Fiona Hill made headlines as witness during Trump's impeachment trial and is a fellow at the left leaning Brookings Institution. She regained some cred with her testimony and would be considered a Deep State Spook by the MAGAts btw, I think you meant 'complicit'
Glen beck making more sense than 50% of Republicans shows to you how effin insane the republican party is
Sad that Glen Beck needs to warn people not to fall for the siren song of Putin. Putin's Russia looks monstrous on its face, but more than a few Americans are busy rationalizing why they should be on his side.
She says a lot about how we're doing things wrong but doesn't offer any alternatives when repeatedly asked. She does state Putin is the problem and cannot be allowed to take any territory and basically needs to be forced to come to the table. It sounds like her only real solution is assassinating Putin. FS: But how does this end? I understand that we must appear strong and united. But as the years pass, if proposing a settlement is seen as a sign of weakness, how will we ever reach one? FH: That’s not the way to look at this. The way to look at this is to try to create the circumstances for a real negotiation, not a capitulation. I don’t think we’re going to have an absolute victory over Russia. But look, it only ends when Russians no longer want to extend territory in an imperial fashion. Leadership matters a lot here. Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev didn’t have this same way of thinking. Gorbachev himself made the decision to end the Cold War; Yeltsin did not want to reincorporate Ukraine or Belarus or any of the other countries. So you’ve got to find a formula where Russia no longer wants to expand. ... FS: Does that mean yes to airplanes? FH: Yes, I would say potentially yes. But I would say it’s really contingent on our longer-term plan to try to get Russia to the negotiating table. Because look, Russia and Putin right now think that they can win this war by destroying Ukraine and by destroying their own population. Putin is talking about throwing not just the 300,000 people who have been drafted, but another 500,000 people into this campaign. He is willing to sacrifice as many Russians as it takes. And so part of this is a problem of Putin himself — how to constrain him and how to get the message across to him that he’s ruining Russia’s future, and that Russia’s relationship with Europe will be irrevocably altered. Putin still seems to think that he can get away with all his carnage and brutality and it’ll be back to business as usual. He thinks that is what happened to Assad in Syria. And the more that we talk about the fact that we just need to resolve this, and say “please take Ukrainian territory then we’ll all be back to business”, the more that he will persist. This part was meant for SpaceGhost: FS: I wouldn’t say that’s what many people are saying… FH: I’m not suggesting you’re saying that, but there are people out there who are saying it. I read it all the time. They’re basically saying, look, if we can get a formula here, we get Ukraine to give up territory, then Putin will stop. But he won’t stop unless he thinks that Russia’s interests are going to be imperilled.
I don't think she's saying we are doing things wrong, but that we did things wrong in the past (going all the way back to 2006). She's advocating for an international diplomatic effort "to persuade the rest of the world that this war is not in anyone's interests" (something that has been ongoing). She wants everyone to push Russia (not Ukraine) toward the negotiating table. But she recognizes that Russia isn't interested in peace negotiations (she even said they were trolling when they were talking about negotiation last year). She clearly thinks the battlefield is a required part of the persuasion. And again, she recognizes that Russia has to decide to end the war and that "Putin will only negotiate when he thinks that achieving his current goals is not possible." All in all, she's not proposing any concrete solution but is just stating the challenges that are already known and believes this will be a long-term war that will end with an international diplomatic solution over Putin's capitulation (he has nukes, so I don't think anyone was thinking that).
She says that on one hand we need to get Russia to negotiate, but on the other hand, Putin has always wanted to expand, independent of NATO threats and such, and that basically he will never stop trying unless his leadership is existentially threatened. She specifically mentions different leaders who moved Russia in the right direction and implies that Putin would never do that. So that seems to me that she's suggesting the only ways this ends are if Putin is not in charge in Russia or if we force the issue to the degree that Russia has an existential crisis (probably also resulting in Putin being removed). She's essentially arguing that we should do more to force this issue (thus why she supports jets, I guess).
That's what I got from it. Essentially, more military equipments are needed to prevent Russia's escalation and to persuade Putin that he cannot achieve his goals. The other part is an international diplomatic effort to persuade everyone that this war is not in anyone's interest (and that's the part where I think she believes there is still a lack of effort). "And the whole point of talking about all this military equipment is to prevent Russia from having escalation dominance, in the hope that we will push them towards negotiations because Putin will only negotiate when he thinks that achieving his current goals is not possible." "And so part of this is a problem of Putin himself — how to constrain him and how to get the message across to him that he’s ruining Russia’s future, and that Russia’s relationship with Europe will be irrevocably altered. Putin still seems to think that he can get away with all his carnage and brutality and it’ll be back to business as usual. He thinks that is what happened to Assad in Syria. And the more that we talk about the fact that we just need to resolve this, and say “please take Ukrainian territory then we’ll all be back to business”, the more that he will persist."
Had to click show ignored content to see what you were responding to. Commodore spread so much bs consistently that I decided to just ignore him. The only poster I have on ignore. Ukrainian Air Force explains when air raid siren is sounded (yahoo.com) Joe Biden Arrives in Kyiv for Surprise Trip As Air Raid Sirens Blare (newsweek.com) Security risks were clearly present as Biden walked Kyiv's streets, with air raid warnings sounding across Ukraine after Russian MiG-31 aircraft thought to be carrying Kinzhal hypersonic missiles took to the skies. "You see the map of the air raid alerts, it's all red," Ukrainian air force spokesperson Colonel Yurii Ihnat told reporters at a Media Center Ukraine Ukrinform briefing on Monday. "I do not know if it is related to the leader of the American people's [visit] to Ukraine; those flights are going on on a daily basis," Ihnat said.
Didn't some of these same people claim that Putin was not a problem only a couple of years ago. I understand that even professionals make mistakes, but it was always obvious that Russia and China were problems. This has all become about naked ambition.
I believe this was Obama and other Democrats who mocked Romney's claim that Russia was the biggest threat facing the U.S. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/27/mitt-romney-russia-remains-geopolitical-foe-00012124
One year of losses. Can Russia sustain another of losses like these, especially on the equipment side?
A global divide on the Ukraine war is deepening Russia capitalizes on disillusionment with the United States to win sympathy in the Global South. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/22/global-south-russia-war-divided/
Russia isn't the biggest threat to the United States or the West, I believe it is China and has been China for some time. Having said that, I agree that we had three straight President's that did not go after Putin and in some cases defended Putin. GW and Obama both at different times spoke harshly of Putin, and sanctioned Russia - but they also did not take as hard a line as they should have. Bush supposedly warned Obama that Putin could take the Crimea, and it did happen. You won't hear me defend Obama on foreign policy. I think that he was a very good domestic President and largely scandal free, but his foreign policy overall was at best mediocre. Even when something that was widely supported happened, it still blew up in our face. The same was true under GW and the Trump view of foreign policy was destructive as well IMO. Some to think of it, US foreign policy overall has been pretty crappy for the USA for a long time. So far I think that Biden has done well, but I am waiting for it to blow up - as it always does.
