You know, this is rather amusing in that you telling me that I play the blame game is just like Trump telling everyone that they're guilty of election interference.

It's a political forum, Elizabeth. Please provide the name of a regular commenter here who isn't blaming someone for something/anything. I'll wait.

Can we say projection? ;)

You just did. In point of fact, you keep blaming me repetitively for "projection" to the point it's becoming a monotonous and worn out accusation from you, and I would like to express my deep appreciation for you falling all over yourself to prove my point for me. :)

Go ahead!

I really don't need to, Elizabeth. Anyone who reads this forum regularly, with the obvious exception of yourself, is already well aware you play the "blame game."

I'll let you in on a little secret (not secret). Everyone here plays it; it's a freaking political forum! That's primarily why it's ridiculous for anyone commenting here to make the asinine claim:

In fact, I don't play the blame game, as a general rule.

~ Elizabeth Miller

That isn't even close to a "fact." :)

Can we say projection? ;)

Go ahead!

Here is some free advice for the taking - spend less time on tedious responses to me and more time on engaging with other commenters here who actually appreciate your tactics.

Here is some free advice for you too:

* You frequently play the "blame game" on this forum, and I can easily prove it because this forum is archived.

* You do not (and never will) control me, my time, my responses, or highly likely any other poster on this forum for that matter, and you should seriously allow yourself to (finally) accept that fact for what it is.

Great talk. :)

Here is some free advice for the taking - spend less time on tedious responses to me and more time on engaging with other commenters here who actually appreciate your tactics.

Why are you so obsessed with the blame game.

"Obsessed"? Nope. I'm simply responding to your laughable implausible denials. It wasn't me who insisted, despite all evidence to the contrary, "I don't play the blame game"... that was definitely you.

I'm simply the one pointing and laughing at the obvious either:
(a) total lack of self-awareness, or
(b) outright blatant fabrication on an archived forum.

It's never been very productive, not to mention tedious. Oh, wait ...

Yes, your blaming has frequently "never been very productive" and is most definitely "tedious."

Good talk. :)

I have always been quite clear about this. It is this duplicitous behavior by those who purport to support Ukraine's membership in NATO and talk about the prospects almost as a fait accompli, knowing that the reality of Ukraine in NATO is anything but, protestations to the contrary by the secretary general of NATO and others, notwithstanding.

So you've always been quite clear about blaming Biden and NATO for "duplicitous behavior," even while claiming to not be blaming. Interesting.

It that a rhetorical question? Heh.

No, as I already explained, it was a "thought-provoking question." Allow yourself to respond.

Do let me know if there is anything more I can answer to assist in your understanding of realpolitik ... and me! :)

Like I need your permission. Heh. You could start by answering the "thought-provoking question" instead of avoiding the facts. You could also allow yourself to stop denying you do a lot of blaming on this forum; just own it.

Nowhere in this quote do I blame Biden for anything. I have never blamed Biden. I don't play the blame game.

Again with "never." Well, we both know that's incorrect.

So you need "blame" explained to you? Here, let me help you by rubbing your nose in it and explaining the definition of blame: "he most certainly did." (direct quote from that paragraph you claimed wasn't blaming Biden).

blame

* assign responsibility for a fault or wrong:
"the inquiry blamed the engineer for the accident"

* assign the responsibility for something bad to (someone or something)

Those who do quite frequently play the blame game see blame in every comment.

This is (again) a strawman argument and absolutely ridiculous. Obviously, no one here sees blame in "every comment," but your pathetic strawman argument is (again) duly noted. Epic fail.

However, you should allow yourself to own the fact that you actually do play the "blame game" in more ways than one: by claiming commenters here are misquoting you (nope) and that Biden/United States is not doing enough for [fill in blank] with various assorted issues, and you've been doing it for many, many years now regarding many numerous issues, up to and including accusing persons of being sexually repressed and therefore incapable of discussing such issues.

You've been doing it for years now; you could at least own it. :)

Why on Earth would anything Biden said about Ukraine and NATO admission being "non-negotiable" (your term) put your knickers in such a twist for over two years running if it was never and never going to ever happen?

I have always been quite clear about this. It is this duplicitous behavior by those who purport to support Ukraine's membership in NATO and talk about the prospects almost as a fait accompli, knowing that the reality of Ukraine in NATO is anything but, protestations to the contrary by the secretary general of NATO and others, notwithstanding.

Why on Earth would Putin invade Ukraine (not for the first time) if NATO on their western border was never and never going to ever happen?

It that a rhetorical question? Heh. Do let me know if there is anything more I can answer to assist in your understanding of realpolitik ... and me! :)

You still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president [sic] Biden had not summarily stated that Ukraine's membership in NATO was non-negotiable as he most certainly did during the weeks of diplomatic maneuvering before Russia invaded.

~ Elizabeth Miller

Nowhere in this quote do I blame Biden for anything. I have never blamed Biden. I don't play the blame game.

Those who do quite frequently play the blame game see blame in every comment. I think that is what's called ... wait for it ... projection!

And, while it may be hard for some here to admit, NATO has never seriously entertained the proposition of admitting Ukraine as a member and it likely never will.

If NATO "has never seriously entertained the proposition of admitting Ukraine as a member and it likely never will" (quoting you with bold emphasis on never and never), then I have some thought-provoking questions for you:

* Why on Earth would anything Biden said about Ukraine and NATO admission being "non-negotiable" (your term) put your knickers in such a twist for over two years running if it was never and never going to ever happen?

* Why on Earth would Putin invade Ukraine (not for the first time) if NATO on their western border was never and never going to ever happen?

You're now perilously close to figuring out what we've been explaining to you for over two years (despite all your protestations and repetitive objections to the contrary) that the NATO issue was just a pretext for (more) war.

Also:

Allies have already agreed to plan for a greater NATO role in coordinating security assistance and training for Ukraine. I believe we also need a major, multi-year financial commitment to sustain our support. To demonstrate that our support to Ukraine is not short term and ad hoc, but long term and predictable. Moscow must understand: they cannot win. And they cannot wait us out.

...

Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. Ukraine will become a member of NATO. The work we are undertaking now puts you on an irreversible path towards NATO membership, so that when the time is right, Ukraine can become a NATO member straightaway.

~ Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, April 29, 2024

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_225160.htm

So, to recap: It's a good general rule to:

* Never say never.
* Never say never/never.

For the record, again, I have never blamed Biden for the war in Ukraine.

Also for the record -- to state the obviously quite obvious -- what I said in [54] was "you keep blaming Biden repeatedly." What I definitely didn't say was you "blamed Biden for the war in Ukraine." My actual factual point was that you keep blaming Biden for some apparent language he used that, according to you, had he not used it may have led to some kind of different outcome wherein war may have been averted, to wit:

You still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president [sic] Biden had not summarily stated that Ukraine's membership in NATO was non-negotiable as he most certainly did during the weeks of diplomatic maneuvering before Russia invaded.

~ Elizabeth Miller

That was a direct quote from this very commentary, and you've been throwing out that accusation against Biden repeatedly on this forum for over two (2) years to date. Yes, you are repeatedly blaming Biden.

At this point, could you please post a quote of what Biden said that has you prattling on and on repeatedly blaming Biden? Seriously, please quote Biden's words.

In fact, I don't play the blame game, as a general rule.

Bollocks. You continually keep blaming President Biden (see above), and more increasingly you're blaming others on this forum for "misquoting" you, which I haven't seen anybody actually doing that.

And, while it may be hard for some here to admit, NATO has never seriously entertained the proposition of admitting Ukraine as a member and it likely never will.

Finally, we are all well aware of the process that must be followed by countries wishing to join NATO.

It appears you believe "we are all well aware," but it seems to me if you were actually well aware, then you wouldn't keep blaming President Biden repeatedly.

That process includes the right of the organization as a whole to deny admission.

"As a whole"? All NATO decisions are made by consensus among members and no other countries. Ukraine requested a NATO membership action plan (MAP) in 2008, and the alliance's member nations at that time did not agree by consensus to enter Ukraine into the alliance but did declare that Ukraine "will become" a member.

My bottom line is simply this ... Ukraine inside the fold of NATO is not and never has been a good idea.

If you ever wonder why anyone here would describe your comments as coming directly from the Kremlin, all you need do is read this one. I'll take "Things Vladimir Putin Has Said" for $1,000, Alex.

After more than two years of this latest Russian aggression and essentially stalemated war, I surmise that Ukrainians may have become more open to the notion that closer ties with the EU but neutrality with regard to the Western military alliance - and all that that entails - is the best path toward a more secure, sovereign and democratic Ukraine.

There are statistics gathered from polling: https://tinyurl.com/2pdztdcp

The majority of Ukrainians do not want to negotiate with Russia.

Now, you are free to go ahead and misquote or misinterpret or misunderstand or worse this simply stated comment as you are so wont to do. ;)

I don't desire or require a permission structure to interpret anyone's comments, and I don't generally misquote anyone either.

I don't misquote people unless by accident

My bottom line is simply this ... Ukraine inside the fold of NATO is not and never has been a good idea.

After more than two years of this latest Russian aggression and essentially stalemated war, I surmise that Ukrainians may have become more open to the notion that closer ties with the EU but neutrality with regard to the Western military alliance - and all that that entails - is the best path toward a more secure, sovereign and democratic Ukraine.

Now, you are free to go ahead and misquote or misinterpret or misunderstand or worse this simply stated comment as you are so wont to do. ;)

Good God, Kick ... that sure is a lot of words wasted on an idiot!

Sometimes I have a lot on my mind. If I thought you were an "idiot," I would have kept every word of it to myself.

It appears to me that our impasse on this subject can be summarized as this:

* Russia, who made written agreement to protect Ukraine's borders, did exactly the opposite in 2014 when Ukrainians ran out Putin's puppet in Kiev.

* Russia in 2021 began further amassing 100,000+ troops along Ukraine's border with the absolute intent to escalate the invasion deeper into Ukraine while insisting to the entire world no such intent.

* Still denying intention to invade, Russia proffered a list of demands among which they insisted that the United States and NATO pledge to bar entry into the alliance to Ukraine and Georgia or any ex-Soviet states (forever). Since inception in April 1949, the NATO alliance has had an open door policy which does not allow any other country not in NATO to dictate who may be admitted.

* The United States and NATO (30 countries at that time, 32 currently) rejected Putin's demands (among others) that they bar entry to other nations, including Ukraine, and you are simply conflating that fact with:

Biden summarily stated that Ukraine's membership in NATO was non-negotiable.

~ Elizabeth Miller

Those are two entirely different things. Ukraine (or any country) is free to negotiate terms with Russia (or any country) and free to remain neutral like Norway and Sweden had decided up until recently. NATO continues to have an open door policy.

NATO's "open door policy" is based on Article 10 of its founding treaty. Any decision to invite a country to join the Alliance is taken by the North Atlantic Council on the basis of consensus among all Allies. No third country has a say in such deliberations.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

What is non-negotiable is NATO's open door policy. Ukraine -- Georgia, Norway, Sweden, etc. -- were obviously always free to choose to remain neutral.

Let me rephrase that third paragraph, just to be crystal clear about the only assertion I have made about this war:

Okay, without even having read it, that puny paragraph there is not remotely the "only assertion" you have made about "this war"... and far from it.

You still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president Biden had not summarily stated that Ukraine's membership in NATO was non-negotiable as he most certainly did during the weeks of diplomatic maneuvering before Russia invaded.

Incorrect. Can you not grasp the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine long before 2022? And that Ukraine was officially neutral at that time in 2014 when Russia actually did invade (and not for the first time)? What part of the Russian invasion in 2014 do you not understand caused Ukraine to become more resolved that joining the NATO alliance (that has an open-door policy since inception) would be the best way to safeguard against further Russian aggression? Rhetorical questions.

So fast forward from the 2014 invasion of a neutral Ukraine to the 2021 amassing of 100,000+ troops on Ukraine's border, and the United States and NATO rejected Putin's demands that they guarantee Ukraine won't be admitted to the Western military alliance (among multiple many other demands) because NATO has always had an open-door policy.

You are simply conflating one thing with another.

We will never know what might have happened or, indeed, if anything would have unfolded differently if he hadn't been so dismissive at such a critical time.

Bollocks.

And, THAT is all I have been saying - nothing more or less.

This blog is archived. You have said a lot more and certainly not less by any stretch of the imagination and no amount of backpedalling will ever change that fact.

Now, I think our time would be better spent on a discussion of what is happening today in Ukraine rather than on what might have been, a discussion that really should have been over on the first day of the invasion.

The first day of the invasion wasn't recently, and mercifully, we haven't been discussing this since 2014 when Putin's man in Russia was run out of Ukraine by Ukrainians, which led to Russia's invasion of a neutral Ukraine despite all written assurances to the contrary.

And I definitely know a lot better how my time should be spent, and it would really be great if rather than anyone discussing "what is happening today in Ukraine," if you could cease and desist in imitating Russia circa 2014 and actually keep your written assurance to Weigantia, to wit:

Chris's blog has never been about foreign policy, my primary interest. And, it has taken me far too long to accept that I should find another place to discuss these kinds of issues and not continue to hijack his headlining pieces.

So, I'm going to refrain from any further discussion of topics that Chris doesn't address in his columns.

~ Elizabeth Miller

How long must the people of Weigantia suffer and how much of the bandwidth must be lost to hijacking before it comes to a merciful end? :)

You will indubitably be surprised to learn that I have never disputed/argued with much of what you write here in any of my comments about the war in Ukraine on this blog site.

No, I would not, and I would wager no one else on this blog would either. More likely than that would be one (or more) of us pointing out exactly where you've argued exactly what you're now claiming you've "never disputed/argued" because this blog is archived.

Of course, that is not to say that you paint the whole picture here and that you leave out a lot of history, much like the vaunted Mr. Peter Zeihan.

Between you and I and the "vaunted Mr. Peter Zeihan," neither Peter or I would win the prize for failing to paint the actual history.

But, you still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president Biden had not summarily refused to entertain the neutrality of Ukraine.

That is a myth that never happened; it is literally Russian propaganda coming straight out of the Kremlin... lather, rinse, repeat... ad nauseam. You are conflating one thing with another.

We will never know what might have happened or if anything would have unfolded differently.

Speak for yourself. We obviously know what unfolded, and we obviously know the history. We also clearly know how to connect the obvious dots. If you cannot or will not, do not whine if people disagree with your oft repeated opinion based on false equivalency propaganda bullshit.

Now, take a good look at what has happened in Ukraine - and in Russia, for that matter - since this war began. It's not a pretty picture, as far as Ukraine is concerned, even if you think as I do that Ukraine has already won this war by preventing Putin from taking control of the whole country.

Give it up, Elizabeth. I don't even have to read what follows. Ukraine will go from "already won this war" to "losing this war"... and in whiplash fashion.

Things are not going well for Ukraine and they are getting worse.

Except Ukraine has "already won this war" (quoting you, not myself). Oh, FFS... pick a lane.

How long must the people of Ukraine suffer and how much of Ukraine's territory must be lost to Russia before it comes to a negotiated settlement?

As long as Russia keeps attacking Ukraine despite written assurances to the contrary. If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. If that's not a good enough answer for you, you should call the Kremlin and ask for "okurok" (cigarette butt) and ask him when he plans to stop the invasion... just don't expect a factual response from Vlad the Impaler.

Or, are you still under the illusion that Ukraine can win this war, outright?

When did you stop beating your wife!? *laughs* Your projection is side-splitting comedy. Who was it who very recently claimed that Ukraine has "already won this war"? Check your mirror for the person "under the illusion."

I reiterate: Appeasement is a policy of granting concessions to an aggressive foreign power and causes more death... not less.

This is an argument from ignorance. literally, that's what the entire class of fallacy is called.

Cannot believe we have to keep explaining this, but the "invasion" of Ukraine by Russia didn't remotely begin in 2022...

Russia invaded Ukraine long before 2022...
________________________

Okay, I meant 2022 when I said 2012; I have voice recognition software, and I misspoke the year.

[NOTE TO SELF: Coffee before comments.]

And I have more questions to ponder:

Q: Didn't Russia sign the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 stating they'd recognize Ukraine's borders and not use force to undermine the territorial integrity of Ukraine?

A: Duh.

Q: Then in 2014, didn't Vladimir Putin annex Crimea following an illegal referendum?

A: Duh.

Q: And before the 2022 escalation, didn't Putin recognize the independence of the Donbas enclaves, begging more questions:

Why wouldn't Putin/Moscow pocket any type of concessions in 2022 and then later "lather, rinse, repeat"?

Would more of those written assurances, commitments, and/or guarantees from Russia be worth the paper on which it was set forth or would it be more valuable fashioned into a paper airplane?

You still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president Biden had not summarily stated that Ukraine's membership in NATO was non-negotiable as he most certainly did during the weeks of diplomatic maneuvering before Russia invaded. We will never know what might have happened or, indeed, if anything would have unfolded differently if he hadn't been so dismissive at such a critical time.

And, THAT is all I have been saying - nothing more or less.

Now, I think our time would be better spent on a discussion of what is happening today in Ukraine rather than on what might have been, a discussion that really should have been over on the first day of the invasion.

You will indubitably be surprised to learn that I have never disputed/argued with much of what you write here in any of my comments about the war in Ukraine on this blog site.

Of course, that is not to say that you paint the whole picture here and that you leave out a lot of history, much like the vaunted Mr. Peter Zeihan.

But, you still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president Biden had not summarily refused to entertain the neutrality of Ukraine. We will never know what might have happened or if anything would have unfolded differently.

Now, take a good look at what has happened in Ukraine - and in Russia, for that matter - since this war began. It's not a pretty picture, as far as Ukraine is concerned, even if you think as I do that Ukraine has already won this war by preventing Putin from taking control of the whole country.

Things are not going well for Ukraine and they are getting worse. How long must the people of Ukraine suffer and how much of Ukraine's territory must be lost to Russia before it comes to a negotiated settlement?

Or, are you still under the illusion that Ukraine can win this war, outright?  

Russia invaded Ukraine long before 2012; I have no reason to fabricate the facts of the matter, the events of which it would do anyone who doesn't understand this some good to research and educate themselves, but I digress.

Fast forward to July 2021, when Vladimir Putin published an essay titled (translated): "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians." In his essay, Putin reasserts his view that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people." Reader's Digest condensed version: Imperialism and loads of revisionist history bullshit.

Months later, Dmitry Medvedev, published an article (endorsed by the Kremlin) in the daily Kommersant that was laden with antisemitic verbiage wherein he agrees with Putin's essay and declares that until the Ukrainian government is replaced, there will be no negotiations with Ukraine.

Putin's personal adviser, Vladislav Surkov, also published an article on the website Aktualnye Kommentarii regarding Ukraine and multiple other former USSR territories wherein he questions the legitimacy of Russia's western borders, including those of Ukraine and each of the Baltic states and arguing that Russia should abolish the "wicked peace" of the borders that keep Russia confined.

On February 21, 2022, Putin attempts to rewrite history and states (translated) that "modern Ukraine was wholly and fully created by Bolshevik, communist Russia." In point of fact, Lenin started a war with independent Ukraine in 1918 and replaced it with the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" that became part of the USSR four years later in 1922, and also in fact, Boris Yeltsin removed the Lenin-created entity from the USSR in 1991 which contributed mightily to its own collapse. For Putin to attempt to do a rewrite/reclaim of Ukraine 100 years later seems like the preplanned stuff that dreams and history books are made of... whether absolute propaganda or not, but I digress.

On February 26, 2022 (two days after Russia further escalated their invasion of Ukraine), an article titled (translated) "The Advance of Russia and of a New World" by Petr Akopov was published by several Russian state news sites including state-owned RIA Novosti but was soon deleted. The article celebrated (translation): "Ukraine has returned to Russia" and condemned "Anglo-Saxons who rule the West" for "attempting to steal Russian land" and claimed that Putin's launch of the invasion resolved the "Ukrainian question" to establish a "new world order" with "Russia, Belarus and Ukraine" blah, blah, blah, "gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together—in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians." Victorious Russia. Oops. Delete. Delete. Delete. Pre-planned, pre-ordained "history" obviously celebrated quite prematurely. Convince me otherwise.

And now, questions to ponder:

Q: What year did Ukraine receive a Membership Action Plan (a prerequisite for membership) from NATO?

A: Never. (yes, trick question)

Q: So how much closer to joining NATO was Ukraine in 2022 than in 2008?

A: It's debatable but not really even close.

Q: So for what actual reason was Putin motivated to escalate Russian aggression since the "threat" of Ukraine joining NATO was nowhere near to happening?

A: Might want to (definitely) read Putin's essay and the articles of others in Russian media circulating before and around the time of Russia's escalation.

Q: But you can't actually read that "Putin's historic victory" article that had to be deleted, right?

A: Yes, you definitely can because it's archived. Translate it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html

Q: Didn't Zelensky offer to renounce NATO before the escalation of the invasion?

A: Yes. Zelensky isn't exactly the pawn of the West he's been made out to be. Dmitry Kozak conveyed Zelensky's proposal to Putin, who in rejecting it stated that Russia's goals had expanded to annexing Ukrainian territory.

Q: Could Zelensky unilaterally agree to NATO neutrality?

A: No. An amendment to Ukraine's constitution dated February 19, 2019, states unequivocally its determination to join NATO, and even if Zelensky was eager to agree to give up Crimea (and any other parts of Ukraine), he had no such authority. Article 73 of Ukraine's constitution states: "Issues of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum."

Much of what I've posted you've obviously already definitely been told by others on this blog. You can continue to ignore the facts you've been provided multiple times in favor of the prattling nonsensical conspiracy bullshit or educate yourself, FFS.

How so?

[Biden] made a public statement that Ukraine's eventual membership in NATO was off the negotiating table in the months before the invasion and, in so doing, made sure we would never find out if the invasion could have been prevented if Ukraine's neutrality had been up for negotiation, as even Zelensky was willing to do, early on. That is my opinion.

You're dang right that is your opinion because it definitely doesn't represent the actual facts of the matter.

Entrenched opinions, even if they are impervious to rational argument or blind to reality, aren't as frustrating as having your opinions purposefully misinterpreted and extrapolated beyond all original intent and meaning as mine have been on the issues around the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

This sounds quite similar to Trump over on Earth 2; his worldview isn't complicated either. Somebody should seriously tell that guy to stop whining about the temperature in the courtroom of which he has zero control.

Though, I do understand that passions are running high here with regard to both wars and the fact that they are not going very well only add to the frustration.

I won't presume to speak for everyone (like you just did), but -- for the record -- I have no passions or frustrations "running high" or otherwise.

It's probably a good thing that Chris doesn't write about the states of war - there would surely be more heat than light in response.

If you're looking for prattling on and on about the state of wars being fought globally and feelings about them, you're definitely in the wrong place... unless somebody refuses to stop hijacking the headlining pieces like they claimed they would. :)

You are, indeed. ;)

as caddy so eloquently put it, the average weigantian IQ is certainly much higher than the average Joe. if it weren't, entrenched opinions that are impervious to rational argument probably wouldn't be so frustrating.

The poet/Einstein and Caddy are correct, and I third that and reiterate:

Anyone who keeps insisting to the intelligent citizens of Weigantia that "2+2=5" should prepare themselves to be mightily frustrated. :)

First off, I've just watched this one video of Peter Zeihan and the guy just rubs me the wrong way. Of course, he can't get into too much detail in a five-minute Youtube video but, still, what he glosses over is a lot.

His first observation about Ukraine being led by Nazis being ridiculous is pretty much on point. I'm not sure how Putin keeps a straight face when uttering his wildly exaggerated claims about the denazification of Ukraine but, that is not to say that Ukraine didn't and doesn't still have a problem with extreme right-wing nationalists embedded in official government structures - such as the Azov Regiment - that it will have to deal with before integrating into the EU.

Then he talks about how the argument that the US and NATO expansion are to blame for the situation Ukraine finds itself in being, in a word, BS. While that assertion leaves out a lot of history, when it comes right down to it, if you wish to lay blame and fault here, Russia and its misguided leader are the responsible parties.

He goes on to talk about the process of becoming a NATO member and that the US doesn't have sole control over what country can join the alliance. What he says here is also pretty much on point, though he leaves out a very important factor. Which is to say that while each sovereign nation makes its own decision about whether to apply for NATO membership, NATO itself also has its own strategic interest to consider and every right to decide against inviting a country to become a member.

He then lists all of the countries who have joined NATO or have expressed an interest in doing so since the end of the cold war and lumps Ukraine in with Finland and all the rest of them. He fails to say one word about the unique historical relationship Ukraine has had with Russia as part of the USSR and since its dissolution, not to mention the history of how the US, in particular and NATO, in general, have dealt with all of that. His rant leaves out a lot of pertinent history.

The above is an expanded version of my initial take. Oh, yeah, after my first viewing, I said something to the effect that I thought he sounded like a guy who would wish to impose his will upon women and their reproductive rights. That was just my general impression of him and his overall presentation and wild woodsy background. Admittedly, it was an outrageous assertion on my part and, truth be known, I was just having a little fun with Caddy after having just engaged in some comments related to abortion rights.

Now, aside from my take on the Zeihan video, my only real assertion during this latest episode of Russian aggression in Ukraine has to do with my disappointment in how Biden has handled the entire affair, dating back decades but primarily in the lead up to this war. He made a public statement that Ukraine's eventual membership in NATO was off the negotiating table in the months before the invasion and, in so doing, made sure we would never find out if the invasion could have been prevented if Ukraine's neutrality had been up for negotiation, as even Zelensky was willing to do, early on. That is my opinion. Others here fervently believe that Ukraine's potential membership in NATO was neither here nor there insofar as Putin's intentions were concerned and they could be right about that. All I have been saying is that Biden, surprisingly to me, at least, made sure we would never find out.

There you go, again, Kick.

I cannot tell a lie; I did chop down that cherry tree.

I would LOVE it if, after offering my opinion, someone would meet it with another opinion without resorting to juvenile antics.

Oh, I beg to differ. Your opinion has been met with hundreds of other opinions that didn't come near to approaching "juvenile antics" and your responses to those opinions being generally met with "nobody cares about this but me." (yawn) So I met your latest rebuttal opinion with another one of your own opinions, quoted practically in its entirety. If you'd like to characterize your own opinion as "juvenile antics," my response to that is: You're making my point for me.

But, alas, that doesn't seem to be in the cards, around here. :(

Keep continually pissing all over America and Americans and inferring repetitively you're the only on this blog who actually cares, and take a guess which cards you'll get dealt.

Oh, and I borrowed that hijacking term from none other than our friend ... er, your friend, Joshua, so I can't claim it as my own. Ahem.

Well, it is a dead-on-balls-accurate description of what you are doing regardless from which Einstein it came. You were quite correct to borrow it in your opinion you subsequently described as "juvenile antics."

Anyway, I had this idea that if my opinion was a borrowed quote of your very own and infinitely similar to your own oft repeated comments that you would have no choice but see the wisdom contained therein. Alas, they have obviously been met with (quite literally) "juvenile" name-calling.

In conclusion: What exactly has Canada done for Ukraine? Am I the only one here who cares? Nobody in Canada seems to give a flying duck. :)

Heh. Sorry, couldn't resist that one. :-)

Oh, man ... let me take a second look at it and get back to you, okay? Dinner first, though.

I haven't seen your take on the Zeihan video. What did you say about it? I've seen a bunch of Zeihan videos but I don't think this particular one was among them. Vlad Vexler seems better informed.

Entrenched opinions, even if they are impervious to rational argument or blind to reality, aren't as frustrating as having your opinions purposefully misinterpreted and extrapolated beyond all original intent and meaning as mine have been on the issues around the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

Though, I do understand that passions are running high here with regard to both wars and the fact that they are not going very well only add to the frustration.

It's probably a good thing that Chris doesn't write about the states of war - there would surely be more heat than light in response.

Oh, that was very nicely done!

There you go, again, Kick.

I would LOVE it if, after offering my opinion, someone would meet it with another opinion without resorting to juvenile antics. But, alas, that doesn't seem to be in the cards, around here. :(

Oh, and I borrowed that hijacking term from none other than our friend ... er, your friend, Joshua, so I can't claim it as my own. Ahem.

I'll tell ya what happens. You call me a Putin apologist and tell me to stop spewing Russian propaganda and otherwise insult my intelligence and imply that I don't have more than one brain cell.

You forgot "appeaser" because that shoe definitely fits.

Sorry, not into that, anymore.

You appear to be very much "into that" since you apparently cannot stop yourself from repeatedly inferring that you're the only one here who cares about Ukraine. So I have a solution for you. If you don't want to hear our opinions of your opinions, you might consider the sentiments and solutions of the following poster and actually follow them:

Chris's blog has never been about foreign policy, my primary interest. And, it has taken me far too long to accept that I should find another place to discuss these kinds of issues and not continue to hijack his headlining pieces.

So, I'm going to refrain from any further discussion of topics that Chris doesn't address in his columns.

~ Elizabeth Miller

Stop hijacking the headlining pieces (your term). If someone else chooses to do it and you choose to offer your opinion, don't whine if your opinion is met with another opinion.

In conclusion, Canada hasn't near done enough for Ukraine, and I don't believe there's a Canadian who actually cares anyway.

I'll tell ya what happens. You call me a Putin apologist and tell me to stop spewing Russian propaganda and otherwise insult my intelligence and imply that I don't have more than one brain cell.

Sorry, not into that, anymore.

AGAIN, what am I wrong about?

Russia has long and flat borders its length and breath and not enough productive land to support a population large enough to defend these borders.

Because of this Russia has been invaded from literally all directions starting with the brutal Mongols in 1250.

So for four centuries Russia’s geopolitical strategy has been to conquer bordering territories out to the point where they control various geographical “choke points” (e.g. The Baltics, the Vistula in Poland, the Bessarabian Gap in Romania, the Crimea etc.)

Positioning the Russian military at these choke points ensures the survival of Russia proper.

Ukraine has many resources (serious oil newly discovered in the Sea of Azov and “breadbasket of Europe” etc) but even more importantly Ukraine is on the way to two choke points. Heck, Putin in 2007 mourned the collapse of the Soviet Union (because they lost control of all nine choke points.

SO this war was always going to happen.

No you didn’t! You said you thought he talks in simplistic terms (1) and likely isn’t very nice to woman (2)

What you didn’t do is address a single one of his assertions. It’s like you missed the whole point of his presentation. REGARDING HIS ASSERTIONS WHAT DO YOU DISAGREE WITH? Point by point — it’s only five minutes and eleven seconds, for Peet’s sake!

(1) “Simplistic terms” is why this guy travels all over the world. It’s how he makes a living and why an Iowa boy made good, ending up living in New Zeeland and more recently beautiful Colorado (the guy films his YouTube segments hiking at 8,000-plus feet). He has authored three books on geopolitics to date.

I believe that the average Weigantian — most certainly including Brothers C.R.S. and Michale — is of higher intelligence than the average Joe. So it may seem that he’s “simplistic” to you, Liz.

Peter Zeihan is a “generalist” a geopolitical strategist because he knows a lot about the important stuff that affects geopolitics and he weaves it all together and puts it in terms that paying audiences can understand and make use of.

(2) Mr. Zeihan is unmarried and I’ve seen speculation that he is gay.

(wait for it)

Not that there’s anything wrong with that! So I don’t know that Zeihan’s treatment of women may even be much of a thing.

You often ask me what happened to my unqualified admiration for Senator Biden (he'll always be Senator Biden to me) since he became POTUS. I've tried to explain but it's a complicated answer and I know I haven't come near to doing it justice here in Weigantia.

It's so ironic that I first became interested in following Biden's senate career on strictly US foreign policy terms back beginning in 1987 and yet Biden's foreign policy as president has left me completely disillusioned.

Today I'm catching up on some reading and just read this Nicholas Kristof piece in the New York Times and he, being a fellow Biden fan from way back, summed up part of our disillusionment rather nicely, if non-briefly ...

What happened to the Joe Biden I knew?

Also, I will try not to be so unpleasant or condescending in my comments — I’m very passionate and sometimes frustrated but I don’t want you and I nor Weigantia to devolve into that. Respectfully, I think there’s room for improvement in how we both comment, so as to enhance clarity and reduce the desire for invective.

He's a bit of a pie-in-the-sky kinda of guy. :)

No, of course, I don't think that. And, that you might think I would doesn't surprise me, anymore.

Just because I work full time doesn't mean I don't have time to follow what's happening in the world. Why do you think I've been hanging around here for so long. Heh. Seriously, I find your comments of late, especially the last one here, to be quite condescending.

In any case, what you think about me doesn't excuse the constant insults to my intelligence, such as it is.

And, furthermore, I empathize with what you are going through physically. I have my own share of problems and vagaries of life that sap my energy, mental and otherwise.

All I ask is that the conversations here don't ALWAYS sprial downwards into name-calling, purposefully misunderstanding and misquoting and misinterpreting every comment I make. I don't think that is asking too much but, whatever.

That doesn’t mean I’m not wrong about things — I AM wrong from time to time. But when I am wrong I don’t have the excuse of not having put in the time.

France’s Macron publicly floated the idea of stationing troops in places in the Ukrainian rear such as in Odessa to free up Ukrainians for the front. And Poland just upped their defense related spending to 3.5% of their budget. Sweden and Finland rushed to join NATO and the Baltics and others such as the Czech Republic have fallen over themselves sending as much help as is possible.

D’ya think all those countries near Russia maybe know something that you don’t know? And for the record so you doubt Ukrainians would fight with rocks and sticks to defend their existence?

Non-serious.

So, is it morals or interests? I'm confused about what you think.

Poland won't be sending its own troops to Ukraine. Nor will any other NATO member. They all have interests, after all, that rise above what happens in Ukraine. Their primary interest in Ukraine is maintaining the status quo, for the time being.

Besides, the Polish authorities are busy right now trying to figure out how to send Ukrainian men of fighting age and ability now living in Poland back to Ukraine. ;)

Elizabeth wrote:

Seriously? You don't care how many tens of thousands of Ukrainians have to die or have their entire lives upended while the Western powers support Ukraine with just enough military aid to keep the war going in the fashion that it has for the last two years, all in a so far failing attempt to weaken Russia?

And, where do you suppose Ukraine is going to find the numbers of soldiers it needs to keep the war going indefinitely?

Um, I actually l do care — never forget that that’s my DNA fighting and dying over there!

But to quote Beau of the Fifth Column foreign policy is like an international game of poker where everybody’s cheating — countries don’t have friends they have interests. And countries don’t have morals, again, they have interests.

Is it immoral to trade Ukrainian lives via slow walking aid? Of course it is! But as much as it pisses me off I recognize the realities of why it has been so.

As far as manpower goes both Poland and France are publicly floating the idea of stationing troops inside Ukraine! IMO just Poland by itself actively joining the war would be more than enough to rout the Russians completely out of 2014 era Ukraine. Poland and France know what happens next if Russia overruns Ukraine. (5:11)

Full transcript of immunity hearing from SCOTUS:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f204.pdf

The Court's objective is to put the Defendant on trial, and he knows full well as soon as he makes such a ruling (while knowing full well Trump will keep prattling on and on regardless) will put the ball in Trump's court and paint himself into somewhat of a proverbial corner.

It's a passive-aggressive move wherein the judge concedes no power to the "troll" begging for it. The ball is in the Court's court, and the trial continues apace.

I think. :)

Interestingly, however, Justice Barrett (Trump's own appointee) has already obtained the concession of Trump's lawyer that multiple acts in the indictment are actually private acts, and she reads directly from Special Counsel's brief arguing which acts could move forward regardless:

JUSTICE BARRETT: So you concede that private acts don't get immunity?
MR. SAUER: We do.
JUSTICE BARRETT: Okay. So, in the Special Counsel's brief on pages 46 and 47, he urges us, even if we assume that there was -- even if we were to decide or assume that there was some sort of immunity for official acts, that there were sufficient private acts in the indictment for the trial to go -- for the case to go back and the trial to begin immediately. And I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private. Petitioner turned to a private attorney, he was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results. Private?
MR. SAUER: As alleged. I mean, we dispute the allegation, but --
JUSTICE BARRETT: Of course.
MR. SAUER: -- that sounds private to
me.
JUSTICE BARRETT: Sounds private? Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by Petitioner that contained false allegations to support a challenge. Private?
MR. SAUER: That also sounds private.
JUSTICE BARRETT: Three private actors, two attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding, and Petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort.
MR. SAUER: You read it quickly. I believe --
JUSTICE BARRETT: Yeah.
MR. SAUER: -- that's private. I don't want to --
JUSTICE BARRETT: So those acts, you would not dispute those were private, and you wouldn't raise a claim that they were official?
MR. SAUER: As characterized....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/204.pdf23/23-939_f20

*
To my ears, that was a defining moment in the hearing wherein Trump's own lawyer admits those aren't "official acts," and we know Jack Smith would obviously not argue them at the SCOTUS if he did not have the evidence.

Thank you for the heads-up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umHtnyDAkjc

Colin Jost and President Biden... so Saturday Night Live must be a rerun. ;)