Col. Macgregor says US should De-escalate the War not Escalate

[Brian4Liberty]

Tucker Carlson - Colonel Doug MacGregor on Ukraine/Russia 3/7/22

 

[pcosmar]

when do they ever follow sound advice?

 

[osan]

How does one de-escalate?

In this case one must ask what that really means. Putin is not going to quit, so "de-escalation" would seem to be codespeak bullshit for "capitulation". That might be the answer, but if so then speak plainly and use the right words.

That all aside, why would you want to de-escalate? That tells Putin that he can get away with it. Putin has explicitly expressed a desire to reclaim lost Soviet territories. That means all of eastern Europe, Georgia, etc. If he gets away with Ukraine, what is the principled reason he would stop there?

NATO has no balls. As I've mentioned elsewhere, they have been hiding behind American nuclear weapons, talking big talk as they rattled in their boots for 70+ years. The trash od western Europe have had the easy life all that time and now shiver at the specter of losing it in yet another mechanized, industrial-scale war. If Putin had it up his butt to take what he wants and had the oats to actually do it, how likely do you think it would be that Europe would adopt the French method of meeting aggression with "we surrender!"? I think it very likely. The doddering, child-sniffing Molester In Chief would do nothing because the only thing tough about him is his embarrassing talk.

Putin sees weakness in the west, and thus far has been proven astute, even if he is a raving psychopath, which he is. Soviet Russia is alive and far too well for my liking.

This Ukraine thing may yet backfire on Putin, but in the end Ukraine will be toast because Vlad-baby will see it razed before he lets NATO have it. I would add that the post-revolution Communist tyrannies have hated the Ukrainians with bitter passion, as demonstrated by Stalin's brutal murder of six+ million Ukrainians in the early 20th century.

I am NOT in favor of intervention, but is inaction really a solution. Putin is a megalomaniacal loon whose limits are no longer assumable. He might stop at Ukraine, but the history of human proclivity in such affairs suggests this is unlikely. Humans and power - terrible combination. We can say "so what if he takes Europe - fukkum." I don't think things are any longer quite so simple. The possibilities there are huge, including clandestine rebuilding of their former nuclear stockpiles including deliver capabilities. I grant that Russian military tech is basically shit, but if they pursue their usual strategy of churning out crap-quality in inhuman quantities, America would then face a threat far worse than the Soviet Onion in 1960. They have never been able to master targeting systems, and it is demonstrated even now in Ukraine. That means they will used huge yields to get the job done - 20+MT warheads. They built the Tsar Bomba, estimated at 52 MT equivalent yield, and that was WITHOUT the third stage installed, which was designed for 100MT, but probably would prove larger. I put nothing past those animals, including arming their missiles with three-stage warheads of ungodly yields. It won't matter if we hit them back - we will be destroyed and those who survive will envy the dead. Those bastards, being subhuman beasts, will certainly execute ground burst protocols, which means vast clouds of fallout. I don't need to repeat the rest.

So really, that prick has painted all us all into a corner, himself included. I would suggest the right course of action is to keep a steady flow of arms into Ukraine for as long as they are willing and able to fight. Their land is likely toast no matter what happens. Boots on the ground could very well trigger a nuclear first strike - certainly against Europe, and perhaps the USA. Doesn't matter - once the bombs begin to drop, life as we all know it stops. Do nothing as we invite more of the same.

Given the stakes, has anyone considered a team willing to go on a suicide mission to assassinate Putin? Almost certain death, but we're looking at that in any event. I'm thinking it is not unlikely that were we to off that scumbag, the rest of the Russian hierarchy might just heave a big sigh of relief nd quietly thank us through back channels. The Russian culture since Lenin was one of snitching out anyone not walking around with a great big boner for the "motherland" and blessèd communism. There is absolutely zero reason to expect that this does not remain the case. I'm sure nobody in their government feels they can trust anyone for fear of being denounced. We do them the favor and who can say - maybe we could actually then cultivate a mutually beneficial partnership in trade and ease tensions between us. Putin is wildly insane IMO and must go.

Of course, we should also mind our own business in peace time, something American politicians seem most unwilling to accept.

And so we see that basically everyone is at fault, including you and myownself, in the ways of our respective failures.

Mors Tyrannis.
Mors Tyrannidem.

 

[CaptUSA]

How does one de-escalate?....

Well, let's see... The corrupt and oppressive government of Russia attacked the corrupt and oppressive government of Ukraine that is being propped up by the corrupt and oppressive governments of the West. If only there were a common theme we could identify...


More and more people seem to becoming more aware that our problems are not left vs. right, but individuals vs. their governments. That is true in Canada, the US, Europe and Asia. There is no more cohesion on this current situation among the people of Ukraine than there is in Russia. But for some reason, international conflict tends to turn people's minds from the real fight (individuals vs. the State) to the team sport of MY government vs. YOUR government. If you want de-escalation, the only way I can see to do that is to focus people back on the real problem instead of the politically advantageous sideshow.

 

[donnay]

De-escalate and these clowns don't get their money and the world doesn't depopulate like they want.

MacGregor is spot on, and that is why Tucker continues to have him on.

 

[Philhelm]

How does one de-escalate?

Regardless of what Putin may or may not be, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that maybe he and Russia felt backed into a corner after years of (at least partially) manufactured anti-Russia hysteria, not to mention the 2014 coup in Ukraine. This, in conjunction with his personal ambitions, age, and sensing weakness in the illegitimate Biden regime and the West in general, may have all contributed to the decision to invade Ukraine (strike while the iron is hot).

It seems that the U.S. almost always causes its own problems, and this is likely no exception. At the very least, the U.S. has no credibility to clutch its pearls over a military invasion. Even the anti-Russian war propaganda isn't as bad as some of the things that I personally witnessed in Iraq (civilians shot, bandaged, zip-tied, and left to die, among other things). I just can't jump on the anti-Russian bandwagon even if its invasion of Ukraine is wrong since I do not want the U.S. to be involved in yet another European war.

I understand the urge to not "capitulate," especially since any attempt to de-escalate will inevitably be compared to Neville Chamberlain and Hitler, but we already have a clear red line, which is an attack on an entangling alliance NATO member. The seeming attempt to turn Ukraine into a de facto NATO member, after the fact, is reckless. Everyone, including Putin, knows that Russia cannot defeat NATO conventionally, so it is no wonder that Putin invoked the risk of nuclear exchange. To some extent, this threat is actually rational if he hopes to not escalate the conflict beyond Ukraine. Nuclear weapons have been known to act more as bargaining chips and deterrents than actual weapons of war, and this may be no exception. However, if Russia were ever truly backed into a corner, I have no doubt that they would launch, or at the very least I wouldn't risk testing that belief.

So what to do with nuclear armed nations that can strike our cities within thirty minutes? De-escalate.

For starters, if we must be committed to NATO, then we remind Russia that we acknowledge that Ukraine is not a NATO member but any attack against a bona fide NATO member would be considered an act of war. Perhaps the media could dial down the anti-Russian hysteria (fat chance, I know). Perhaps don't enact sanctions against Russia (an act of war, or at the very least provocative). Perhaps we shouldn't have a Senator whose so deep in the closet that he's calling for Putin's assassination from Narnia. Perhaps we should not supply arms to Ukraine (also provocative). Perhaps we shouldn't do a whole litany of things that put us on a trajectory of armed conflict. I'm not on the kumbaya love train, but it's kind of difficult to negotiate while being hysterical.

Granted, all of this doesn't matter since the TPTB will get what they want, be it a proxy or direct war with Russia.

 

[Voluntarist]

General Macgregor on Tucker Carlson says US should De-escalate the War not Escalate

General Macgregor? Carlson must have given him a field promotion for the duration of the interview. Probably not a wise move - something happens to 'em when they start pinning on stars.

 

[sparebulb]

I would suggest the right course of action is to keep a steady flow of arms into Ukraine for as long as they are willing and able to fight.

Very neoconish to fight to the last Ukrainian.

Once again, you do understand that Ukraine has an open invitation for foreigners like you to come and fight for them alongside their isis and nazi patriots, don't you?

This is a unique opportunity to crowdsource their patriot army.

Why would you pass on it?

And while you're sittin' on your bizkut, without havin' to rizk it, take a look at the DPR soldiers. They have been mostly volunteers for the last eight years and they have many volunteers that are old, grizzled, and motivated. These guys have been terrorized for years by your virtuous Western-puppet regime.

They have the moral high ground.

You can go try to fight them, or better yet, try to evangelize them with the Western democracy bullshat.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

General Macgregor? Carlson must have given him a field promotion for the duration of the interview. Probably not a wise move - something happens to 'em when they start pinning on stars.

Good catch. I usually just take what ever headline was used on the video, which is created by whoever uploads the video, in this case a small unknown account. I should have caught that. But I can change it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

How does one de-escalate?

In this case one must ask what that really means. Putin is not going to quit, so "de-escalation" would seem to be codespeak bullshit for "capitulation". That might be the answer, but if so then speak plainly and use the right words.

Call it capitulation if you like, but a simple agreement to remain neutral and not join NATO may have prevented this. Besides, NATO has just been teasing Ukraine for decades, with the promise of future membership, in exchange for selling their souls, land and resources to western oligarchs, and becoming thrall to western central banks.

This Ukraine thing may yet backfire on Putin, but in the end Ukraine will be toast because Vlad-baby will see it razed before he lets NATO have it.

And Zelenskyy and like minded individuals are willing to have their nation razed to fight for the new word order, and to sell themselves to the highest bidder.

You have your prejudices about Putin (who is not a good guy), and I have mine about the entire situation.

I can't help but see the plight of the average Ukrainian, and relate that to the US. Sure, they want to fight for their land, but do they want to fight for their "leaders", and the corrupt and ignorant motivations of those leaders? It would be like rallying around Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer and Psaki to fight and see the destruction of our nation solely to support the positions of those fools.

 

[osan]

Regardless of what Putin may or may not be, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that maybe he and Russia felt backed into a corner after years of (at least partially) manufactured anti-Russia hysteria, not to mention the 2014 coup in Ukraine. This, in conjunction with his personal ambitions, age, and sensing weakness in the illegitimate Biden regime and the West in general, may have all contributed to the decision to invade Ukraine (strike while the iron is hot).

I'm not sure this tracks with reason. Obama is a feckless pansy. Yes, he got us into things we ought not have involved ourselves, but Putin is no babe in the woods. He took the bait like some rank novice. What did he think, that NATO forces would some streaming across the border for Moscow? As things have stood for the past 70 years, this is not going to happen, and if they did, it's likely the end of everything we know. If the globalists are willing to risk such annihilation, then there is nothing Russia could do in any event, save to answer with their own strike, or capitulate. The same choice exists for the "west", so Vlad-baby really has no unique pulpit from which to claim a moral high ground. In this, we are all assholes. We all participated, yet the moment the shit gets real, we start whining. Verily are we our own worst enemies.

It seems that the U.S. almost always causes its own problems, and this is likely no exception.

100% agreed, but the very same is the case with the rest of the cast of this macabre dance of gratuitous self-ruin. Other than God's "lesser" creations, and children, there are no innocents in this greatest of Shakespearean tragedies.

At the very least, the U.S. has no credibility to clutch its pearls over a military invasion.

Here I must disagree, even if only to re-adjust a mite by stating without equivocation that the world as a whole, does. Certainly it is the case as of 1991 that Russia was historically far and away more guilty of unjustifiable aggression. Since 1917, they and China were the worst this world has ever seen by an appallingly wide margin. Even Hitler paled in into insignificance when compared with the likes of Russia and China. It was not until that cursèd year when that devil Clinton ran American forces into a place that could in no way be justified in the ways possible with Korea and Vietnam, misguided as those excursions may otherwise have been. And of course since 9/11 we as an entity chose to plumb the depths of Soviet-style depravity with our middle-eastern adventures, part deux.

Even the anti-Russian war propaganda isn't as bad as some of the things that I personally witnessed in Iraq (civilians shot, bandaged, zip-tied, and left to die, among other things). I just can't jump on the anti-Russian bandwagon even if its invasion of Ukraine is wrong since I do not want the U.S. to be involved in yet another European war.

I fully understand your position from the normative perspective and share it. But in terms of positive reality, it is a mistaken take. One of the few things peddled by the globalists that isn't either bullshit or an outright lie is the notion of global entanglement, expressed with the phony baloney euphemism "interdependence". Because of our technologies, coupled with the wholly self-defeating world view of paranoia and political avarice, we are up to our eyeballs in each others' business. There is no such thing as a nation minding its own business because other nations will not allow it. The globalists will not allow you not to play, if your participation is required by Themme. Look what Theye did with Qadafi, or however the hell you spell it: he committed the intolerable by declaring a gold-based currency and was removed from efficacy in response.

Theye are playing both ends against the middle. Theye back both sides and in so doing win no matter who prevails. It's as old as the hills, should be no surprise to anyone, and yet this blatant strategy works every time, the entire world willingly playing the sucker. How is it even possible? The will to all manner of corruption, as individuals and populations - that's how.

I understand the urge to not "capitulate,"

These days, either response plunges you into peril. Fail to stand and Russia will just keep going. There would be no incentive for them not to. If you are willing to mow through a nation, killing and destroying indiscriminately with the only goal of eliminating all opposition, your motions will carry the advantages of that will, particularly in the face of those unwilling to resist in any meaningful way. Resist, and you risk nuclear annihilation. In the end, dead is dead and the nuclear avenue to that terminus is no worse than any other. Our reflexive revulsion for it roots in what may be an unconscious with not to see the beautiful earth destroyed in so utter a fashion. It is perhaps one of the few redeeming qualities of the mean human individual.

especially since any attempt to de-escalate will inevitably be compared to Neville Chamberlain and Hitler, but we already have a clear red line, which is an attack on an entangling alliance NATO member.

It will be in fact a close analog to 1939. The nice sounding theory is, IMO, bullshit. When Russia rolls into Poland, NATO will be nowhere, as will be the case with the rest of the former Bloc nations. Why? Because they will assume that that is where Russia will stop - and indeed they might. NATO was established for western Europe and I doubt they feel any real obligation to eastern Europe. Western Europe is much like France ca. 1940 - WE SURRENDER! They don't want to lose what they have and they have a lot. It is ever so easy to rationalize turning one's back to an ally in trouble, believing that if one does nothing to anger the enemy, they will be spared. This is an option that should not be dismissed because IMO it is the most likely thing to happen, especially if Russia is likely to stop at Vienna.

The seeming attempt to turn Ukraine into a de facto NATO member, after the fact, is reckless.

Perhaps, but the ship of Russian aggression has sailed and we are now faced with an active invasion. To ignore what is being done cannot end well. To meet it also carries the same risk. The die has been cast and all options are shit. The question remaining is which is the least shitty. That, nobody can know at this juncture, which makes things even shittier. This is why I assert that we have all painted ourselves into an untenable corner, if what we are seeing is to be believed at face.

Everyone, including Putin, knows that Russia cannot defeat NATO conventionally, so it is no wonder that Putin invoked the risk of nuclear exchange.

Thus making him ever so much more the grand stooge of the twenty-first century. But this assumption is debatable. NATO has the equipment, but I question their courage and resolve.

To some extent, this threat is actually rational if he hopes to not escalate the conflict beyond Ukraine. Nuclear weapons have been known to act more as bargaining chips and deterrents than actual weapons of war, and this may be no exception. However, if Russia were ever truly backed into a corner, I have no doubt that they would launch, or at the very least I wouldn't risk testing that belief.

At this point any assumption of rationality is itself irrational.

So what to do with nuclear armed nations that can strike our cities within thirty minutes? De-escalate.

Which in this case directly translates into capitulation. That is a non-starter for all the reasons cited. Mr. Rock, allow me to introduce Mr. Hardplace.

Saddest of all, if we manage to avoid glow-in-the-dark-disco-ball status, we will fail to grasp and accept the message/lesson here.

For starters, if we must be committed to NATO, then we remind Russia that we acknowledge that Ukraine is not a NATO member but any attack against a bona fide NATO member would be considered an act of war. Perhaps the media could dial down the anti-Russian hysteria (fat chance, I know). Perhaps don't enact sanctions against Russia (an act of war, or at the very least provocative). Perhaps we shouldn't have a Senator whose so deep in the closet that he's calling for Putin's assassination from Narnia. Perhaps we should not supply arms to Ukraine (also provocative). Perhaps we shouldn't do a whole litany of things that put us on a trajectory of armed conflict. I'm not on the kumbaya love train, but it's kind of difficult to negotiate while being hysterical.

Any compromise and Putin wins, hands down. It will by all means entail Ukraine's ceding of territory. The message here is that crime does in fact pay. Wait a few years and repeat. If Putin does not stop of his own accord, he must be stopped.

Granted, all of this doesn't matter since the TPTB will get what they want, be it a proxy or direct war with Russia.

Exactly.

 

[osan]

Well, let's see... The corrupt and oppressive government of Russia attacked the corrupt and oppressive government of Ukraine that is being propped up by the corrupt and oppressive governments of the West. If only there were a common theme we could identify...


More and more people seem to becoming more aware that our problems are not left vs. right, but individuals vs. their governments. That is true in Canada, the US, Europe and Asia. There is no more cohesion on this current situation among the people of Ukraine than there is in Russia. But for some reason, international conflict tends to turn people's minds from the real fight (individuals vs. the State) to the team sport of MY government vs. YOUR government.

I cannot disagree with any of this.

If you want de-escalation, the only way I can see to do that is to focus people back on the real problem instead of the politically advantageous sideshow.

Perhaps, but how likely is this to happen when you have crazy people who refuse to use their brains even for so much as hat racks? Insanity is the new black - certainly the new normal. What hope is there when so many people are barking mad? I don't see Putin backing down at all due to that ego and the soviet mindset and objectives that I am confident remain alive and vigorous. This is what I mean when I say people will not learn the lesson. It is clear that Putin is crazier than a shit-house rat; that Biden is equally dangerous, regardless of the reasons. But will the average man see it? If so, will he have the courage and sense to do what is right? Will he have any clue as to what is right? None of this is looking particularly good. Just consider the advantages we enjoy with the global internet - more truth (an lies) available than ever before, along with the ability to disseminate it planet-wide in seconds. We have human history at our fingertips as never before, yet we still choose wrong in almost every instance. This is the proof that the problem lies with us and that we appear thus far disinclined to change for the better. I hope we get smarter and braver and more decent. It could happen... I want to believe this, but dare not for every indication.

 

[osan]

Very neoconish to fight to the last Ukrainian.

Yeah, that's a no. The practicalities are conflicting. On the one hand, plunging the world into thermonuclear fire helps nobody. On the other leaving Putin free to do as he please is similarly unprofitable. The ripple effects of this conflict belong to the world, but the immediate fight is that of the Ukrainians. Therefore, the middle ground is to render aid as I suggested, boots on the ground being a last resort.

Once again, you do understand that Ukraine has an open invitation for foreigners like you to come and fight for them alongside their isis and nazi patriots, don't you?

And so?

Why would you pass on it?

Why do you?

And while you're sittin' on your bizkut, without havin' to rizk it, take a look at the DPR soldiers. They have been mostly volunteers for the last eight years and they have many volunteers that are old, grizzled, and motivated. These guys have been terrorized for years by your virtuous Western-puppet regime.

Not mine.

They have the moral high ground.

You can go try to fight them, or better yet, try to evangelize them with the Western democracy bullshat.

Is there a point in all this sarcastic bile? It evades me, so help me out here.

 

[sparebulb]

Is there a point in all this sarcastic bile? It evades me, so help me out here.

OK, I'll help you out and be honest with you.

Your cold war references along with your acceptance of the media/government narrative reveals a personality that is incapable of seeing the situation for as it is, without woke emotion and regurgitated sound bites.

Your willingness to encourage other people to fight and die indicates a callous mindset identical to that of Madeleine Albright when she said that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq was all worth achieving the goals of her policy.

I suggest that you look inward to figure out why you are channeling serial killers like John McCain.

There are eternal consequences for what you propose.

 

[donnay]

5 Very Strange Questions That Every American Should Be Asking About the War in Ukraine Right Now
https://noqreport.com/2022/03/09/5-...be-asking-about-the-war-in-ukraine-right-now/

 

[Philhelm]

I should preface this by stating that I believe that the greatest threat to the U.S. in general, and to my personal wealth, health, prosperity, voice, and vote, is in Washington, D.C., not Moscow. I do not believe that the 2020 election was legitimate (for as legitimate as our elections can ever be), and I would not take up arms for the Biden regime or encourage others to do so. Furthermore, the Biden regime and most Western nations have already declared war upon their own people, the same people who would primarily be called upon to fight. There is no scenario in which I envision the Ruskies invading U.S. soil like a Red Dawn fantasy, so I simply cannot support shedding the blood of my countrymen for Ukraine.

I'm not sure this tracks with reason. Obama is a feckless pansy. Yes, he got us into things we ought not have involved ourselves, but Putin is no babe in the woods. He took the bait like some rank novice. What did he think, that NATO forces would some streaming across the border for Moscow? As things have stood for the past 70 years, this is not going to happen, and if they did, it's likely the end of everything we know. If the globalists are willing to risk such annihilation, then there is nothing Russia could do in any event, save to answer with their own strike, or capitulate. The same choice exists for the "west", so Vlad-baby really has no unique pulpit from which to claim a moral high ground. In this, we are all assholes. We all participated, yet the moment the shit gets real, we start whining. Verily are we our own worst enemies.

I don't believe that Putin would have expected NATO to invade Russia for the reason you stated, but Russia can be backed into a corner via other avenues (economically, politically, etc.). I don't doubt that Putin wants to reclaim former USSR territory for its own sake, but I also don't automatically discount other reasons for the invasion such as strengthening the buffer between Russia and NATO and/or annexing Ukraine in its entirety or reinstalling a sympathetic leader. Regardless of the extent of Putin's ambitions, I doubt that he will invade NATO territory for the same reason that NATO would not invade Russian territory. I don't think that the Ukrainian invasion is equivalent to Hitler's invasion of Poland (as some might suggest) since nuclear deterrents have changed the game. I could certainly be wrong, but I am unwilling to shed U.S. blood at this stage.

Here I must disagree, even if only to re-adjust a mite by stating without equivocation that the world as a whole, does. Certainly it is the case as of 1991 that Russia was historically far and away more guilty of unjustifiable aggression. Since 1917, they and China were the worst this world has ever seen by an appallingly wide margin. Even Hitler paled in into insignificance when compared with the likes of Russia and China. It was not until that cursèd year when that devil Clinton ran American forces into a place that could in no way be justified in the ways possible with Korea and Vietnam, misguided as those excursions may otherwise have been. And of course since 9/11 we as an entity chose to plumb the depths of Soviet-style depravity with our middle-eastern adventures, part deux.

I agree that the world as whole has the standing to condemn the invasion of Ukraine, but the beating of the war drums is done with the expectation of the U.S. carrying most of the weight, as usual. I agree that the USSR and China were infinitely more evil than the U.S., having murdered millions, but the U.S. is still one of the most militarily aggressive nations in existence. It would be nice to not get involved in another war at least once.

I fully understand your position from the normative perspective and share it. But in terms of positive reality, it is a mistaken take. One of the few things peddled by the globalists that isn't either bullshit or an outright lie is the notion of global entanglement, expressed with the phony baloney euphemism "interdependence". Because of our technologies, coupled with the wholly self-defeating world view of paranoia and political avarice, we are up to our eyeballs in each others' business. There is no such thing as a nation minding its own business because other nations will not allow it. The globalists will not allow you not to play, if your participation is required by Themme. Look what Theye did with Qadafi, or however the hell you spell it: he committed the intolerable by declaring a gold-based currency and was removed from efficacy in response.

Theye are playing both ends against the middle. Theye back both sides and in so doing win no matter who prevails. It's as old as the hills, should be no surprise to anyone, and yet this blatant strategy works every time, the entire world willingly playing the sucker. How is it even possible? The will to all manner of corruption, as individuals and populations - that's how.

I certainly cannot stop the globalists from getting what they want, but that doesn't mean that I must support it. They obviously want something from their fake support of Ukraine, so I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon just because of Putin's invasion. Their motives are impure and I would prefer to wash my hands of it since there likely aren't any "good guys" here. Even if deserving, the anti-Russian rhetoric and escalation has been in circulation for the last several years, including the accusation that Putin rigged our election in favor of Trump. They've been itching for this (whatever "this" will end up as) for quite some time. I'm out.

These days, either response plunges you into peril. Fail to stand and Russia will just keep going. There would be no incentive for them not to. If you are willing to mow through a nation, killing and destroying indiscriminately with the only goal of eliminating all opposition, your motions will carry the advantages of that will, particularly in the face of those unwilling to resist in any meaningful way. Resist, and you risk nuclear annihilation. In the end, dead is dead and the nuclear avenue to that terminus is no worse than any other. Our reflexive revulsion for it roots in what may be an unconscious with not to see the beautiful earth destroyed in so utter a fashion. It is perhaps one of the few redeeming qualities of the mean human individual.

If you believe that NATO would never invade Russia due to the threat of nuclear exchange, then it seems that the same could be said of Russia invading NATO nations. As stated above, I don't believe this is a Hitler's invasion of Poland moment. If I am wrong in this assessment, we already have a red line, which is the invasion of a NATO member. Wanting to go all-in on Ukraine out of fear of further Russian aggression is equivalent to moving the red line forward after the fact.

It will be in fact a close analog to 1939. The nice sounding theory is, IMO, bullshit. When Russia rolls into Poland, NATO will be nowhere, as will be the case with the rest of the former Bloc nations. Why? Because they will assume that that is where Russia will stop - and indeed they might. NATO was established for western Europe and I doubt they feel any real obligation to eastern Europe. Western Europe is much like France ca. 1940 - WE SURRENDER! They don't want to lose what they have and they have a lot. It is ever so easy to rationalize turning one's back to an ally in trouble, believing that if one does nothing to anger the enemy, they will be spared. This is an option that should not be dismissed because IMO it is the most likely thing to happen, especially if Russia is likely to stop at Vienna.

I don't envision Putin instigating a direct conflict with NATO. I firmly believe that any escalation will be due to the U.S./NATO response (hence the propaganda). It's certainly possible that the NATO alliance could be tested and proved to be weak. At this particular point in time, I am not willing to support the shedding of U.S. blood over speculation. I would assert that nuclear deterrents have changed the game since WWII (North Korea is evidence of this).

Perhaps, but the ship of Russian aggression has sailed and we are now faced with an active invasion.

I'm not faced with an invasion. The U.S. government is the greater threat to me.

To ignore what is being done cannot end well. To meet it also carries the same risk. The die has been cast and all options are shit. The question remaining is which is the least shitty. That, nobody can know at this juncture, which makes things even shittier. This is why I assert that we have all painted ourselves into an untenable corner, if what we are seeing is to be believed at face.

Neutrality might result in unfavorable side effects (most likely economic, at the very least), but only one course of action risks event he small possibility of nuclear exchange. If we had a government that wasn't trying to strangle the middle class to death maybe I would be more open, but we don't, and I'd just as soon risk Russia annexing Ukraine than performing a blood sacrifice ritual in Europe.

At this point any assumption of rationality is itself irrational.

My point is that the propagandists always try to paint adversaries as deranged madmen. It is irrational to assume that everyone opposed to me is irrational.

Which in this case directly translates into capitulation. That is a non-starter for all the reasons cited. Mr. Rock, allow me to introduce Mr. Hardplace.

Is it even our place to stand or capitulate on behalf of Ukraine? Where does our responsibility to fight other nations' battles end?

Saddest of all, if we manage to avoid glow-in-the-dark-disco-ball status, we will fail to grasp and accept the message/lesson here.

The message is that we need to avoid entangling alliances and pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy. I'd rather Ukraine burn to the ground than have my children glow in the dark.

Any compromise and Putin wins, hands down. It will by all means entail Ukraine's ceding of territory. The message here is that crime does in fact pay. Wait a few years and repeat. If Putin does not stop of his own accord, he must be stopped.

Let's restore our Republic first. The U.S. has never been perfect, and never will be, but the current demons at the helm aren't even attempting to create a functional society. In fact, they seem hell bent on destroying us. If we learn that crime does in fact pay, we don't need to look any further than our own nation's borders. The long and the short of it is that I simply don't have enough hate to spare for Putin and the Russians until such time as they harm me in any meaningful way.

 

[oyarde]

Escalate , de escalate meh . The US has no role to play except to provide opportunity for commerce that is positive for the citizens here by keeping the door open to european imports.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Too bad the neolibs and neocons will continue to try and escalate things to drive us into WW3.

 

[Sammy]

I hope he runs for President.
He is pretty based on Foreign Policy & Immigration.

 

[donnay]

Podcast: A Path to Peace – With Douglas Macgregor
https://michaelsavage.com/a-path-to-peace-with-douglas-macgregor/