Zelensky Speech Today

[maxparrish]

This is exactly how I feel.


I would have no way of knowing the specificity of what sanctions Biden has had or still has available to him. I don't have his team to present possible options to me, from which I can decide and choose which ones, applied when, make the most sense. Keane thinks sanctions should have begun as early as April 2021, when intelligence indicated Russia might invade Ukraine. I don't have that intelligence either.
But Joe Biden is POTUS, he does have the intelligence, the various teams, and all the info. All we know is what decisions he has made (from news) - without the knowledge of what info he based those decisions upon. I agree with maxparrish about imposing the maximum number (and strength) of sanctions available to him - weeks or even months ago.
I don't have the gathered national intelligence, the teams with expertise and the options they've presented to POTUS. I have no idea what his options are. I don't have a military or technical background enabling me to compare and contrast defense and weapons systems. But the U.S. government has all that info within its various teams, presented to the decision maker - POTUS.
What I do know is the decisions made have not prevented the destruction of Ukraine. Maybe what we've provided has slowed it (and potentially made it more painful in that longer timeframe), but it hasn't worked and isn't working.

Luckyone, you are good at asking but how about you address your own curiosity. What do you like that Biden has done? What do you want him to still do? What do you criticize that Biden has done? Most importantly, how do you think it is going for Ukraine - do you think they've received sufficient help and resources - do you call it a success in any capacity - do you feel good about the U.S. role as a NATO country right now - and, if so, why? What about the handling of the Russian invasion of Ukraine gives you a strong, comforting, safe, confident, or helpful feeling?

I don't think @Luckyone sees the obvious, you don't need to figure out what more can be done. The point is Joe (or his staff) knows what can be done, and every few days for weeks confirms that to us when they concede there is more that can be done.

Sorry @luckone, its a fact. NOW ask why? Why wasn't this being done weeks ago? For that matter, why wasn't any of this done in 2014?

 

[SCrider]

I thought Biden's family was rich because of their underhanded dealings in Ukraine?
Is a Biden-Russia connection the new conspiracy theory?

He is just spinning crap with no real thought.

 

[radioman]

He is just spinning crap with no real thought.

There is definitely a lot of thoughtless crap flying around the room.

 

[Callen]

If you take a car that won't start to a mechanic named Joe and he gets it running with 6 or 7 of the 8 cylinders firing, the owner would then tell Joe that's its not satisfactory. Joe B. would say "It's running ain't it? Don't you appreciate the work I've done? Can't you limp to work on that?"

You think Joe did enough to paid, thanked, and given a seal of approval, I think Joe has not finished his work and its marginally useful.

Sorry Joe, that ain't good enough.

Your analogy is ridiculously simplistic. This is very complicated. Your life and the life of Americans, never mind the rest of the world, is literally at stake. Do you have any understanding of what a nuclear conflict would look like? OK if you want to put your country, your family and yourself in that position but I sure don't!

 

[maxparrish]

Your analogy is ridiculously simplistic. This is very complicated. Your life and the life of Americans, never mind the rest of the world, is literally at stake. Do you have any understanding of what a nuclear conflict would look like? OK if you want to put your country, your family and yourself in that position but I sure don't!

Nor do I. But from a lifetime of readings in Political Science and foreign policy (Russia being a particular interest) there is nothing in that literature that suggests anyone other than a Bin Laden would use a nuclear weapon over two dozen airplanes or some drones.

That is silliness borne of ignorance.

 

[Luckyone]

This is exactly how I feel.


I would have no way of knowing the specificity of what sanctions Biden has had or still has available to him. I don't have his team to present possible options to me, from which I can decide and choose which ones, applied when, make the most sense. Keane thinks sanctions should have begun as early as April 2021, when intelligence indicated Russia might invade Ukraine. I don't have that intelligence either.
But Joe Biden is POTUS, he does have the intelligence, the various teams, and all the info. All we know is what decisions he has made (from news) - without the knowledge of what info he based those decisions upon. I agree with maxparrish about imposing the maximum number (and strength) of sanctions available to him - weeks or even months ago.
I don't have the gathered national intelligence, the teams with expertise and the options they've presented to POTUS. I have no idea what his options are. I don't have a military or technical background enabling me to compare and contrast defense and weapons systems. But the U.S. government has all that info within its various teams, presented to the decision maker - POTUS.
What I do know is the decisions made have not prevented the destruction of Ukraine. Maybe what we've provided has slowed it (and potentially made it more painful in that longer timeframe), but it hasn't worked and isn't working.

Luckyone, you are good at asking but how about you address your own curiosity. What do you like that Biden has done? What do you want him to still do? What do you criticize that Biden has done? Most importantly, how do you think it is going for Ukraine - do you think they've received sufficient help and resources - do you call it a success in any capacity - do you feel good about the U.S. role as a NATO country right now - and, if so, why? What about the handling of the Russian invasion of Ukraine gives you a strong, comforting, safe, confident, or helpful feeling?

I am glad you asked. I will "gladly" answer your questions.

Let me begin by asking you a simple question. You are aware that Russia has 6000 nuclear warheads that if used against the United States, that somewhere between 50 and 70% of Americans would die, aren't you?

You also are aware that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a stupidity beyond reason for Putin, aren't you?

Having said that, I believe that Biden acted as any intelligent (using the brain and not the balls) person would do, knowing that he is facing a power that could wipe most of the U.S. off the face of the earth and facing a person that is crazy and not using common sense.

In cases like this, you start as slowly (but surely) as you can. You do not want to be the cause of triggering a madman into doing something crazy.

In addition, this is not just Biden making decisions. This is 40 nations (NATO) making decisions in unity. Without them, the sanctions would not work at all.

Biden has followed the guidelines that are used with dealing with powerful crazy people (click on link).

He has done most everything that was in his power to do, keeping in mind that he is not the only one deciding (there are 40 other nations involved). He has gotten approval and acceptance of the the sanctions from all involved and that is never an easy (or fast or guaranteed) thing to do.

I do not have anything in my mind that he could have done. I think he has done what he could. I actually think he has done more that I thought he could do. I approve 99% of what he has done.

It is you that doesn't seem to know what he has not done that he could have done. If you do not have an answer, perhaps you should not open your mouth and say that he could have done more. You still have not given me an answer to my question.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, It is human tragedy and a travesty of immense proportions. Nonetheless, there are times when trying to prevent a travesty what you get is a bigger catastrophe and that is something that cannot be allowed to happen if it can be prevented. You do not save a country by sacrificing your own country to a bigger amount of deaths (from nuclear weapons).

Yes, we are stronger than Putin and in the end, we would be the victors but at a cost that would make Ukraine seem to be child's play.

You need to see the whole picture and not approach the problem with blinders.

 

[maxparrish]

So let's let them die? So why didn't we provide them months ago and send people to train them or bring them to a NATO nation to be trained? Because Biden is weak and afraid and his family is rich because of Russia?

Remember, Biden is the guy who canceled training Ukrainians for underground resistance in Dec of 2021 because he was afraid it would offend Putin.

 

[SCrider]

So let's let them die? So why didn't we provide them months ago and send people to train them or bring them to a NATO nation to be trained? Because Biden is weak and afraid and his family is rich because of Russia?

Months ago I don't think the Ukraine actually believed Putin would invade. Take soldiers out of the field to train them highly complex new equipment when they are receiving weapons they can use right now? You want to send American troops into a war to train them. Do you even think before you type?

 

[Callen]

Nor do I. But from a lifetime of readings in Political Science and foreign policy (Russia being a particular interest) there is nothing in that literature that suggests anyone other than a Bin Laden would use a nuclear weapon over two dozen airplanes or some drones.

That is silliness borne of ignorance.

Nothing in literature....fine but a think I will go with Biden and the intelligence rather than your erudite musings.

 

[Craig234]

I am disgusted with President Biden not wanting to provide all of the help Ukraine needs along with the rest of NATO and most UN members. Hopefully Zelensky gave Biden what he needs to realize what we have done so far is not helping Ukraine at all or hurting Russia enough.

Will you be disgusted when Biden provides the no-fly zone Zelensky is demanding, leading to escalation leading to nuclear war? Funny reaction to avoiding nuclear war, disgust. Funny you're disgusted with President Biden, rather than where it belongs. Funny you say nothing about the need to eliminate nuclear weapons and disgust with the danger and effects of those weapons..

 

[Craig234]

I can't help but wonder if he's waiting for Ukraine's total destruction at which point Biden will just say - it's too late now.

Funny you use the words 'total destruction' as you demand we risk that for the world and Biden prevents it. Hey, guess what, news: having six thousand nuclear weapons can allow bad behavior. What have you done to get them banned? Biden is doing what is right to stop Putin. But you can use the issue for political attacks, so you will.

 

[Mithrae]

Now, Ukraine is unrecognizable in its destruction and Biden is still talking about future steps??????
Maybe it was in the really long thread about Ukraine, but I remember weeks ago, a poster wondering if Biden was just basically going to watch Ukraine die a slow and painful death. It seems that is exactly what's happened and is still happening.

An armed robber starts beating down someone's door in the middle of the night and obviously they call for help, but they're told it's not going to happen straight away, it'll take time to get there. So they can choose to fight the robber, knowing there's a pretty good chance they'll lose and get seriously bloodied or even killed for their efforts, or they could surrender and choose a route of nonviolent resistance, similar to many civil protest movements in history. We can fully respect the choice of folk who choose to fight, but that doesn't mean that external helpers (such as the police in this analogy) are in any way responsible for them getting battered and bloodied in their desperate fight - that is and always will be solely the aggressor's responsibility.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait it took five months before there was an international military response: That was a non-nuclear aggressor (which a few years earlier had also initiated full-scale aggression against Iran) with instant and unanimous condemnation from the UN Security Council. In a situation where the aggressor literally has the power to devastate human civilization as a whole, and more divided global opinions including UN veto by the aggressor, expecting the Russian aggression to be quelled in one or two months seems optimistic to say the least!

Presumably Zelensky and other Ukrainian leaders knew this going in. Their courage in fighting against the odds is certainly admirable; and conversely there's no telling whether a strategy of mere token defense and surrender followed by nonviolent resistance might have panned out better or worse for their country in the long run. But either way, the damage caused to their country is the full and sole responsibility of the Russian aggressors, not the defenders and certainly not other countries for not escalating quickly enough for you!

 

[Luckyone]

I don't think @Luckyone sees the obvious, you don't need to figure out what more can be done. The point is Joe (or his staff) knows what can be done, and every few days for weeks confirms that to us when they concede there is more that can be done.

Sorry @luckone, its a fact. NOW ask why? Why wasn't this being done weeks ago? For that matter, why wasn't any of this done in 2014?

See Post #81 for your answer.

By the way, anytime you want to get into a game of speculation about doing something and the consequences/results of that action being shown, I am game.

The game I have played for 47 years is one of speculation in the stock market. If this happens then that happens. If you want to play that game, I am all for it.

I hate people that criticize but have no idea of the possible consequences of their actions. Every decision in life has benefits and consequences and both need tobe considered. Those that go into a situation without considering the possible consequence are idiots (in my opinion).

 

[CaughtInThe]

to be honest, i think it's easy to be an armchair quarterback with weeks worth of data and info to go by (now) to say what should have been done in the first 24-48 hours (with the potential to start WWIII).

really easy.

 

[Lutherf]

What?

Oh yeah, it was brain cancer caused by the war. I keep getting him and the Kennedy kid mixed up. Anyway, it was some war related issue that Biden blames for Beau's death.

 

[donhughesmusic]

Zelensky is excellent at what he's doing. Where I have some concern with his choices is that he seems to be showing little respect for the issue of escalation threatening nuclear war, and to not be respecting the Biden administration's position.

To be fair to him, his responsibility is to Ukraine, not to Biden's position. Wouldn't we all be doing the same thing? Trying to save our country and putting our country first? If my country's civilians are being slaughtered, I'm not going to care about what any other world leader's position is. I'd care about getting help for my people.

That being said, we stared down the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missle Crisis and avoided nuclear war once before. Who is to say we can't do it again. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but we did it before, we can do it again.

 

[SCrider]

Oh yeah, it was brain cancer caused by the war. I keep getting him and the Kennedy kid mixed up. Anyway, it was some war related issue that Biden blames for Beau's death.

Blames? It caused his death. see the difference?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Will you be disgusted when Biden provides the no-fly zone Zelensky is demanding, leading to escalation leading to nuclear war? Funny reaction to avoiding nuclear war, disgust. Funny you're disgusted with President Biden, rather than where it belongs. Funny you say nothing about the need to eliminate nuclear weapons and disgust with the danger and effects of those weapons..

I am only disgusted with the administration's refusal to meet its NATO and UN obligations how its allies are doing it. We are taking a "let them do it" approach, despite being part of both organizations ourselves and feeling exactly the same way as our allies.

Of course I am much angrier at Vlaidimir Putin than anyone else whose name is not Donald Trump. It is just extremely frustrating to see Ukraine get bombed every day - people losing their loved ones, their homes, their jobs, their lives . . . and President Biden only says he will put more sanctions on Russia, not actually help the Ukrainians.

 

[Lutherf]

Blames? It caused his death. see the difference?

He died of a brain tumor.

 

[Luckyone]

Remember, Biden is the guy who canceled training Ukrainians for underground resistance in Dec of 2021 because he was afraid it would offend Putin.

It never ceases to amaze me at the erroneous information that is given, especially when it comes to bashing someone on the "other side". The search for truth is ignored and the search for anything that supports your bias is what happens.

I searched Google by putting in "Biden cancels training Ukranians in December 2021" and lo and behold, I got ONE hit. Guess who reported this? Would you believe FOX News?

Here is the link: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wh...ainers-ukraine-december-provoke-russia-report

It certainly is fishy when only ONE news source is found as usually such news is carried by quite a few different media.

Anyhow, I read the headline that stated:

White House axed plan to train Ukrainians in guerrilla warfare fearing it may provoke Russia: Report​

but guess what was also stated just below the headline?

The White House denies such plans 'were ever presented'​

In addition, there was no report actually presented. Just some people saying that it occurred. More importantly, it was stated that it was presented to the Pentagon but it was never presented to Biden personally..............or so, the report itself states.

I see that your post clearly states the following: "

Remember, Biden is the guy who canceled training Ukrainians for underground resistance in Dec of 2021 because he was afraid it would offend Putin."

The FOX news article clearly states that Biden was not presented with this. The article that is not found anywhere else but on FOX news, which has a strong right wing media bias:

• We rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories.

With this kind of post, you have now been put on my list of biased non-factual right-wing Republicans that have no desire for truth. I have lost respect for anything you say.

 

[Craig234]

I am only disgusted with the administration's refusal to meet its NATO and UN obligations how its allies are doing it. We are taking a "let them do it" approach, despite being part of both organizations ourselves and feeling exactly the same way as our allies.

Of course I am much angrier at Vlaidimir Putin than anyone else whose name is not Donald Trump. It is just extremely frustrating to see Ukraine get bombed every day - people losing their loved ones, their homes, their jobs, their lives . . . and President Biden only says he will put more sanctions on Russia, not actually help the Ukrainians.

Other NATO countries are not doing more and they should not. Same with the UN, which is hampered by its basic flaw of the veto nations including Russia on the Security Council.

Of course it's frustrating. That's an understatement. Imagine a group of criminals with guns say they're going to rape your wife in front of you, but if you do anything they'll shoot your family. What's better, the horror of watching that or everyone getting shot? The world is doing what it can, other than getting rid of nuclear weapons.

 

[Craig234]

To be fair to him, his responsibility is to Ukraine, not to Biden's position.

Part of his responsibility to Ukraine is to understand the need to prevent nuclear war, and to not cause political problems for his ally president helping him. He shouldn't be causing political vulnerability for Biden, handing Democrats' opponents political attacks of clips of him asking for help the public is sympathetic to they're not getting any more than he should have handed attacks on Biden trump tried to extort.

Wouldn't we all be doing the same thing? Trying to save our country and putting our country first? If my country's civilians are being slaughtered, I'm not going to care about what any other world leader's position is. I'd care about getting help for my people.

No, everyone wouldn't be doing the same thing, as noted above. Nuclear war won't help his people, and needlessly creating political problems for his allies isn't going to likely help Ukraine.

That being said, we stared down the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missle Crisis and avoided nuclear war once before. Who is to say we can't do it again. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but we did it before, we can do it again.

I have a thread on that. Obviously you didn't read it. Now much of the public supports a no-fly zone for Ukraine, and Biden has a political problem preventing nuclear war making him vulnerable to political attacks and pressure for it.

Under JFK, things needed to resolve the situation included agreeing to remove our missiles on Russia's border and agreeing not to invade Cuba. But the US public would unreasonably be furious at JFK if he made those concessions, so he had great political pressure not to make them, which he dealt with by making them as a secret deal. Biden doesn't have that luxury of a secret deal on this.

The 'political' thing for JFK would have been to launch at least an air attack on the missile sites, and really an invasion of Cuba. That was what most of his administration and the public supported. Had he invaded there would have been nuclear war, which he didn't even know, not knowing the Soviets had given their forces 96 tactical nuclear weapons for such attacks.

This 'getting lucky' attitude you're showing is inappropriate for nuclear war. As I've said over and over, you don't play chicken with nuclear war. Those same politics are why JFK schedule plans to withdraw from Vietnam for 1965, after the election. He was privately quoted as saying that would get him politically ruined as 'soft on communism', but he didn't care, but had to do it after the election.

 

[Mithrae]

I am only disgusted with the administration's refusal to meet its NATO and UN obligations how its allies are doing it.

What obligations do you mean? Ukraine isn't part of NATO and never was; there's no formal obligation to support it through that network. Similarly there's no formal obligation to do anything through the UN without a Security Council resolution, which of course would be vetoed by Russia. The Budapest Memorandum requires 'consultation' between Ukraine, America, Britain and Russia in the event of any threats, coercion or aggression by those latter three, but doesn't impose a formal obligation for America or Britain to actively defend Ukraine. As far as I know there are only informal moral/humanitarian obligations to help Ukraine, and as others have noted that's in a context where it's absolutely crucial to avoid serious escalation.

We are taking a "let them do it" approach, despite being part of both organizations ourselves and feeling exactly the same way as our allies.

If the situation were to escalate into direct, defensive military action in Ukrainian territory, minimizing the risk of nuclear escalation would be an exceptionally good reason for the USA, UK and France to avoid involvement (perhaps instead offering financial support to other European countries who do directly help their neighbour). The military budgets of Germany and Italy alone are greater than Russia's; even if it comes to that (and we should hope it doesn't) there should be no need for American involvement to warrant the unacceptable risk of nuclear escalation.

Of course I am much angrier at Vlaidimir Putin than anyone else whose name is not Donald Trump. It is just extremely frustrating to see Ukraine get bombed every day - people losing their loved ones, their homes, their jobs, their lives . . . and President Biden only says he will put more sanctions on Russia, not actually help the Ukrainians.

This seems a bit like watching one hostage getting beaten up by terrorists for trying to fight back, and screaming anger at the police for not instantly going in and risking all their lives. If for some reason the violence makes you feel anger or disgust against anyone besides the violent aggressor, why would you direct it against third parties before (or instead of) those who are violently resisting? It seems quite likely that if Ukraine had adopted a strategy of token defense and surrender followed by nonviolent resistance, their country would be suffering far less infrastructure damage and loss of life. Of course even given that fact it would be absurd to direct any disgust or blame against the decision to fight violence with violence... but then how much more absurd is it to be angry at third parties seeking to resolve the situation without even more loss of life than already? Ukraine's brave decision to fight is their decision, and it shouldn't be used as a hook to drag everyone else into WW3 simply because the struggle is as ugly as expected.

 

[Luckyone]

 

[donhughesmusic]

Part of his responsibility to Ukraine is to understand the need to prevent nuclear war, and to not cause political problems for his ally president helping him. He shouldn't be causing political vulnerability for Biden, handing Democrats' opponents political attacks of clips of him asking for help the public is sympathetic to they're not getting any more than he should have handed attacks on Biden trump tried to extort.



No, everyone wouldn't be doing the same thing, as noted above. Nuclear war won't help his people, and needlessly creating political problems for his allies isn't going to likely help Ukraine.



I have a thread on that. Obviously you didn't read it. Now much of the public supports a no-fly zone for Ukraine, and Biden has a political problem preventing nuclear war making him vulnerable to political attacks and pressure for it.

Under JFK, things needed to resolve the situation included agreeing to remove our missiles on Russia's border and agreeing not to invade Cuba. But the US public would unreasonably be furious at JFK if he made those concessions, so he had great political pressure not to make them, which he dealt with by making them as a secret deal. Biden doesn't have that luxury of a secret deal on this.

The 'political' thing for JFK would have been to launch at least an air attack on the missile sites, and really an invasion of Cuba. That was what most of his administration and the public supported. Had he invaded there would have been nuclear war, which he didn't even know, not knowing the Soviets had given their forces 96 tactical nuclear weapons for such attacks.

This 'getting lucky' attitude you're showing is inappropriate for nuclear war. As I've said over and over, you don't play chicken with nuclear war. Those same politics are why JFK schedule plans to withdraw from Vietnam for 1965, after the election. He was privately quoted as saying that would get him politically ruined as 'soft on communism', but he didn't care, but had to do it after the election.

1. I didn't know you had a thread on that. I don't spend my life on here lol.

2. Much respect on the fact that you know about the 96 nukes they already had. I respect someone who knows their history.