Ukraine reacts to fears of Russian invasion as troops build up at the border

[Crazedwraith]

Or let me put it this way: If Natos intentions were to protect Ukraine, they should have simply stated that any Russian incursion will be considered a declaration of war against NATO, whether they are in formal alliance or not. And follow through and declare war on Russia if Russia went ahead.

But why in the fuck would they intend to protect Ukraine?

Why the fuck should Russia be allowed to invade another sovereign country just becase they have nukes? Should we just throw international law to one side?

(yes I know US/coalition governments objecting would be hypocritical based on the Iraq invasion, that's not the same as being wrong.)

[KraytKing]

Oh that wasn't my point at all; absolutely they SHOULDN'T be allowed to invade other countries. But NATO is essentially just an extension of the American empire, its interests are imperialist and therefore don't overlap with defending those in need of defending. NATO SHOULD intend to defend Ukraine, just in my cynicism I can't believe that they WOULD.

[Formless]

I guess all of the independent journalists don’t count.

So you're just going to ignore all the times I've cited the AP news, asshole?

You know, the source that about half of all "news" media cites for the actual journalism in the US?

You know, the source that questioned Biden directly over the fact he has no authority over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline? (in fact, Schultz beat both Biden and Putin to the punch, although he merely "halted" progress on it again, so he can technically get it back up and running at any time).

You know, the journalists who asked White House officials for their sources that said Russia was going to invade, and were flatly told "I am the source"? And then proceeded to point out that doesn't count as an answer?

You know, the source that was first to point out the similarities between this round of chest beating and Bush's Weapons of Mass Destruction lies?

Turns out all of my sources are independent journalists! Who knew?

And not all journalists are equally trustworthy either. I don't trust the Daily Fail; they are well known in Britain as a tabloid rag and a bunch of bullshitters. Fox News are outright liars and everyone not a Republican knows it. Most other American news media actually don't do their own journalism, they just quietly cite either AP News or the New York Times while putting their own editorial spin on the story, and I have my own reasons for not trusting the Times. Heck, my trust of the AP has only gone up because they have started questioning the White House during this crisis. It seems four years of the Orangutan in Chief has taught them not to blindly trust White House officials. Finally. And no, I don't even bother reading or watching whatever RT has to say, despite what you seem to think. Nor do I bother with the BBC, for the exact same reason. Both are state run media, and it would be silly to assume they aren't part of their respective states' propaganda machine.

Now, there are a lot of other European journalists left which I don't know and cannot rank in terms of trustworthiness, but that's where its nice when they can do things like provide video evidence that Russian troops are in Belarus; direct evidence beats journalistic reporting. Most of what I see ends up being claims not backed up by evidence, which is why people have always been hesitant to trust the news. This is where organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International can fill in the gaps, and hey look! They're one of the sources I've cited as well.

So go fuck yourself.

Also it’s not on me to prove you wrong. It’s on you to prove yourself right.

No, asshole, not when you are the one repeating the "Russia's going to invade, Russia's going to invade!" claim. That's a positive claim, that requires positive evidence. I don't have to prove a negative here. You bear the burden of proof.

Bear in mind, Donetsk and Luhansk are small portions of Ukraine's overall land area. That's not quite the invasion plan the White House was beating a war drum over. Is it surprising? Eh, not really. It seems like a logical response to Britain sending military aid to the Ukraine. Call me when they announce they are annexing those territories, rather than sending support to people they consider allies. I hope I don't have to spell out the difference...

So... yesterday Putin himself declared that Russia troops were crossing the border into Donetsk and Luhansk which, last I checked, were part of the nation of Ukraine. What was that you were saying about "not invading"? And, I repeat - this is from Putin, a source you trust more than the West.

Oh.

"Part of the nation of Ukraine" is loaded language when discussing regions that have their own separatist movements. I'm not saying they should get involved in a civil war, but that's what it is. There is already a war going on in those regions, Russia deciding to support one side isn't an invasion in the typical sense. They aren't marching on Kiev. And this makes sense given the troop numbers, as discussed earlier; it takes far fewer troops when you're not occupying a region by yourself, but simply aiding another in doing so, in this case the separatists. Who have effectively controlled these regions for a couple of years now. Every nation on Earth started out this way; did the French invade Britain's territory in the late 1700's when they aided the American Revolutionaries? Is it even meaningful to talk about it that way?

By that logic, why is anything our problem?

What happened to silence is violence?

Who said that was a valid argument? Something is our problem to solve when it is our problem to solve. We have limited resources, promises to keep, even legal contracts to abide by (I'm waiting for the inevitable Russian lawsuits against Germany for non-performance on their Nord Stream 2 contract). Ukraine isn't our ally, not on paper, not yet. Its a civil war, which means it may not be Russia's problem to involve itself in, but it isn't ours either. Civil wars usually aren't. We don't have Universal Jurisdiction. No one from Britain or the US is even claiming to. The arguments have purely been "look at this evil Russia is planning!" without talking about all the other evils that have been perpetrated by our own governments that we have not made any effort to redress. We have tons of problems at home to solve, and with limited resources to throw around, maybe we should start there instead of trying to poke the thousand pound gorilla in the room with a stick? If we cared about half the things the US claims to care about, there are numerous third world countries which would love our peaceful assistance with. Yet the only times the US ever says they want to help just happen to be the problems that require military adventures onto other people's land. Funny, I thought war was supposed to be hell! And a crime!

I believe it lost a lot of credibility due to the degree of collateral damage in previous interventions. Back in highschool I half expected conscription to return as the only way the UK/USA would have the manpower to properly occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. It didn't occur to me they would half ass it and get a few million civilians killed.

So there's that aspect of not wanting to repeat history.

Got it in one. I don't think its our business because our history is not one of helping the local population when we intervene in conflicts, its one of fucking the region up as America only attempts to achieve goals in its own interest. The Ukraine's government may even be downplaying the threat simply because they know this, and don't want us stepping in and causing more damage than the Russians. Plus they may not be so stupid as to want the US to fight Russia because they know the existential risk of Nuclear War; they're in the fallout zone.

At the same time, our friends in Ukraine are a bit of a mixed bunch. Getting dragged into expensive support for literal Nazis isn't going to be much better for the wider anti-authoritianism project. Do we have confidence in allies so internally divided?

They're not even our allies; not on paper, anyway. We have no treaties with them, no official alliance. NATO wants them to be, but hasn't sold anyone yet on their entry, and we've already talked about how it violates promises we've made with Russia in the past. Plus, the real irony? NATO's own rules say that we won't admit any country with a disputed border. Well, if Ukraine would cede Luhansk and Donetsk to the separatists, they wouldn't have a disputed border anymore, and could technically join at any time! Win-win! Almost. It still wouldn't solve the whole broken promises bit, but I'm sure Russia wouldn't mind having a couple of small buffer states between them and NATO.

That's an entirely appropriate question to ask.

Quite frankly that is the only appropriate question to ask. Complaining about Neo-Nazis and US imperialism is just moral cowardice in the face of aggression and only aids Russian fascism and nationalism in its project to re-build its former empire.

That's not an answer to the question, and you know it.

Am I alone in thinking that these so-called sanctions (the strongest of which they aren't even using yet) aren't going to do shit to Russia?

Nope. In fact, an argument can be made that all the previous rounds of sanctions are the best thing that could ever happen to Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union, because it forced them to focus on getting back into manufacturing again; as opposed to the US which has outsourced almost all of our manufacturing to China, save for anything military. Its a rare thing indeed to see "made in the USA" anymore. At this point Russia is pretty self sufficient; they export energy rather than import it, they can make almost everything they need, they're still on good terms with China, so if there was anything they needed to import they could probably still get it from the world's single biggest exporter of manufactured goods, and to my knowledge they can make all their own food. Maybe not all the foods in the world are available domestically, but they certainly won't starve.

[Col. Crackpot]

Formless that’s a lot of mental gymnastics to defend a warmonger whilst trying to keep your credentials as an anti war monger. Have a cup of tea and take a deep breath before you strokeout on us.

[Formless]

Alright, asshole, this is the last time I'm going to ask you this question: why is this a problem for the US to step in and solve?

I am making this an official challenge. If you don't put up or shut up, I will ask the moderators to shut you up, because I am getting real tired of your one liner bullshit. I do not deserve to have this much of my time wasted on dismissive crap insulting me simply for disagreeing with your conclusions.

[Broomstick]

By that logic, why is anything our problem?

What happened to silence is violence?

I don't think it's ever wrong to ask the question "why are we/should we be involved?"

What answer we give, and it's reasoning, is what matters. There may be many good and pressing reasons to be involved. Or maybe not.

Sitting here in North America I have to ask why would my nation be involved at all in this matter? I think there's an argument that European problems should be the concern of Europe. On the other hand, no notion is isolated in these times, what happens in Ukraine will affect everyone to one degree or another. If we should get involved in what way should we be involved? Rinse and repeat for every nation affected by this in any way. Nor should we be surprised if the answers differ depending on location, on economic entanglements, on a myriad of other factors.

There is the immediate problem of Putin slicing off pieces of Ukraine. There are potential future problems - will Putin stop here or continue to make demands/grab territory? (My money is on the latter, if anyone was curious). If it is inevitable that my nation will be involved in stopping acquisition of territory then it's going to be easier, and less costly in blood and treasure, to step in early rather than later. On the other hand, being involved risks escalation.

I don't have the answers to any of the above. I'm watching this thread more than I'm posting because I want to get different perspectives and I don't have a solution. I hope there is one.

[Broomstick]

I have concerns about reports that thousands of ethnic Russians from those two regions have been evacuated into Russia. The darker side of my imagination thinks that would excellent prep for something that depopulates those regions of the non-Russians left behind, after which the re-located population can then move back in without opposition. There are historical precedents for doing that in other parts of the world, although the methods were different than what would be used in the 21st Century. I hasten to add that that is my own mind wandering and not based on any factual information I have, but like I said, such things have occurred in the past.

I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where this would a prelude to a way of ethnically cleansing non-Russians that is more reliable and effective than just skipping ahead to removing the non-Russians instead.

Less chance of collateral damage among the people Russia wants to keep alive, loyal, and available to resettle the taken territories. Without getting into extremely dark territory, it would allow the deployment of weapons effective against civilians but indiscriminate in their ability to kill human beings. There are NBC weapons that can eliminate people but leave material structures and goods behind. A certain time period or decontamination might be required before it's safe to resettle... as I said, it's a very dark thought I hope is entirely wrong.

Please, someone reassure me that this is an impossible scenario. I'll sleep better at night.

[Broomstick]

So... yesterday Putin himself declared that Russia troops were crossing the border into Donetsk and Luhansk which, last I checked, were part of the nation of Ukraine. What was that you were saying about "not invading"? And, I repeat - this is from Putin, a source you trust more than the West.

Oh.

"Part of the nation of Ukraine" is loaded language when discussing regions that have their own separatist movements. I'm not saying they should get involved in a civil war, but that's what it is.

Why is Russia getting involved in another country's civil war? Should they be involved in another country's civil war?

Of course, Imperial nations getting involved in someone else's civil war is nothing new - Britain backed the Confederate States of America back in the 1860's - but it wasn't done on a whim. There were reasons for Britain to do that. Likewise, there are reasons Russia is getting involved here. There are also reasons for NATO and the US to debate jumping into the morass or not.

There is already a war going on in those regions, Russia deciding to support one side isn't an invasion in the typical sense.

Support? No, that's not an invasion - send Russian men and machines into Donetsk and Luhansk IS invading. Is it the same as bombing Kyiv off the map? No, but Ukraine has legally defined borders that have been in place for decades and Russia just crossed over them. It is a real invasion, whether or not it was welcomed by separatists.

They aren't marching on Kiev.

So what? Failure to destroy a capital city gives another nation a right to slice pieces off a neighboring nation?

Every nation on Earth started out this way; did the French invade Britain's territory in the late 1700's when they aided the American Revolutionaries?

Yes, they very much did.

As it happens, in that instance the "separatists" and their European ally won. Given how many people regard the US as a bunch of arrogant, meddlesome assholes with guns that might be an argument against allowing such adventures.

We don't have Universal Jurisdiction. No one from Britain or the US is even claiming to. The arguments have purely been "look at this evil Russia is planning!" without talking about all the other evils that have been perpetrated by our own governments that we have not made any effort to redress.

Right now we're not talking about all those other evils, we're talking about this particular evil involving Ukraine, Russia, and perhaps a lot of other people given the way things are going. "Whataboutism" isn't going to solve much, if anything.

We have tons of problems at home to solve, and with limited resources to throw around, maybe we should start there instead of trying to poke the thousand pound gorilla in the room with a stick?

Pretty much the argument used against the US getting involved in both WWI and WWII. And did we stay out of those conflicts? Nope, eventually we wound up in the morass with everyone else.

Plus they may not be so stupid as to want the US to fight Russia because they know the existential risk of Nuclear War; they're in the fallout zone.

If it comes to nuclear war EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE will be in the fallout zone. There will be no safe place left.

So let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[Col. Crackpot]

Alright, asshole, this is the last time I'm going to ask you this question: why is this a problem for the US to step in and solve?

I am making this an official challenge. If you don't put up or shut up, I will ask the moderators to shut you up, because I am getting real tired of your one liner bullshit. I do not deserve to have this much of my time wasted on dismissive crap insulting me simply for disagreeing with your conclusions.

I did. Repeatedly. It is the responsibility of all in the international community to call out this horseshit. I particularly endorse the sentiments of the far more eloquent than I Kenyan ambassador to the UN I posted up thread.

You are choosing to waste your own time. Go ahead and ‘call mom and dad’. As a matter of fact, if you insist on wasting a moderators time Broomstick is an active participant in this thread. Go whine to her.

[LadyTevar]

Alright, asshole, this is the last time I'm going to ask you this question: why is this a problem for the US to step in and solve?

I am making this an official challenge. If you don't put up or shut up, I will ask the moderators to shut you up, because I am getting real tired of your one liner bullshit. I do not deserve to have this much of my time wasted on dismissive crap insulting me simply for disagreeing with your conclusions.

Because we have the biggest Standing Army, and a history of putting our foot in it.
ALSO, all we have to do is look back at 1938 when Nazi Germany decided to roll into Poland because "native Germans were in trouble". See, Putin can't even come up with a original excuse. No one did jack-shit about Germany, and we got WWII.

I'd rather not see what happens if we ignore Putin's actions THIS TIME. After all, we ignored when he rolled into Crimea in 2014. The only reason he stopped then was a Civilian Airplane was shot down by "Separatists", using a Russian-built, Russian-provided anti-aircraft missile platform. Putin backed down VERY QUICKLY then, because he didn't want burned by the backlash.

[Formless]

Alright, asshole, this is the last time I'm going to ask you this question: why is this a problem for the US to step in and solve?

I am making this an official challenge. If you don't put up or shut up, I will ask the moderators to shut you up, because I am getting real tired of your one liner bullshit. I do not deserve to have this much of my time wasted on dismissive crap insulting me simply for disagreeing with your conclusions.

I did. Repeatedly. It is the responsibility of all in the international community to call out this horseshit. I particularly endorse the sentiments of the far more eloquent than I Kenyan ambassador to the UN I posted up thread.

You are choosing to waste your own time. Go ahead and ‘call mom and dad’. As a matter of fact, if you insist on wasting a moderators time Broomstick is an active participant in this thread. Go whine to her.

Not good enough, asshole. I am not giving ground on this one. If you cannot make an argument of your own why I am being ridiculous for even asking the question, you can shut the fuck up and stop polluting this thread with one liners. What other people contribute does not absolve you of polluting this thread with one line insults when directly asked to answer the question. Which no, you never did. When you presented the Kenyan tweet, you did not say "and this is why the US should be involved". You just threw it out there, as if that is all that needed to be said.

Make an argument for US military or economic intervention, or concede you don't have one. Calling out the Russians is not what is at stake here, and that should be so obvious I can't believe you would even shift the goal posts in that direction.

[Ralin]

ALSO, all we have to do is look back at 1938 when Nazi Germany decided to roll into Poland because "native Germans were in trouble". See, Putin can't even come up with a original excuse. No one did jack-shit about Germany, and we got WWII.

I'd rather not see what happens if we ignore Putin's actions THIS TIME. After all, we ignored when he rolled into Crimea in 2014. The only reason he stopped then was a Civilian Airplane was shot down by "Separatists", using a Russian-built, Russian-provided anti-aircraft missile platform. Putin backed down VERY QUICKLY then, because he didn't want burned by the backlash.

So what exactly do you imagine doing something about Putin's actions looking like? Should the US declare Operation Ukrainian Freedom and invade these new breakaway states and forcibly return them to Ukraine? Flood the country with a shitload of American weapons (under the control of a government that apparently has a significant number of no-shit Nazis, not that we're in any position to judge)? ~Sanctions~?

[Col. Crackpot]

Alright, asshole, this is the last time I'm going to ask you this question: why is this a problem for the US to step in and solve?

I am making this an official challenge. If you don't put up or shut up, I will ask the moderators to shut you up, because I am getting real tired of your one liner bullshit. I do not deserve to have this much of my time wasted on dismissive crap insulting me simply for disagreeing with your conclusions.

I did. Repeatedly. It is the responsibility of all in the international community to call out this horseshit. I particularly endorse the sentiments of the far more eloquent than I Kenyan ambassador to the UN I posted up thread.

You are choosing to waste your own time. Go ahead and ‘call mom and dad’. As a matter of fact, if you insist on wasting a moderators time Broomstick is an active participant in this thread. Go whine to her.

Not good enough, asshole. I am not giving ground on this one. If you cannot make an argument of your own why I am being ridiculous for even asking the question, you can shut the fuck up and stop polluting this thread with one liners. What other people contribute does not absolve you of polluting this thread with one line insults when directly asked to answer the question. Which no, you never did. When you presented the Kenyan tweet, you did not say "and this is why the US should be involved". You just threw it out there, as if that is all that needed to be said.

Make an argument for US military or economic intervention, or concede you don't have one. Calling out the Russians is not what is at stake here, and that should be so obvious I can't believe you would even shift the goal posts in that direction.

You are right. Let the chekist rape Ukraine for its coal and industry. You have convinced me.

I don’t care if you feel my argument is insufficient. Pound Sand.

Edit: I forgot to include the wanker emoji

[irishmick79]

What, ultimately, would be considered us military intervention? Actual ground combat forces in-country? Or would there be a lesser threshold, such as massive arms sales or infrastructure support, large scale NATO exercises in the Baltic or Arctic Seas, protection of Ukrainian military assets in neighboring territories…what are we really talking about doing in response?

[Col. Crackpot]

https://www.reuters.com/world/erdogan-t ... 022-02-22/

This is interesting. After cozying up to Moscow for some years now The Turks are are back in the NATO fold expressing support for Ukrainian territorial integrity.

[irishmick79]

https://www.reuters.com/world/erdogan-t ... 022-02-22/

This is interesting. After cozying up to Moscow for some years now The Turks are are back in the NATO fold expressing support for Ukrainian territorial integrity.

I wouldn’t go that far. It’s not like the Turks are suddenly supporting sanctions or shuttering the Bosporus to Russian shipping or something like that. I mean, it wasn’t that long ago when you could legitimately wonder if they were going to get kicked out of NATO.

[Col. Crackpot]

https://www.reuters.com/world/erdogan-t ... 022-02-22/

This is interesting. After cozying up to Moscow for some years now The Turks are are back in the NATO fold expressing support for Ukrainian territorial integrity.

I wouldn’t go that far. It’s not like the Turks are suddenly supporting sanctions or shuttering the Bosporus to Russian shipping or something like that. I mean, it wasn’t that long ago when you could legitimately wonder if they were going to get kicked out of NATO.

Erdogan being critical of Russia at all after the S 400 missile deal is interesting. Pissing off Putin could Jeopardize future purchases… unless the Turks are trying to get back into the good graces of NATO in the hopes of getting back into the F35 program.

[Col. Crackpot]

But going back to the Ottoman Empire i guess you could say the Turks… haven’t been fond of Russia controlling Ukraine.

[MKSheppard]

I'm all set for the new Battlestar Iraqtica reboot, starring Vladimir Putin as George W. Bush, Sergey Lavrov as Dick Cheney, Ukraine as Iraq, and introducing Volodymyr Zelensky as Saddam Hussein.

More Seriously...

Can we thank Clintonian Leadership for setting up the bomb about to go off...

They were the prime ones pushing the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) philosophy that Putin is about to use to justify what he's gonna do, using Kosovo (1999 - Bill Clinton as POTUS) and Libya (2011 -- Hillary Clinton as SecState) as historical backing -- What, you didn't think Putin was doing all that genocide talk for nothing in his speeches lately?

Oh, don't forget a dash of Bush the Younger and 2003 Iraq.

It's like every foreign policy decision the US has made since 1993 is coming back to bite us in the ass now.

[irishmick79]

https://www.reuters.com/world/erdogan-t ... 022-02-22/

This is interesting. After cozying up to Moscow for some years now The Turks are are back in the NATO fold expressing support for Ukrainian territorial integrity.

I wouldn’t go that far. It’s not like the Turks are suddenly supporting sanctions or shuttering the Bosporus to Russian shipping or something like that. I mean, it wasn’t that long ago when you could legitimately wonder if they were going to get kicked out of NATO.

Erdogan being critical of Russia at all after the S 400 missile deal is interesting. Pissing off Putin could Jeopardize future purchases… unless the Turks are trying to get back into the good graces of NATO in the hopes of getting back into the F35 program.

Saying you support Ukrainian territorial integrity isn’t really saying much of anything. Diplomatic nicety. Especially if you’re cool with Vladimir Putin define the concept of Ukrainian territorial integrity.

The Turks haven’t cared much about Russia controlling Ukraine historically. Now, Russia’s historical interests in the Bosporus? The Turks are very interested in those ambitions. They only care about events in Ukraine in so far as they impact Russian ambitions in their direction.

[Zaune]

Why the fuck should Russia be allowed to invade another sovereign country just becase they have nukes? Should we just throw international law to one side?

(yes I know US/coalition governments objecting would be hypocritical based on the Iraq invasion, that's not the same as being wrong.)

They shouldn't. But what this is going to come down to is, what exactly can we realistically do about it without screwing ourselves over? It doesn't even have to come to open war for there to be consequences: Energy prices are going through the roof right now, and boycotting Russian natural gas is going to make that even worse.

[Elfdart]

So, it turns out Russia wasn't bluffing and they are, in fact, ordering troops into Ukraine. Well, the Russian rebel held parts of it anyways:

Like all bad liars, they have to invent new ones to cover the old ones. For years, Moscow denied they had sent troops to back the rebels. Now they're saying this occupation is no big deal because they've already been there for eight years.

Of course, Washington is also caught in the same bad lie. Obama, Cheeto Mussolini and now Biden have insisted that the Russian Army has been in these two new "republics" since 2014. In that case, what's going on now can't really be an invasion, now can it? The only difference between now and 2014 is Putin's dick-waving and Biden's and the media's case of the vapors.

[Ralin]

Like all bad liars, they have to invent new ones to cover the old ones. For years, Moscow denied they had sent troops to back the rebels. Now they're saying this occupation is no big deal because they've already been there for eight years.

Of course, Washington is also caught in the same bad lie. Obama, Cheeto Mussolini and now Biden have insisted that the Russian Army has been in these two new "republics" since 2014. In that case, what's going on now can't really be an invasion, now can it? The only difference between now and 2014 is Putin's dick-waving and Biden's and the media's case of the vapors.

So...do you think Russia is invading Ukraine? I can't actually tell.

[Elfdart]

I'm all set for the new Battlestar Iraqtica reboot, starring Vladimir Putin as George W. Bush, Sergey Lavrov as Dick Cheney, Ukraine as Iraq, and introducing Volodymyr Zelensky as Saddam Hussein.

More Seriously...

Can we thank Clintonian Leadership for setting up the bomb about to go off...

They were the prime ones pushing the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) philosophy that Putin is about to use to justify what he's gonna do, using Kosovo (1999 - Bill Clinton as POTUS) and Libya (2011 -- Hillary Clinton as SecState) as historical backing -- What, you didn't think Putin was doing all that genocide talk for nothing in his speeches lately?

Oh, don't forget a dash of Bush the Younger and 2003 Iraq.

Joffrey W. Bush was even bigger on expanding NATO than Bubba was.

At least Putin's story has a grain of truth to it (as long as the Azov Battalion is operating, let alone integrated into Ukraine's armed forces, a pogrom is never not a possibility), unlike the preposterous bullshit the CIA, State Department and their puke funnels in the media have served up since I was a kid, like Yellow Rain in SE Asia, Nicaragua's army preparing to invade Texas, the Kuwaiti incubators, Iraq being in league with Bin Laden and the one about Ghadaffi hiring black mercenaries, pumping them full of boner pills and sending them out to commit mass rape.

It's like every foreign policy decision the US has made since 1993 is coming back to bite us in the ass now.

I brought up the famous Red Skelton quote a while back and it's just as relevant now:

“I don't hate my enemies. After all, I made 'em.”

Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi used to report from Moscow back in the 90s until Putin kicked them out of the country in 2008. Their newsletter/scandal sheet, eXile, combined muckraking journalism with a vicious satirical take on Russia's collapse into the gutter that was cruel, grotesque and hilarious (comedy is tragedy plus uh, timing). When neo-Nazis back home like Gavin McInnis tried to smear Ames a few years ago he responded thusly:

The eXile was produced in a very different world and context, Boris Yeltsin’s Russia of the 1990s, when virtuous neoliberals oversaw and ran propaganda cover for one of the most horrific and disastrous experiments on a country in modern times. Millions of Russians went to their graves early in the 1990s; it was the complete degradation of a people and region. We covered the story in the opposite way that everyone else around us did — satirical rather than “objective”. The Clinton missionaries propagandizing for Yeltsin were publicly virtuous while lying and looting and laying waste.

When deliberately starving half a million Iraqi children is only the second worst thing you've done, and your crimes/blunders are close to getting multitudes killed three decades later, you really are among the worst of the worst.

[Elfdart]

Like all bad liars, they have to invent new ones to cover the old ones. For years, Moscow denied they had sent troops to back the rebels. Now they're saying this occupation is no big deal because they've already been there for eight years.

Of course, Washington is also caught in the same bad lie. Obama, Cheeto Mussolini and now Biden have insisted that the Russian Army has been in these two new "republics" since 2014. In that case, what's going on now can't really be an invasion, now can it? The only difference between now and 2014 is Putin's dick-waving and Biden's and the media's case of the vapors.

So...do you think Russia is invading Ukraine? I can't actually tell.

Putin himself announced he's sending troops into the two territories he claims now as independent republics. My question is, if he already had troops there, is it really an invasion? It's like when Obama sent troops to Syria, then Il Douchebag sent more. Does that mean Trump "invaded" Syria, or that he was just maintaining the status quo? If Biden sends more men to Syria, does that count as three invasions?

If this seems like semantics-whoring, it's not. The media have been hair-on-fire hysterical about Putin's "INVASION OMG!" of two regions that he's already had troops and heavy equipment parked in for eight years.