Hill, one of the foremost experts on Putin, presents an extremely compelling argument for why this full blown response is absolutely necessary, and why denying Putin his agenda in Ukraine is vital to the future security of the world.
If you find yourself on the fence as I did, or merely want a granular and in-depth look into Putin’s motivations, look no further than this article. But fair warning: the inverse proportional relationship between wisdom and happiness holds true here.
‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes
Putin is trying to take down the entire world order, the veteran Russia watcher said in an interview. But there are ways even ordinary Americans can fight back.www.politico.com
Maybe someone will think your commentary is witty.
Putin is the 21Century Hitler. His justifications and his methods geopolitically are Hitlers methods. He has not killed 7 million nor committed a genocide in Ukraine as yet. Whoopdy-ding-dong. Big dif.HitShe called Putin Hitler. She's part of the problem.
I do and I think yours is defeatist.Maybe someone will think your commentary is witty.
For the past two days, I’ve become increasingly unsettled by the international sanctions against Russia because I believed they would be perceived as an attack on Russia, thereby denying Putin an off ramp and escalating the possibility he would resort to nuclear weapons. By contrast, I have fully supported arming and supplying Ukraine because not only is that an attack on the invasion (a semantic but important distinction), but it also follows the seventy year rule book that states that Russia and the US may arm each other’s enemies to the teeth, but they may not fire at each other (this is incidentally why the proposal of a no fly zone is so catastrophically stupid). But to the point, my resolve has been notably squishy when it comes to these sanctions, as well as every business and financial institution cutting ties with Russia. It all seemed over the top and it alarmed me.
However, I think this interview with Fiona Hill, one of the foremost experts on Putin, presents an extremely compelling argument for why this full blown response is absolutely necessary, and why denying Putin his agenda in Ukraine is vital to the future security of the world.
If you find yourself on the fence as I did, or merely want a granular and in-depth look into Putin’s motivations, look no further than this article. But fair warning: the inverse proportional relationship between wisdom and happiness holds true here.
‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes
Putin is trying to take down the entire world order, the veteran Russia watcher said in an interview. But there are ways even ordinary Americans can fight back.www.politico.com
Russia's weakness is that it does not have a diverse enough economy to conduct international military or economic battle. It has fossil fuels and weaponry and that is all it has. It cannot outlast anybody really. The issue is resolve and only resolve. Either we have it or we don't. We certainly cannot allow Putin to bluff his way to success and even if he is not bluffing it literally does not matter.There is no question Putin would use nuclear weapons if he feels it's necessary for his survival, and winning this conflict is necessary for his survival. He has to defeat Ukraine. How he does it does not matter.
I haven't read all of Hill's recent comments but it seems that her comments are in line with many others who really do know Putin, including Garry Kasparov and others. Ukraine is not the end for Putin; it's the beginning. His real target is American and Western power. He wants to destroy the same geopolitical system that is being used to strangle Russia's economy right now. And in his mind, the best way he can do that is with aggression and fear. He would not only use nuclear weapons to win in Ukraine but also to terrify civilians in NATO countries, to get them to re-think their commitments to conflicts beyond their borders.
It's absolutely necessary to stand up to Putin. We can offer an exit lane, but that can come in the form of working out a deal for neutrality - real neutrality. But anything outside of that should be off limits. And the more Putin doubles down, the more extreme the sanctions should be.
I'd add one thing: Putin supports far-right insurgencies, including the one in our country, for a reason. He thinks he can divide democracies and weaken their resolve to stand up to him. He will use these far-right movements to destroy or weaken democracies in the countries that oppose him, including ours and including those in Europe and elsewhere (China will, too, but Russia's better at it)
Thugs and bullies can "only" be stopped with force. Using common sense and attempting to convince them to "back off" does not work. People that think with their "balls" can only be stopped by castrating them. The sanctions castrate the country and the country is the body of Putin.For the past two days, I’ve become increasingly unsettled by the international sanctions against Russia because I believed they would be perceived as an attack on Russia, thereby denying Putin an off ramp and escalating the possibility he would resort to nuclear weapons. By contrast, I have fully supported arming and supplying Ukraine because not only is that an attack on the invasion (a semantic but important distinction), but it also follows the seventy year rule book that states that Russia and the US may arm each other’s enemies to the teeth, but they may not fire at each other (this is incidentally why the proposal of a no fly zone is so catastrophically stupid). But to the point, my resolve has been notably squishy when it comes to these sanctions, as well as every business and financial institution cutting ties with Russia. It all seemed over the top and it alarmed me.
However, I think this interview with Fiona Hill, one of the foremost experts on Putin, presents an extremely compelling argument for why this full blown response is absolutely necessary, and why denying Putin his agenda in Ukraine is vital to the future security of the world.
If you find yourself on the fence as I did, or merely want a granular and in-depth look into Putin’s motivations, look no further than this article. But fair warning: the inverse proportional relationship between wisdom and happiness holds true here.
‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes
Putin is trying to take down the entire world order, the veteran Russia watcher said in an interview. But there are ways even ordinary Americans can fight back.www.politico.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?