DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ukraine and Russia

RFK Jr. blasts Biden for sending cluster bombs to Ukraine, a year after Psaki said it could 'be a war crime'
'What happened to his conscience,' Kennedy questioned

Kyle Morris By Kyle Morris | Fox News

Democratic presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. has called on President Biden to "stop the ceaseless escalation" between the United States and Russia after he gave his administration the green light to send controversial weapons known as cluster munitions to Ukraine.

"Last year, WH Press Secretary Jen Psaki called the use of cluster bombs a 'war crime.' Now President Biden plans to send them to Ukraine. Stop the ceaseless escalation! It is time for peace," Kennedy wrote in a tweet.

"Biden was opposed to cluster bombs in 1982 as well, when he opposed their sale to Israel," Kennedy, who entered the White House race in April, added in a separate tweet. "What happened to his conscience?"


'TERRIBLE MISTAKE': TOP DEMOCRAT BLASTS BIDEN DECISION TO SEND UKRAINE CONTROVERSIAL CLUSTER BOMBS


Kennedy's remarks come after the Biden administration announced this week that its latest aid package to Ukraine would include cluster munitions, which are bombs that release smaller explosives across a wide area when detonated. Cluster-type bombs have been banned by more than 100 countries, because they are known to kill or maim civilians. In many cases, dud submunitions fall to the ground without exploding but unexpectedly detonate later, even years after they were dropped.

Both Russia and Ukraine have used cluster munitions since Moscow first launched its attack in February 2022. White House national security advisor Jake Sullivan acknowledged on Friday that cluster munitions do pose a risk to civilians but said the danger to their lives would be higher if Kyiv did not have enough weapons to fight off Russia's troops. The "dud rate" for munitions the Pentagon is sending to Ukraine is below 3%.


Joe Biden, Robert Kennedy split
Democratic presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. called Saturday for President Biden to "stop the ceaseless escalation" between the United States and Russia. (Sean Rayford, Jamie McCarthy via Getty Images)
In February 2022, while fielding questions from the press, then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki asserted that Russian use of cluster bombs could amount to a "war crime."

"There are reports of illegal cluster bombs and vacuum bombs being used by the Russians. If that’s true, what is the next step of this administration? And is there a red line for how much violence will be tolerated against civilians in this manner that’s illegal and potentially a war crime," one reporter asked.

"It is – it would be. I don’t have any confirmation of that. We have seen the reports. If that were true, it would potentially be a war crime," Psaki responded at the time.


WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 29: White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki speaks at a daily press conference in the James Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on April 29, 2022 in Washington, DC. During the briefing Psaki took questions on the war in Ukraine and gas prices. (Photo by Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images)
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in February 2022 that Russia's use of cluster bombs in its war with Ukraine could amount to a "war crime." (Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images)
In a Washington Post report published Friday, the outlet recalled Biden's "complicated history" on the issue of cluster munitions and highlighted how Biden has flip-flopped on the issue over time as it relates to Israel's use of the weapons.

Biden's decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine also garnered concern from some Democrats in the House, including Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., and Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.

"The decision by the Biden administration to transfer cluster munitions to Ukraine is unnecessary and a terrible mistake," McCollum, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said in a statement. "The legacy of cluster bombs is misery, death, and expensive cleanup generations after their use. The U.S. pays tens of millions of dollars annually to remove cluster munitions in Laos from the Vietnam era as these remnants of war continue to kill and maim civilians."


"As a strong supporter of the Biden administration’s policy in Ukraine, I must state in the strongest possible terms my absolute opposition to the U.S. transferring cluster munitions," she added. "These weapons should be eliminated from our stockpiles, not dumped in Ukraine."

Biden shaking hands with Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, right, and U.S. President Joe Biden shake hands during a meeting in Kyiv, Ukraine, on February 20, 2023. (Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via AP)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Lee, another Democrat who serves on the House Appropriations Committee, said she was "alarmed" that Biden was "considering sending cluster bombs to Ukraine."


"Cluster bombs work by scattering tiny ‘bomblets’ over a wide area. Many of these bomblets don’t explode – but remain a threat to civilians for decades," Lee said on Twitter.

"The Ukrainian people are engaged in a just struggle for their rights, freedom and humanity. The US and Ukraine don’t need to stoop to Putin’s level," she added in another tweet.

Kennedy is considered a longshot in his race against incumbent Biden, who has overwhelming support from the Democratic Party. In many polls, however, Kennedy garners double-digit support among likely Democratic voters.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rf...aine-year-psaki-said-could-war-crime.amp

Not sure if sending weapons banned by over a hundred nations is a good idea.

Agreed.

I'm not a fan of this choice.
We have other (better) options for supporting Ukraine.

Russia has been using them all along. Tough tatas Mr Putin . What’s good for the goose is good for…..you.

Wasn't it a war crime last year because civilians were killed?

Putin is ruthless, Ukraine should be too. I hope they bomb the Kremlin with them.

I think that will end up being the critical factor that determines all of this. If Ukraine uses these cluster bombs along the front line out of towns and cities that would cause civilian casualties it will be very helpful in areas where Russian soldiers are dug in. What Russia did was use these cluster bombs in towns and cities causing a lot of civilian casualties. How Ukraine deploys these cluster bombs is more important than the fact they have them to use. Only time will tell on that one.

NATO delivers gut punch to Putin

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nato-delivers-gut-punch-putin-093000103.html

The NATO summit this week delivered yet another blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin, with allies standing as united as ever against his war in Ukraine while announcing efforts to expand the alliance and boost defense spending.

The most punishing setback for Putin came on the eve of the summit, when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hashed out a deal to admit Sweden into NATO after more than a year of resistance.

Erdoğan’s reversal not only puts the gears in place to expand the borders of the western security alliance — it also signals the Turkish leader is moving closer to the west and away from Putin.

“He’s no longer interested in being dependent on Putin economically and strategically,” said Asli Aydıntaşbaş, a visiting fellow at Brookings Institution with the Turkey Project. “I think Russians are upset. I think the Kremlin is very upset.”

It also helped repair Turkey’s strained relations with its NATO allies and gave President Biden a major win heading into the high-profile summit in Vilnius, Lithuania.

At the end of the summit, Biden declared that NATO was ”more united than ever in its history.”

“We will not waver,” Biden affirmed in the Wednesday speech. “Our commitment to Ukraine will not weaken. We will stand for liberty and freedom today, tomorrow and for as long as it takes.”

Erdoğan’s Sweden approval also came just days after he freed Ukrainian fighters from the Azov regiment, a move that deeply angered the Kremlin because the prisoners of war were supposed to remain in Turkey until the end of the war.

Aydıntaşbaş said the prisoner release is an even bigger blow than the Sweden deal, the latter of which was likely anticipated. She assessed the Turkish leader has now sensed Putin has become weak — especially after the Wagner revolt — and is drifting closer to Biden.

“I wouldn’t call this a reset, but it lays the groundwork for a reset between the West and Turkey and that would be a big deal,” she added. “Because at the end of the day, Turkey is NATO’s second largest army and its drift away from the West has been a big issue.”

Aydıntaşbaş, however, acknowledged Erdoğan often makes deals for transactional benefits, and since he does not view the Ukraine war as a binary issue, he is likely to continue to play both sides.

Erdoğan only backed Sweden after he extracted concessions from the West, including enhanced counterterrorism operations, more arms sales and Swedish support for Turkey’s European Union membership hopes. Erdoğan may also have won a deal to purchase long-awaited F-16 jets from Washington to modernize his air force, as the U.S. announced the paused sale was moving forward a day after the Sweden agreement.

At the summit, Western allies also agreed to boost defense spending levels, a commitment that, if adhered to, would strengthen the alliance and its support for Ukraine. Members are now pledging to spend a minimum of 2 percent of gross domestic product on military resources and security.

NATO has for years tried to get the commitment to stick, to no avail. But Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said 11 allies have now reached or exceeded the target, while overall spending by Canada and Europe increased by 8.3 percent this past year.

“This is the biggest increase in decades,” Stoltenberg said. “And we expect this number will rise substantially next year.”

Putin secured a minor victory in the dashing of Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, with GOP presidential contender and former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley saying that Biden “made Putin’s day” by refusing to commit to Kyiv’s future NATO membership.

But the U.S. and Ukraine sought to minimize the damage at the end of the summit.

NATO decided against fast-tracking Kyiv into the alliance or setting a clear timeline for membership, a move Ukraine says will only embolden Russia and allow Moscow to use inclusion into the alliance as a bargaining chip in peace talks.

But the alliance still took steps toward admitting Ukraine, removing a procedural hurdle, establishing a NATO-Ukraine council and affirming that Kyiv is closer than ever to membership.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who had expressed disappointment in the membership process just a day earlier, said he held a “powerful” meeting with Biden Wednesday.

“The meeting was at least twice as long as planned, and it was as meaningful as it needed to be,” Zelensky tweeted. “If the protocol had not stopped the meeting, we would have talked even longer.”

NATO allies this week also announced big steps toward supporting Ukraine in the long run, putting a damper on Moscow’s hopes of weakening Western support for the war.

A coalition of 11 NATO countries set a date for F-16 training in August for Ukrainian pilots; France confirmed the shipment of much-needed long-range missiles for Ukraine; and the Group of Seven (G7) economic and political bloc announced a long-term security commitment for Kyiv.

Russia has tried to downplay the news coming out of the summit. Moscow’s Foreign Intelligence Service chief told state-run media outlet TASS that the summit did not bring “any surprise to Russia.”

But Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Russia’s attempts to weaken the narrative have largely failed.

“From a Russian propaganda perspective, it makes sense to downplay this as much as possible,” she said. “But the facts just speak against Russia, especially the long-term commitment of G7 members to deter Russia and to erode the optimism in the Kremlin [hoping] everyone in Europe gets tired.”

The Vilnius summit showed allies are standing by Ukraine, even as there are concerns about a lagging counteroffensive launched in early June and the prospect of a longer war, Fix said.

“At the beginning of this year, the messaging was all about Ukraine [and] what it means for this one counteroffensive this year,” she continued. “And I think that was recognized as a bit of a trap.”

This is “sort of an attempt to make clear that the commitment is not only until the end of this year, but the commitment will also extend to the next year.”

Russian defence ministry says Wagner handing over weapons

Move comes two weeks after private army group launched an unprecedented, but ultimately short-lived, mutiny.

The Wagner mercenary group is completing the handover of its military hardware and weapons to the regular armed forces, according to Russia’s Ministry of Defence, two weeks after a short-lived mutiny that saw its columns advance on Moscow.

The ministry announced on Wednesday it had received more than 2,000 pieces of military hardware, including tanks, mobile rocket launchers and anti-aircraft systems.

It said it had been given “more than 2,500 tonnes of various types of ammunition and about 20,000 small arms”. Much of the equipment, it said, had not been used in combat before.

The disarming of Wagner reflects efforts by the Russian authorities to defuse the threat posed by the private army and its founder Yevgeny Prigozhin, although uncertainty remains about his fate.

Under the terms of the deal that ended the rebellion he was supposed to go into exile in Belarus, but Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said last week that Wagner soldiers remained in their camps and Prigozhin was in Russia.

The Kremlin said on Monday that Prigozhin and 34 of his top officers met President Vladimir Putin on June 29, five days after the rebellion. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wagner’s commanders pledged loyalty to Putin and that they were ready “to continue to fight for the Motherland”.

Putin has said that Wagner troops were required either to sign contracts with the defence ministry, move to Belarus or retire from service.

The defence ministry, which released photos of the equipment in undisclosed locations, said the Wagner weapons had been transferred to rear positions where the equipment can be maintained or repaired.

The armed group, which played a key role in the Ukraine offensive, sought to topple Russia’s military leadership during the rebellion, which was over in less than 24 hours.

At the time, Putin condemned the revolt as an act of treason and threatened severe punishment for those who took part, but the criminal case against Prigozhin was dropped hours later as part of the deal. At the same time, the Wagner chief apparently could still face prosecution for financial wrongdoing or other charges.

The rebellion represented the biggest threat to Putin in his more than two decades in power, even though Prigozhin, long seen as close to Putin, insisted the uprising was not aimed at the president but at Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and chief of the military’s General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov.

Both men remain at their posts.

At the same time, uncertainty surrounds the fate of General Sergei Surovikin, the deputy commander of Russian forces fighting in Ukraine, who reportedly had ties to Prigozhin.

Andrei Kartapolov, a retired general who heads the defence affairs committee in the lower house of the Russian parliament, said on Wednesday that Surovikin was “resting” and “not currently available”, but declined to elaborate.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/13/russian-defence-ministry-says-wagner-handing-over-weapons

I can't help but believe that Putin is ticked off beyond all measure.

Yo- this is the exact opposite of what Vlad wanted all along.

He wanted a return to Russia's past "glory," a weakening/dismantling of NATO, and a stronger position regarding US relations.
And he was positioned to get it all while Yamface45 was POTUS. 45 had us on the brink of pulling out of NATO, b*ing about members not paying their fair share. Dude sided with Putin over his own intelligence community in Helsinki. Yes, the table was set. Putin licking those chops.

Then came the 'stolen' election of 2020.

Now, Dark Brandon putting fat boots to those plans with a quickness.
Erdoğan just helped the green light for Sweden to join, member states are upping their cash commitments, Ukraine is getting closer to membership, and NATO is stronger and more unified than ever before.


Now, his 3-day offensive has surpassed 500 days, his military has been decimated and exposed for the corrupt paper tiger it's always been, and his country has lost standing on the international stage. Most importantly, he now look weak. Vulnerable. After years of shirtless horseback riding, weak-wristed hockey goals against world-class goalies and tank parades through Red Square trying to portray him as a strongman, he now looks small, frail, ineffectual.

Bro- I called this within the first month of that Ukraine miscalculation: someone gonna take him out before Russia loses everything. That, or one other possibility: voluntary exile to a tropical island with a fat wallet and obscurity for the rest of his life. We really are watching History unfold here. A despot is in decline, and the wolves he empowered are circling.

I'd rather be me than he.

.02

Still strong enough to push the button. He will need to be taken out by his own people soon.


https://fortune.com/2023/07/11/the-...ssia-funding-putins-war-sonnenfeld-tian/


Meanwhile nobody is boycotting these companies for being the greedy capitalist pigs supporting Putin’s war….. ‘The Feckless 400’: These companies are still doing business in Russia.

at this point... I really wish Russia would just win the war with Ukraine and get it over with or fall back and concede.

It's rather odd which one you chose to list first.

Not sure why?

Russia is the one who started the war, not Ukraine.

Therefore; Russia must win or fall back and concede.

Nah let them drag this out. Already added Finland to NATO, and Sweden is about to join. Türkiye done finally wised up and chose a side, and there’s a chance Ukraine gets added to NATO or a Israel style Military alliance with the the US.

I’m actually glad Purp and I didn’t run up on a yacht owned by Russians and steal it. That could’ve been the thing that motivated the Russians to win

Putin loves to see people suffer. Especially Russians.

While not directly concerning the war in Ukraine it may be another sign of communist aggression coming in the near future...............

Russia’s Wagner mercenaries launch joint training with Belarusian military near Poland’s border

MOSCOW (AP) — Mercenaries from Russian military company Wagner launched joint drills with the Belarusian military on Thursday, almost a month after their short-lived rebellion against Moscow. Poland built up troops on its border with Belarus in response to the war games.

The maneuvers followed a pledge by Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin to help protect Belarus from a potential incursion and to bolster its military. The Belarusian Defense Ministry said the weeklong drills would take place at a firing range near Brest, a city on the Polish border.

A video released Wednesday appeared to show Prigozhin for the first time since he led last month’s mutiny. The recording shows him telling his troops that before deploying to Africa, they would spend some time in Belarus providing training to help “make the Belarusian army the second strongest army in the world.”

Before the abortive rebellion led by Prigozhin, Wagner mercenaries fought alongside Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. They also were sent to Syria and several African countries since Prigozhin created the private army in 2014.

The U.K. government on Thursday imposed asset freezes and travel bans on 13 Wagner mercenaries over alleged attacks on civilians and other human rights abuses in Africa. Britain previously sanctioned Prigozhin and several other Wagner commanders over the group’s role in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

During the revolt that began on June 23 and ended the next day, Prigozhin’s mercenaries captured the military headquarters in the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don and then drove as close as 200 kilometers (125 miles) to Moscow.

The Wagner chief called the mutiny a “march of justice” to oust Russia’s top military leaders. The mercenaries faced little resistance, and downed at least six military helicopters and a command post aircraft, killing at least 10 airmen.

The revolt posed the most serious threat to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 23-year rule, eroding his authority and exposing the government’s weakness.

Prigozhin ordered his troops back to their camps after Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko brokered a deal to end the rebellion in exchange for amnesty and permission to relocate to Belarus for Prigozhin and his fighters.

Belaruski Hajun, a Belarusian activist group that monitors troops movements in Belarus, said that nine convoys with more than 2,000 Wagner mercenaries already have rolled into the country. A Wagner commander said in a statement posted on a messaging app channel linked to the company that about 10,000 Wagner troops are set to deploy to Belarus.

Opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who was forced to leave Belarus after challenging Lukashenko in a 2020 election that the opposition and the West denounced as fraudulent, said that Wagner’s deployment would destabilize the country and threaten its neighbors.

“The arrival of Wagner will add to instability, and no one will feel safe with these war criminals roaming the country,” she said.

Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said Thursday that he ordered some of his country’s troops moved from the west to Biala Podlaska, around 45 kilometers (28 miles) west from Brest, and to Kolno, further north.

“We must bear in mind that bringing a few thousand of Wagner’s forces into Belarus poses a threat to our country, hence my decision to move some military units from Poland’s west to Poland’s east,” Blaszczak said on state Radio 1. “Their task is to train and to deter an aggressor. It is to show Russia that Poland’s border should not be crossed, that it would not pay off to attack Poland.”

https://apnews.com/article/russia-w...ka2LfLxSD4NTNej3MYERMYrUcBXEfKmBSCG6vElY

Putin’s Next Target: U.S. Support for Ukraine, Officials Say
Julian E. Barnes
Mon, October 2, 2023 at 10:31 AM PDT·5 min read
768

Marines of the Ukrainian Armed Forces during training exercises in Donetsk Region, Ukraine on Aug. 28, 2023. (Tyler Hicks/The New York Times)
WASHINGTON — Russia’s strategy to win the war in Ukraine is to outlast the West.

But how does President Vladimir Putin plan to do that?

U.S. officials said they are convinced that Putin intends to try to end U.S. and European support for Ukraine by using his spy agencies to push propaganda supporting pro-Russian political parties and by stoking conspiracy theories with new technologies.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times

The Russia disinformation aims to increase support for candidates opposing Ukraine aid with the ultimate goal of stopping international military assistance to Ukraine.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

Russia has been frustrated that the United States and Europe have largely remained united on continued military and economic support for Ukraine, U.S. officials said.

That military aid has kept Ukraine in the fight, put Russia’s original goals of taking Kyiv, the capital, and Odesa out of reach and even halted its more modest objective to control all of the Donbas region, in eastern Ukraine.

But Putin believes he can influence American politics to weaken support for Ukraine and potentially restore his battlefield advantage, U.S. officials said.

Putin, the officials said, appears to be closely watching U.S. political debates over Ukraine assistance. Republican opposition to sending more money to Ukraine forced congressional leaders to pass a stopgap spending bill Saturday that did not include additional aid for the country.

Moscow is also likely to try to boost pro-Russian candidates in Europe, seeing potential fertile ground with recent results. A pro-Russian candidate won Slovakia’s parliamentary elections Sunday. In addition to national elections, Russia could seek to influence the European parliamentary vote next year, officials said.

Russia has long used its intelligence services to influence democratic politics around the world.

U.S. intelligence assessments in 2017 and 2021 concluded that Russia had tried to influence elections in favor of Donald Trump. In 2016, Russia hacked and leaked Democratic National Committee emails that hurt Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign and pushed divisive messages on social media. In 2020, Russia sought to spread information denigrating Joe Biden — but many Republicans in Congress argued Russia’s goal was to intensify political fights, not to support Trump.

For the 2024 presidential election, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the stakes for Putin are even higher.

Biden has sent billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine and pledged that the United States and its allies would support the country for “as long as it takes.” Trump, far ahead in the polls for the Republican nomination, has said supporting Ukraine is not a vital U.S. interest.

Russia, according to U.S. officials, is constantly running information operations aimed at denigrating NATO and U.S. policies and is likely to ramp up efforts in the months to come. The U.S. officials spoke on the condition their names not be reported so they could discuss sensitive intelligence.

The ultimate goal of Russia would be to help undermine candidates who support Ukraine and to change U.S. policy. Some U.S. officials doubt Russia would be able to do that.

But even if Moscow cannot influence the final election result, Russians may believe they can stir up enough debate over Ukraine aid that a future Congress could find it more difficult to pass additional support, U.S. officials said.

Beth Sanner, a former senior intelligence official, says artificial intelligence and other new technologies will change how Russia conducts influence campaigns. Russia is also likely to conduct influence laundering efforts, sending messages to the American public through allies inside nominally independent organizations, according to a recent declassified analysis.

“Russia will not give up on disinformation campaigns,” Sanner said. “But we don’t know what it is going to look like. We should assume the Russians are getting smarter.”

It is easy to overstate Russia’s ability to influence U.S. politics. Some American officials and social media executives have questioned how effective Russia’s troll farms and influence operations were in 2016, as opposed to hack and dump operations targeting Clinton’s emails.

And the media landscape has shifted dramatically since then. U.S. and European consumers are more skeptical of what they see on social media. Russian state television, a source of Kremlin narratives, has been pushed off Google’s YouTube. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has bolstered its search for disinformation and de-emphasized news on its platforms.

But for every development making life harder for Russia’s online trolls, there are trends pushing in the opposite direction. The X platform, formerly known as Twitter, has dismantled teams that were hunting for election interference efforts. And the most influential platform among young people is now TikTok, a Chinese company. China has been stepping up its own influence operations, modeled after Moscow’s operations.

U.S. intelligence agencies have warned that several countries are seeking to influence American politics. In 2020, intelligence agencies outlined an Iranian scheme to influence voting in Florida. Cuba also conducted low-level intelligence operations, and Venezuela had the intent, but not the capabilities, to influence the vote.

But Russia is better than any other country at combining state media, private troll farms and intelligence service operations to attack in the digital space, U.S. officials said.

And it has continued to refine its efforts. Many of the disinformation experts who once worked for the Internet Research Agency, the Russian troll farm active in American elections in 2016 and 2018, have migrated to new firms or joined Russian military intelligence. And the internet, one U.S. official said, is the one place Russia will never run out of ammunition.

Shifting the debate in Europe and America is so important to Putin that if those influence operations fail to gain traction, Russia could decide to escalate.

U.S. officials say that escalation could include additional financial support for pro-Russian political parties in Europe or even covert operations in Europe aimed at weakening support for the war in Ukraine.

As a result, underestimating Russia’s ability to conduct influence operations would be a mistake, U.S. officials said.

Russian disinformation that falsely claimed America had bioweapons labs in Ukraine continues to reverberate around the world, for example.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-next-target-u-support-173151349.html

I'm afraid too many have already taken the bait...both in terms of our politicians and in terms of the populace.

Russia used the accusations to justify its invasion of Ukraine and has repeatedly requested United Nations’ investigations of its false claims. But far-right groups, including QAnon, have picked up, expanded and amplified the Russian bioweapons accusations.

In a world divided by polarized politics, conspiracy theories and disinformation have proved more resilient than ever.

It's appalling how many people have no understanding that abandoning Ukraine is supporting Putin.

It's "appalling" how many people act like "support" is an infinite, costless supply. Okay... that's probably a little harsh. In theory, what you say makes sense. The way we've been going about it, not so much to me. There are plenty of petty dictators doing Putin-like things all over the world. Supplying arms honestly only makes conflicts worse.

I dunno, I kind of see it like Iraq. Instead of dumping more money into it, maybe it's time to look at diplomatic solutions. That region of the world doesn't really need more weapons. More weapons don't seem to deter Putin. Just gonna end up with more death and waste of human life. Plus, we're probably making a breeding ground of future extremists with an abundance of military hardware for them to get their hands on.

Need to figure out how to get rid of Putin rather than grinding up soldiers that don't want to be there.

Diplomatic resolution with Putin? What you are not saying out loud would be giving him parts of Ukraine including legitimizing his unprovoked takeover of Crimea. Because that would be the only resolution he would accept.

I'm actually rather surprised you're trying to equate this to Iraq. Iraq is a war we chose to start based on intel of which there were even conflicting reports of among some of our allies. From both the circumstances surrounding these two situations, to the logistical and geographic locations of these two situations I see nothing that draws any sort of comparison. History should have taught us all a lesson. When you allow a dictator to take over other nations unchecked, they don't stop. At the present time we can help defend Ukraine with help from other nations funding it at a fraction of the cost we may very well incur later. And without so much as the loss of one American troop.

It's actually quite a bargain.

The comparison is that as both wars drag on the reasons wore thin and it ended up just a lot of killing for killing's sake, and corporations making profits at the expense of human lives. A large number of the soldiers on the ground don't/didn't want to be either place.

Who said anything about giving him parts of Ukraine? I certainly didn't.

I also didn't say Putin was the one to engage in the diplomacy. It's not just his opponents that can mysteriously fall out of windows. If we could provide planning and support to a moderate faction within Russia, who knows. Unfortunately, no corporations in the US profit from that approach, so our government is likely to take an approach that won't actually lead to its alleged goals but will rather make somebody here money. And it will likely do so at the expense of taxpayers here and average citizens and soldiers there.

I think you are conflating the costs of helping someone wage a war with the cost of waging war on someone. Maybe we see a part of this differently, I don't see supporting a counterinsurgency faction within Russia to assassinate Putin as being a diplomatic solution although I'm quite fond of the idea.

Any diplomatic deal that would cause Putin to withdraw from Ukraine would involve conceding part of Ukraine to Putin.


I know you didn't say that. As a matter of fact I said exactly that in the post you were replying to.


I'm not sure how you equate helping a democracy from being taken over by one of our greatest enemies as "a lot of killing for killing's sake". They are defending their nation against an invasion of a foreign enemy. I'm not a pro war type of person unless I feel it's a total necessity. I'm not for sending our troops to foreign soil to die in most circumstances. I was a person who supported the war in Afghanistan while opposing the war in Iraq. I was a person who believed trying to fight two wars on two separate fronts with an all volunteer armed forces which had reduced numbers compared to times during the draft was a recipe for disaster and there was no need for a war with Iraq.

I believe in what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex. The only place I think we actually differ here is that I think we will have to face Putin at some point. Doing it via this proxy war is a bargain in comparison to what the cost would be otherwise. It's a pay me now or pay me later situation. And the price tag now is a huge bargain to what the price tag would be later. I'm not for willfully putting Putin in the position of power and strength. History has shown that will only embolden him to go further.

That's exactly why I say abandoning Ukraine is supporting Putin.

I'm of the opinion making more weapons is bad. If they are lying around, people will eventually use them. I think it ties in to our gun problems here. If they are everywhere, someone is going to use them. (Unfortunately, taking them away from only one side would also likely have catastrophic results) Why lay the groundwork for future conflict?

I do think we agree a fair bit.

I just think providing weapons to Ukraine isn't really facing Putin. In some ways, it's almost doing Putin's dirty work for him. Putin is keeping those loyal to him close and sending those that might oppose him to the front.

Much like many American corporations, Putin doesn't really care how many people die as long as he can keep feeding his ego and/or coffers.

I don't see how refusing to hand him Ukraine is helping him do his dirty work.

In principal I agree with the premise that making more weapons is bad. Sadly we can't get China, Russia and places like North Korea to go along with that concept. So without the continuing support of manufacturing weapons we will eventually make ourselves weak and vulnerable. Sadly I believe the lust for power is so ingrained in the human DNA or as some call it, human nature, that this will most likely never change. It's been a part of mankind's history since history has been recorded.

We need to figure out how to disincentivize the ones with the lust and greed rather than punishing the ones they use to slake it.

expanding: When the actions you take to counter "lust and greed" feed into someone else's lust and greed, it perpetuates the problem.

No we’re not making future extremists, we’re preserving a democracy allied to our own. But hey, whatever lies you have to tell yourself to be good little GOPer I guess, just like Benito…

Throughout mankind's history nobody has been able to figure out a way to accomplish that. I'm all for hearing ideas on how to do that but not very optimistic that it's an idea based in a realistic possibility.

Oh for God's sake.

While Government sanctioned assassination is troublesome, killing one person can't be worse than killing hundreds upon thousands. What process reaching that decision should go through, I'm not sure. Maybe have all NATO countries hold a special vote?

When someone is taking out their competition, I don't think we should continue to consider them a duly elected leader. And invading other sovereign countries should similarly remove protections.

I can understand why some leaders don't want to set a precedent.

on the other hand, there are some lines individuals (particularly those in power) shouldn't be able to cross without personal repercussions. Act like a terrorist, get hunted down like one.

Bleh, probably gonna end up on a watchlist somewhere. I'd prefer if "we" killed as few people as possible. Unfortunately, some people seem hellbent on killing others.

You may wish to look and see that when you posted that in regards to Putin I didn't oppose the idea, I simply stated I didn't consider that option a "diplomatic solution" per say.

I'm not arguing with you. Just thinking "out loud" at this point.

Diplomatic was the first word that came to mind as opposing all out war. I was looking at it as "diplomatically" getting someone else to pull the trigger. Though perhaps getting a diplomatic consensus to taking such a course of action is a better approach.

Probably just gonna have to go the black op route, so China/North Korea don't feel obligated to respond or lose face.

Yeah, I was thinking a strategical solution sounded a little more accurate. I think we both see it as a reasonable solution with only a slight change is verbiage being the difference.

Like it or not we are fighting a proxy war right now. We have 2 choices , fund it and support it to the point that Russia is weakened and withdraws or wash our hands and hope the Ukraine people get assistance from others.

There are more than 2 choices. We've been discussing some.

Binary paradigms towards proxy wars are a big reason they keep happening. There are all kinds of articles and scholarship on the downsides of proxy wars. The best proxy war is the one you avoid. The same can be said for war in general.

I'm curious if the US is intentionally trying to drag this out. While it's well within our govt's ability to slow walk military aid due to incompetence and red tape, I can't help but wonder if there's ulterior motives. About a year ago we had a hard line in the ground in terms of sending tanks and planes. Fast forward to today and they have Abrams and sound like they're going to get F-16s. I wonder if the US is trying to get Putin tossed by his own people by dragging out this war. The cost is great, but nowhere near what Russia is spending (equipment, lives, emigration and economic impact).

I'm convinced that a strong and stable Europe becomes much more likely when Russia either A) gets its head screwed on straight or B) is essentially crippled.

I think the military industrial complex is pulling its strings where it has its hooks set in Washington. There's been a rather coordinated media campaign to make "intervention" through military equipment not only palatable to the American people but to be seen as imperative. I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian intelligence services are secretly chortling as this is giving them easier access to reverse engineering foreign technology.

Unfortunately, if its option B, with all the weapons that will be over there, I doubt it's a peaceful entity that steps into the void.

For option A, it would seem to require a new head entirely.

Iraq and Ukraine are apples and oranges. I think that I would agree with you that perhaps there has to be more transparent auditing procedures and anti-corruption, and actually there is, but it doesn't get publicized as much as "We ArE WaSTinG MonEY!" I do agree it could perhaps still go further. I also think we can offset money spent on Ukraine by reducing defense pork $.

As far as the tactics though, Putin is not a petty dictator. He already has meddled in election and plans on doing the same now to break us away from Ukraine. His level of dictatorship is far beyond "petty." Despite the repeated L's he has taken, he still does maintain a first world military.

It is also not us expending paramount resources and American lives to invade a place that we have no business invading. We already spend an enormous portion of our defense budget specifically garnered to countering Russia. Diverting that into upholding Ukraine accomplishes this goal. It economically also leverages us to other countries because they are seeing a B team beat the hell out of an A team with our weapons. They are thinking twice about buying Russian now and the line for our platforms, like the F-16 is now out the door.

When you are a soldier on the ground, war is pretty much war. The "reasons" don't seem very important when the bullets are flying.


I'd rather just not spend the money buying other people weapons. We need to cut back spending, not just rearrange it. I've presented what I see as better options. We are literally wasting resources. Weapons are made to destroy things. Plus there's the whole they're not going to give the weapons back if/when the war is over, and it's hard to predict where they will be used next. Also, one might consider that "upping the stakes" hardware-wise increases the chances of Putin going nuclear.


I wasn't so much calling Putin a petty dictator as saying there are others all over the globe with the implication intended to be should we fund the opposition to all of them? It's also unclear to me what tactics have to do with the rest of what you wrote.


Is it accomplishing a goal? Or is it extending a deadlock that isn't accomplishing anything other than lining arms manufacturers' pockets and leaving lots of corpses and ruined infrastructure?

I'm against the proliferation of war machines. I don't care if it's "us" selling them. It's individuals that don't need more money that would be collecting the windfall. The "US economy" doing well and the average American doing well economically aren't correlated that closely.

I can think of few worse uses of resources than making things that destroy other resources so you have to use more resources to replace them on a planet with limited resources.