VivekGR: Ukraine is a client state of the United States.

[AngryCanadian]

Ramaswamy is a NeoCon on foreign policy.

There are other things he mentioned that makes him look like a hawk.

VivekGR: Ukraine is a client state of the United States.

 

[PAF]

Ramaswamy is a NeoCon on foreign policy.

There are other things he mentioned that makes him look like a hawk.

Such as this:

To fight the fentanyl crisis, Ramaswamy said he would consider a “military assault” of Mexican drug cartels using airstrikes, drone attacks and special forces operations.

https://www.pharmavoice.com/news/vivek-ramaswamy-2024-president-anti-woke-biotech-roivant/643559/

Perhaps he should look to see where fentanyl is really coming from, and in what form, before making rash decisions that would affect all of us.

And now he wants to order presidents/countries who they can and cannot associate with? That doesn't sound libertarian at all.


Maybe I should reallocate some of my investments into Snake Oil.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ramaswamy is a NeoCon on foreign policy.

There are other things he mentioned that makes him look like a hawk.

VivekGR: Ukraine is a client state of the United States.

Nothing in that video was "neocon". He just stated the facts, and then proposed a peace offer, which would not be acceptable to any neocon.

He offer is to freeze the line of control (borders) exactly where they are today, not to admit Ukraine to NATO, and in return, Russia cancels all of it's military agreements with China. Every neocons head would explode on that deal.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Just one neoconservative opinion:

Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump

How far we have fallen.

The leading Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, thinks that Putin is a “Genius” for invading Ukraine.

The person in the second place, Ron DeSantis, thinks that the war in Ukraine is merely a “border dispute.”

Vivek Ramaswamy, who’s in third place, says he’d let war criminal Putin keep parts of Ukraine and will block Ukraine from joining NATO.

Vote only for candidates who support the people of Ukraine in the fight for freedom.

https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1692609413758996835

 

[PAF]

Nothing in that video was "neocon". He just stated the facts, and then proposed a peace offer, which would not be acceptable to any neocon.

He offer is to freeze the line of control (borders) exactly where they are today, not to admit Ukraine to NATO, and in return, Russia cancels all of it's military agreements with China. Every neocons head would explode on that deal.

Name of countries be damned, I can see the MIC foaming at the mouth. He didn't say agreement - he used the words "single greatest military threat" and "require".

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Name of countries be damned, I can see the MIC foaming at the mouth. He didn't say agreement - he used the words "single greatest military threat" and "require".

I'm not gonna parse words with you. He was talking about a Ukraine peace deal, and in return (aka require) Russia to cancel it's military alliance with China. And yes, he called an allied China/Russia the single greatest military threat, which they would be. Neocons wouldn't be on board with that rhetoric as they have an alliance with China themselves.

 

[PAF]

I'm not gonna parse words with you.

Yeah. Ok. We don't seem to hit it off for some odd reason. But Whatever.

He was talking about a Ukraine peace deal, and in return (aka require) Russia to cancel it's military alliance with China. And yes, he called an allied China/Russia the single greatest military threat, which they would be. Neocons wouldn't be on board with that rhetoric as they have an alliance with China themselves.

My point is, what if they don't come to an agreement? What if Russia and China still want to bilaterally contract? I see other options on the table without the use of such words.

 

[AngryCanadian]

Nothing in that video was "neocon". He just stated the facts, and then proposed a peace offer, which would not be acceptable to any neocon.

He offer is to freeze the line of control (borders) exactly where they are today, not to admit Ukraine to NATO, and in return, Russia cancels all of it's military agreements with China. Every neocons head would explode on that deal.

His demanding for Russia to exit Russia's military partnership with China.

That isn't a peace offer.
This is demanding/require to Russia.

 

[jmdrake]

Nothing in that video was "neocon". He just stated the facts, and then proposed a peace offer, which would not be acceptable to any neocon.

He offer is to freeze the line of control (borders) exactly where they are today, not to admit Ukraine to NATO, and in return, Russia cancels all of it's military agreements with China. Every neocons head would explode on that deal.

Ummm....I was with him until he talked about "requiring" Russia to "end it's military partnership with China." 1) What right does the U.S. have to demand that? 2) Why the does anyone thing Russia would agree to that? That would be like Putin demanding that the U.S. end NATO.

 

[PAF]

Ummm....I was with him until he talked about "requiring" Russia to "end it's military partnership with China." 1) What right does the U.S. have to demand that? 2) Why the does anyone thing Russia would agree to that? That would be like Putin demanding that the U.S. end NATO.

Are you trying to convert me into being a potential Putin sympathizer?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

His demanding for Russia to exit Russia's military partnership with China.

That isn't a peace offer.
This is demanding/require to Russia.

My point is, what if they don't come to an agreement? What if Russia and China still want to bilaterally contract? I see other options on the table without the use of such words.

Ummm....I was with him until he talked about "requiring" Russia to "end it's military partnership with China." 1) What right does the U.S. have to demand that? 2) Why the does anyone thing Russia would agree to that? That would be like Putin demanding that the U.S. end NATO.

It's a negotiation. Each side gives some concessions. The status quo is that Ukraine is going to join NATO, and that Ukraine will be supplied with money and arms until they take back every inch from Putin, including Crimea. Which would probably mean the war would continue endlessly.

Russia would be offered the current territory, and Ukraine not joining the NATO military alliance, in return Russia agrees to not have a military alliance with China. Russia has been open to peace agreements, but those have been blocked by neocons, WEF globalists, and NATO until now. That offer might be perfectly acceptable to Putin.

 

[jmdrake]

It's a negotiation. Each side gives some concessions. The status quo is that Ukraine is going to join NATO, and that Ukraine will be supplied with money and arms until they take back every inch from Putin, including Crimea. Which would probably mean the war would continue endlessly.

Russia would be offered the current territory, and Ukraine not joining the NATO military alliance, in return Russia agrees to not have a military alliance with China. Russia has been open to peace agreements, but those have been blocked by neocons, WEF globalists, and NATO until now. That offer might be perfectly acceptable to Putin.

Russia's military with China goes back to 1996. And it includes other countries like Syria (why do you think Russia intervened?) So again, why would anyone think Russia would agree to this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

Libya agreed to peace with the U.S. and one administration later Ghaddafi was murdered. Right now the BRICS nations are about to outflank the U.S. economically. That's a stupid idea that would torpedo any chance of a peaceful settlement on Ukraine. If Putin did something that weak he would face a real coup.

Edit : It's like demanding the Taliban turn over Osama Bin Laden without the U.S. providing evidence or the U.S. demanding Saddam Hussein give up WMD stockpiles it didn't have.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Russia's military with China goes back to 1996. And it includes other countries like Syria (why do you think Russia intervened?) So again, why would anyone think Russia would agree to this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

Libya agreed to peace with the U.S. and one administration later Ghaddafi was murdered. Right now the BRICS nations are about to outflank the U.S. economically. That's a stupid idea that would torpedo any chance of a peaceful settlement on Ukraine. If Putin did something that weak he would face a real coup.

Edit : It's like demanding the Taliban turn over Osama Bin Laden without the U.S. providing evidence or the U.S. demanding Saddam Hussein give up WMD stockpiles it didn't have.

I have no idea what Putin has been willing to do in previous negotiations, or would be willing to do in a new negotiation.

And this is the latest treaty, signed last year between China and Russia, which is the current bone of contention:

The world’s two most powerful autocrats unveiled a sweeping long-term agreement that also challenges the United States as a global power, nato as a cornerstone of international security, and liberal democracy as a model for the world. “Friendship between the two States has no limits,” they vowed in the communiqué, released after the two leaders met on the eve of the Beijing Winter Olympics. “There are no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation.”

Agreements between Moscow and Beijing, including the Treaty of Friendship of 2001, have traditionally been laden with lofty, if vague, rhetoric that faded into forgotten history. But the new and detailed five-thousand-word agreement is more than a collection of the usual tropes, Robert Daly, the director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, at the Wilson Center, in Washington, told me. Although it falls short of a formal alliance, like nato, the agreement reflects a more elaborate show of solidarity than anytime in the past.
...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dail...na-unveil-a-pact-against-america-and-the-west