July 27, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: You keep asking me questions like this, youre posing a false dichotomy. Who gives a F right now when A. I don't think anyone has a full breakdown on every candidates position on the matter (including most of the candidates themselves) and B. Its going to be more than a year before any of them even have any such authority? Unless, of course, this is your way of saying that you think the war will still be raging even after Bidens term, and his successor will have to clean all of this up....in which case Im inclined to agree with you Everytime someone asks a question comparing the R primary candidates you go full poosay and dodge it. I love it. It's not a hard question. Who do you think would handle Ukraine the best? The guy who regularly sucks off Putin or one of the others?
July 27, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Everytime someone asks a question comparing the R primary candidates you go full poosay and dodge it. I love it. It's not a hard question. Who do you think would handle Ukraine the best? The guy who regularly sucks off Putin or one of the others? hey, stop dick riding for all your fake friends !!!!! sorry mike, i stole your thunder there, buddy.
July 27, 20232 yr 28 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Everytime someone asks a question comparing the R primary candidates you go full poosay and dodge it. I love it. It's not a hard question. Who do you think would handle Ukraine the best? The guy who regularly sucks off Putin or one of the others? It actually is a hard question considering I dont have all of the information required to provide an answer. If you're asking me if Trump could handle Putin better I'd say he already did. For the good of the country I'd prefer neither Biden nor Trump be POTUS. But as an independent voter who has a 1 and 3 year old, I legitimately dont have time nor the desire to investigate every potential candidates position on the war, especially considering half of the will bow out in a matter of months anyway. Going straight off the cuff, comparing everyone against Biden: DeSantis is too green wrt foreign diplomacy although he does have a functioning brain, Christie would undoubtedly be better, Pence would probably be better but hes a wildcard who I could see going full neocon and extending the war forever, Haley/Scott I throw in the same boat as they seem level headed but I dont know. Manchin would probably be best because hes a West Virginia italian and thus has the dna of greatness a la Nick Saban. If you or alpha tater could lay out each of their positions Id happily analyze them for you.
July 27, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Mike31mt said: Afghanistan? How are the Taliban doing with the shiny new country Biden surrendered to them? The country Trump surrendered. You know, the d-bag who wanted to invite them to Camp David. Are you incapable of typing facts?
July 27, 20232 yr Just now, Mike31mt said: If you're asking me if Trump could handle Putin better I'd say he already did. Yeah, he totally ended the war when the Russians were fighting in Donbas. Oh, wait, no he didn't, he just withheld aid to Zelensky in order to extort political dirt out of him.
July 27, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, vikas83 said: Yeah. FDR should have called Hitler to negotiate peace on behalf of Churchill too. No idea why I bother. No. He should have ended the war by giving Hitler Poland.
July 27, 20232 yr Secret US-Russia talks over Ukraine ‘not sanctioned by Biden administration’ Quote Joe Biden’s administration did not sanction or support secret meetings that former top US national security officials held with the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and other Russians on potential talks to end the Ukraine war, the White House and state department have said. America’s NBC News network reported that the former officials met Lavrov in New York in April, joined by Richard Haass, a former US diplomat and outgoing president of the Council on Foreign Relations thinktank in Washington, and two former White House aides, Charles Kupchan and Thomas Graham. It was not clear how frequently the group, which included former Pentagon officials, held discussions with other prominent Russians thought to be close to the Kremlin, NBC News said. At least one unidentified group member travelled to Russia, it added. The casing of a Russian cluster bomb rocket east of the port city of Mykolaiv, Ukraine in March, US expected to provide cluster bombs to Ukraine Read more "The Biden administration did not sanction those discussions,” a state department spokesperson said on Thursday. "And as we’ve said repeatedly, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” The spokesperson was referring to an administration policy of not discussing possible negotiations on ending the war without involving Ukrainian officials. He said the administration would continue providing weaponry to Kyiv so Ukrainian officials "can negotiate from a position of strength when they think the time is right”. Former diplomats said the US did make use of former diplomats to conduct back-channel discussions, although this did not mean they would lead to more serious negotiations. Lavrov would be highly unlikely to meet retired US officials unless they had some link to official channels, they added. A former western official said they were aware of the talks but their status was unclear: "But even if not authorised this visit shows that some ‘realists’ in DC want to do a deal with Russia over Ukraine’s head.” Haass is a former White House, Pentagon and state department official who has just stepped down as head of the Council on Foreign Relations after two decades. He has been described as "the dean” of the foreign policy establishment. In a Substack post on Friday, he confirmed his participation in the meeting but declined to offer details, arguing that such exchanges have the best chance of success when kept confidential. He also defended himself against "nasty, ad hominem attacks” and suggested the intervention could undermine Ukraine’s position. "Since they are not official meetings, participants often feel more comfortable speaking candidly and testing new ideas or proposals,” Haass wrote. "Critically, such meetings are conversations, not negotiations. Those involved speak for themselves, not for any institution they might be affiliated with, and certainly not for the US government, although relevant government officials are kept informed about what is taking place.” Haass noted that he had been a "a strong and vocal critic” of Vladimir Putin’s unjustified war and a supporter of US military support. He also acknowledged co-writing an article advocating that a ceasefire be proposed at the end of the current fighting season if Ukraine falls short of recovering all territory occupied by Russia. He added: "The interesting news is that the Ukraine government, sobered by how difficult and costly the counteroffensive is proving to be, seems to be contemplating the introduction of a diplomatic dimension thus far largely missing from the conflict. "Some of Ukraine’s most ardent supporters might take this into account before they reject out of hand any attempt to explore diplomatic options. Diplomacy is not a favor granted to another side but a tool whose use should be weighed against that of other options to advance one’s foreign policy objectives.” NBC News, quoting six people briefed on the discussions, said the talks were aimed at laying the groundwork for possible talks on ending the war that erupted with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. It quoted two sources as saying that the discussions took place with the administration’s knowledge but not at its direction, and that those who met Lavrov briefed the White House afterwards. The White House national security spokesperson, John Kirby, also told CBS News the administration was aware of the unofficial discussions. "But I want to make it clear that these discussions were not encouraged or engendered by us and we were not supporting them in any active way,” he continued. "As the president has said, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” Ex-officials have previously taken part in "track two” interventions in the Middle East, North Korea and other contexts with mixed results. Foreign policy analysts argue that the push could be useful in defining parameters for the kind of negotiation that will be the inevitable end of the Ukraine war. Philip Crowley, a former assistant secretary of state, said on Friday: "What’s notable here is Lavrov’s participation. Lavrov has credibility and it’s a way that the United States can have an indirect conversation while not violating the spirit of its pledge that there be no negotiations without Ukraine. "It’s at least a way of getting some idea of how much flexibility exists on the Russian side and the fact that it’s with former officials means that the administration is informed by it but can also keep it at arm’s length.” But news of the talks caused a division in Washington’s foreign policy establishment, with some critics suggesting the former diplomats’ effort could undermine the Ukrainian government and give the impression that the US is desperate for a deal. Rajan Menon, director of the grand strategy programme at the Defense Priorities thinktank, who has visited Ukraine three times during the war, said: "Many of the people who are ardent supporters of Ukraine have argued that this is a betrayal and stab in the back. "I really think people need to stand back and take a deep breath and understand that the United States has provided $46bn in military assistance to Ukraine since the war began and is about to provide another $800m in the latest package, which is about 10 times more than any other single country has provided. "So while supporters of Ukraine in this country might be up in arms, the Ukrainian government would be well advised to simply say, we know that this meeting took place between private individuals and Lavrov; however, we deal with the Biden administration and we are confident of their support.” "So while supporters of Ukraine in this country might be up in arms, the Ukrainian government would be well advised to simply say, we know that this meeting took place between private individuals and Lavrov; however, we deal with the Biden administration and we are confident of their support.” **** incognito
July 27, 20232 yr 14 minutes ago, Toastrel said: The country Trump surrendered. You know, the d-bag who wanted to invite them to Camp David. Are you incapable of typing facts? Biden had no role to play in Afghanistan —— Toaster Facts
July 27, 20232 yr Afghanistan was botched by every President while we were in Afghanistan. We tried to fight a one year war twenty times over.
July 27, 20232 yr 21 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: If you're asking me if Trump could handle Putin better I'd say he already did.
July 27, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, vikas83 said: Biden calling Putin would be just about the dumbest idea possible. Putin would immediately leak the call and claim that the west was abandoning Ukraine. He'd also claim this is evidence that the war has really been with NATO all along. You'd be playing completely into his hands while undermining Zelensky, all with no chance of resolving squat. You'd embolden Putin and allow him to rally support domestically. The only thing to do would be to offer to host and mediate a peace conference between Putin and Zelensky, but zero chance Putin would show to a meeting mediated by the US. are you saying elementary school solutions dreamed up by MAGA voters with 5th grade education levels are not going to solve all the geopolitical problems we face?
July 27, 20232 yr 27 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: Secret US-Russia talks over Ukraine ‘not sanctioned by Biden administration’ "So while supporters of Ukraine in this country might be up in arms, the Ukrainian government would be well advised to simply say, we know that this meeting took place between private individuals and Lavrov; however, we deal with the Biden administration and we are confident of their support.” Falla*** incognito.
July 27, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: are you saying elementary school solutions dreamed up by MAGA voters with 5th grade education levels from the dumbest state in the country are not going to solve all the geopolitical problems we face? fyp
July 27, 20232 yr 30 minutes ago, CountBlah said: Biden had no role to play in Afghanistan —— Toaster Facts Swing and a miss. Biden botched the withdrawal. Horribly. However the deal, was President Trump's. Toaster, and generally accepted knowledge, facts.
July 28, 20232 yr On 7/17/2023 at 12:17 PM, Alpha_TATEr said: all of them stomping on Abra's snowflake heart. THEY STOMPED HIS HEART OUT!
July 28, 20232 yr The militant right, ready to bust out their guns against Trannies and Barbies but go ahead and lay down like a dog to friggin' Putin.
July 28, 20232 yr It’s just weird because back in early WWII the anti interventionists were northerners. The south by and large wanted to intervene. Maybe due to a large part of the populace being English decent and thus being anglophiles. Nowadays not so much.
July 28, 20232 yr https://humanevents.com/2023/07/27/breaking-us-troops-in-ukraine-to-earn-extra-225-per-month-in-hazard-pay?utm_campaign=64483 Hazard pay for US troops in Ukraine
July 28, 20232 yr 18 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: are you saying elementary school solutions dreamed up by MAGA voters with 5th grade education levels are not going to solve all the geopolitical problems we face? Elementary school solutions. Why are progressives so afraid of open dialogue? I wonder...
July 28, 20232 yr 30 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: https://humanevents.com/2023/07/27/breaking-us-troops-in-ukraine-to-earn-extra-225-per-month-in-hazard-pay?utm_campaign=64483 Hazard pay for US troops in Ukraine Is there some part of this you have a problem with? Troops deployed in hazardous areas, like war zones, often get this pay.
July 28, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Is there some part of this you have a problem with? Troops deployed in hazardous areas, like war zones, often get this pay. Yeah, the part where we weren't supposed to have any troops in Ukraine. And the fact that hazard pay actually holds a significance you haven't quite grasped.
July 28, 20232 yr We have troops at our Embassy in Kyiv numnuts. That's the totality of troops we have deployed in Ukraine.
July 28, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: We have troops at our Embassy in Kyiv numnuts. That's the totality of troops we have deployed in Ukraine. Oh. Its pretty hazardous there huh? Also curious how you knew we had boots on the ground in Ukraine when Biden said we wouldnt? Howd you know??
Create an account or sign in to comment