So they are all flip flopping because nobody understood they were being sarcastic and now they are clarifying what they really mean? Or the new positions they are now taking are actually sarcastic because they don't really mean them? Not sure I get your point.

@zeuser

1. Trump used sarcasm describing the Russia Ukraine situation.
2. Anyone with half a brain should have been able to sense the sarcasm.
3. The anti-Trump media took the statements made (using sarcasm) and tried to portray Trump as a supporter of Putin.
4. Trump has now made his position clear:

“The Russian attack on Ukraine is appalling. It’s an outrage, and an atrocity that should never have been allowed to occur,” he said Saturday night at CPAC. “We are praying for the proud people of Ukraine.”

It's really that simple.

There is nothing that u can say to defend your president . Let it go . Not the first or the last time that he opens his mouth and frogs and rocks are coming out . U trying to defend him , is comical . He does not give a flying fuck about u or any of u . Never did , and never will . Let it go .

@BD66 The # 1 defense and excuse of any egocentric asshole is “ I was kidding “. Or “ I was just sarcastic “.
Pls . Let me assure u , that takes brains . He got 0 next to nothing . Apparently the stupid led the blind , bcz his followers until this day , still , blind ?

@Pralina1 A lot of what you say is true: Trump is indeed an egocentric asshole.

Trump is not a professional politician, so he says stupid things to give ammunition to his enemies.

Calling Putin "Smart" is technically correct. Putin is a smart man, but he's also a murderous evil dictator.

However if you listen to Trump's speeches in their entirety (if you have the stomach for that), it's clear that Trump supports the Ukrainians and not Putin.

The other Republicans choose their words more carefully, and it's also clear they support the Ukrainians and not Putin.

[yahoo.com]

@creative51 Right on!

@BD66
Again, he's tried that "I was joking" line a bunch of times. Only idiots bought it before. Only idiots are buying it now. Don't you remember? He doesn't 'kid'.

[abcnews.go.com]

When Trump thought we joined Russia in attacking Ukraine with an amphibious assault, his response wasn't, "We should be on Ukraine's side" it was "The US should be doing that secretly".
How are you so fuckin' slow that you're still being duped by that absolute fucking moron?

Tell us how you really feel Katy, don’t hold back on our account!!!!

Unfortunately, a country is its leader as unfair as that is.

@JeffMurray Putin can jail only so many protestors. His unpopularity has been growing for over a decade. This is ramping it way up. Now, I'm sure many of the top dogs and oligarchs will start doubting his leadership.

@mischl And as soon as he gone, someone else will be Russia. But as long as he controls the military...

Putin's stated objective in Ukraine is to erect a puppet government rather than conquer the country and prevent Ukraine aligning with the nato or eu. That would be a quick way to downfall like the Afghanistan episode.

There's a civil war happening, so which side?

@puff You believe that? Its a war between Russia and Ukraine. No fucking civil war.

@barjoe now it is, just pointing out not so clear cut. eg the Russian speaking Ukrainians who have been killed over the last few years through mortar attacks etc, Which Ukrainians were you standing by then?
I don't condone what Russia has done at all. But if you must choose a side, cannot condone what NATO has done either. Poor Ukrainians are stuck in another proxy war.

@puff Of course you believe Putin's lies. Of course you do. Fact check, that calls them false, of course you will call "fake news". I'm sure if the poll on this post weren't so jaded you'd have voted. Keep spreading that false Russian propaganda from RT. [politifact.com]

@barjoe It's all good, lots of lethal aid being sent, good for business. Something to blame the state of the economy on now.

@puff Should countries be allowed to choose their alliances ?

Do you take Putins' word for "what NATO has done" ?

[rferl.org]
[cfr.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]

@FearlessFly He takes Putin's word no matter what.

@FearlessFly Of course they should align with whom they want but a bit like vaccines, without coercion

Fact check this
Ukraine is in a civil war, has been 8 years after a democratically elected government who seemed likely to choose a favourable alliance not acceptable to some, was overthrown in a US sponsored coup, then Minsk agreement etc. Continuing civil war
Countries at war cannot join NATO by NATO's own charter.
Many countries in NATO are wary of inviting Ukraine to join that alliance or even the EU. Ukraine is not in the EU or NATO.
NATO and EU nations are arming Ukraine, a non member state. As has Russia also armed. Some may call a proxy war in a neutral country disguised as a civil war.

NATO intervened in Libya resulting in a failed state. Libya is not part of Europe.

Russia has now responded militarily with boots on the ground in Ukraine's civil war. NATO has responded with "lethal aid" (an oxymoron if ever I have heard one) but no boots on ground.

I have no time for NATO after Libya. I have no time for Russian military action, nor American military action. I'm Australian ie no-where near the place, and wish we could be like Asia, Sth America and Africa on this eg stay the fuck out and let Ukraine be with nil/ zero/ zip foreign interference in their internal affairs.

.

@puff . . . you say "Fact check this", but you provide no source(s) for your 'spin' on your claims.

Should Lincoln have allowed the South to secede ?

Of course Yanukovych/Putin (and now you) call 2/2014 a 'coup'. How do you explain Poroshenkos' 2014 election victory and Zelenskyys' 2019 victory -- clearly the Ukrainians are not supporting Russia.

WHO decides what is coercion ?
Who is claiming that Ukraine is currently part of NATO/EU ?
Are you suggesting that ANY country be prohibited from providing support to Ukraine ?
Why NOT NATO/EU providing support ?

"Libya is not part of Europe" -- Neither is the US and Canada (and all but a small part of Turkey)

"let Ukraine be with nil/ zero/ zip foreign interference in their internal affairs" -- TELL THAT TO Putin !

@puff
"NATO intervened in Libya resulting in a failed state"
"I have no time for NATO after Libya"

[brookings.edu]

[vox.com]

@puff Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
BRICs. We have vested economical interests in each other. ...so rightfully we stay the f*** out!

I should would like to know more about all of that

@twill I've been covering this issue for years. More extensively covering this issue the past 2 weeks or so. If you don't know of it it's because you're viewing or listening to only MSCM which is controlled by the very international ruling class that want to suppress the facts from the public. Here some work I've put into it more recently below.

[agnostic.com]

[agnostic.com]

[agnostic.com]

If you truly desire a more realistic view on what's happening in Ukraine today I suggest you tune into RT America if it's provided to you. They have been spent a substantial amount of time covering the history from 2014 your find in the articles above and further back in some of the footage. Exposing more politicians, both US and Ukrainian, along with other aspects that lead up to today.

@William_Mary Nothing you said (even if it is true) justifies Russia's invastion of another country.

@Alienbeing it was first invaded by US hegemony towards interfering in their government leading to an illegal overthrow. Did you also denounce that and the innocent deaths it lead to during the coup? How many of the US illegal invasions have you denounced? How about the most recent horrific murdering invasion episode of Iraq with deaths of 100's of thousands of innocent civilians and nearly 5000 of our own men and women, a war built on lies to benefit the same people who are also now the only one's benefitting over the Ukraine issue. If you didn't, you're a hypocrite.

They're loving this manufactured war as Russia is forced to blow away all the recent weaponry sent off our backs. They get to pick our pockets again to send more now. Not to mention how it's effecting our economy! I bet you think Russia wasn't prepared for this and the sanctions will actually make a major difference. The lost of Russia's contribution to the world society is going to effect us citizens a hell of a lot more that them.

Ask the German citizens how that's going to work for them also when they lose their primary energy source and the international energy companies rake them over hot coal in price increases. And the other nations dependent of those resources. Do think Putin is actually going to keep the tap on after they turn swift off on him?

When you miss the whole picture.......

Did you seriously recommend people watch Russian propaganda to learn about why this is all happening. Ffs. ‍

@FreethoughtKaty Propaganda means a one-sided presentation. Doesn't mean its inaccurate. The basic Russian points are indeed accurate.

@FreethoughtKaty as Krish points out, and I state in my group, we're all using propaganda in regards to stating our political opinions. You've just done so yourself. We have a personal responsibility to ourselves and to our fellow societies to be educated on factual information to determine which propaganda is positive or being used to deceive us. Then apply that to our public statements in efforts to unite around the truth and a cause. I'll argue yours is a means to help keep people from seeking better information, whether you're doing it purposely or not. You're denying yourself the ability to learn more working off negative propaganda while willing to take or hold others down that rabbit hole with you.

Have you ever considered why some of our best political commentators, journalist, and some of the news shows who use RT America, or have to resort to using independent means to get their views out? Which are also labeled by the establishment, MSCM, Or suppressed by various social medias as fake? A term we once were using against them. It's primarily because they and their views against capitalisms ruling class empire building won't be tolerated because it challenges the delusional reality they've created. Such as the Ukraine issue which has a vast manufactured false narrative behind it managing the perceptions of many deceitfully.

But if you're fine with supporting the fascist in Ukraine who are essentially running a genocide campaign in the east, just say so. If you're fine with allowing Biden who created this mess from within the Obama administration, and the crimes that went with it using our tax dollars, just admit to that. If you're fine knowing just a few aspects of the issue and not about all the facts because it serves the reality they created for you, then remain there.

But I'm still allowed to present the facts I've learned and brave enough to share them to attempt to unite us behind them for a better society.

@William_Mary I denounce any and all invasions. Your lame assertion that one invasion justifies another is absurd.

Please cite ONE "fascist" action from today's Ukraine.

How much does Putkin pay you?

@William_Mary Have you ever considered that invasions are both immoral and illegal?

@William_Mary you might already be knowing about John Mearsheimer of U Chicago. I found his talks very enlightening. Most people are too brainwashed to think seriously about geopolitics in realistic terms.

@Spongebob no I didn't. I just looked him up on Wikipedia and look forward to researching him further. I see he has a video on the Ukraine issue I'll be going through this weekend. Thank you for bringing him to my attention!

If you have an interest in dissent from empire building, please consider joining my group and adding your experience and views when you have time. "Out Of The Illusion " Group

Agree with everything except the "because we are here across the ocean and cannot do anything" part. The US could always do something if they wanted to.

@JeffMurray Sorry, Jeff, but what can you do? Yes, the US could do something. That's why I suggested contacting your representatives; but you, the individual can do nothing. Maybe I am mistaken about your personal influence, but I know I cannot do anything.

@Spinliesel Oh, I see what you mean. In that case I couldn't agree with you more.

@creative51 You missed the point completly. Nothing I said even comes near to a discussion of objective, verses subjective. I even said Trump was an asshole. The point was you misrepresented the intent of your post, and thus sound lame.

If you want to call Trump an idiot, or an asshole. do it, don't try to present a survey.

@creative51 If you say so.

Except the United States has a vested interest in preventing nuclear proliferation. Ukraine dismantled its 3,000 nukes under the condition that its borders were respected. If they can't defend themselves, and those that could don't, what chance do we ever have again trying to get countries to give up their nukes or prevent countries from developing them?? If you were another country that could develop nukes, and you saw no one protected Ukraine, wouldn't you put everything you had into getting your nuclear weapons online? I sure as fuck would. Global "not my circus, not my monkeys" is a terribly stupid, shortsighted policy.

@JeffMurray I'm simply not willing to fecklessly throw our young men's lives under every boogey man bus that comes along.

AGAIN, if the Ukraine had the foresight to enter a non-proliferation and mutual defense treaty (NATO), I would see it differently.

But they didn't so .... if we get involved officially uninvited, we are simply the global bully wanting things our way.

@Normanbites There's plenty we can do without risking our soldiers' lives.

I also think this is bigger than Ukraine. You're seeing too small a picture on this. Are you suggesting the global policy be that stronger countries can conquer sovereign nations so long as they aren't a NATO member?

@JeffMurray No, I am suggesting that we are the strongest nation in the world and we have a habit of bending other nations to our will without regard to any pre-existing agreements.

@Normanbites I'm pretty sure the preexisting agreement was 'We'll dismantle the third largest stockpile of nukes in the world if our borders are respected'. That's why I'm not clamoring to get involved in every situation, but I think it's a necessity we get involved in this one. This will have serious implications on the future of our foreign policy.

@JeffMurray I think sanctions are appropriate. However, I will not support another case of the US stomping in to do all the work. If the UN/NATO want to take a unified action, I believe we have some obligation to support this even if it means troops in this case. But expecting the US to be the sole policeman of the world is dangerous and unreasonable IMHO.

@Normanbites
It's not like we're doing this policing shit out of the goodness of our hearts. The status quo has allowed America to become the richest, most powerful country the world has ever seen. We have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, but that comes at a cost. So we can do some policing, maybe go to war if necessary, but doing nothing and letting shit like this go on is going to cost us way more on the back end.

@JeffMurray I can't support using US military domination to enhance US capitalist exploitation of every other nation on Earth. I think it is well past the time (if there ever was one) for the US to dominate the world under the guise of altruism.

Face it, we are capitalists and colonists, we've been living off the poor of other countries for far too long. It's time we stopped that. The way to stop it is to cease unfettered military aggression and reign in capitalist exploitation for the benefit of the few.

@Normanbites
Don't know if that's idealistic or delusional or a little bit of both. The US is never going to stop doing any of that shit, so it seems like a flimsy excuse to not help a country that desperately needs our help (so not altruistic, because nothing, in the history of forever, has ever been altruistic) because "we simply must stop what we're doing this very instant now that Ukraine needs our help!" I also think, though there are countless examples of it, it's disingenuous to call our potential involvement in this 'military aggression'.
And it's not like this is for a financial windfall, it's about hopefully preventing future nuclear war and catastrophic loss. Look, I'm arguing against my own interests here because I think protecting Ukraine is the right thing to do, but I'd love a nuclear warhead to donate right on my front doorstep. Instant death, hopefully wouldn't know it was coming, can't regret anything, can't suffer anymore. It would be all good things for me, but I know I'm, inexplicably, in a tiny minority on this, so I try to keep others' mindsets in the forefront when deciding what the best course of action would be.

@JeffMurray Fortunately, the historical record shows that a person who says "This can not be done!" is often interrupted by people doing it.

@Normanbites Who's saying something can't be done. The US could do things differently. Just saying they won't willingly just do the "right thing" according to you if it's against their interests. But even if they eventually would, it's still shitty to not help the country that needs help now because we need to stop getting involved...

@JeffMurray I'm not saying the US shouldn't be willing to help at all. I AM saying we shouldn't be so eager to step up early and do it all.

There are other people and other countries in the world. I don't think it is beyond reason to wait until they are willing to show as much concern and put forth at least as much effort as we do.

Being so aggressive that we become the worlds policeman, whether we do it right or we do it wrong, it will always be too expensive for us.

@Normanbites Not if the alternative is more costly. I know someone who would drive out of her way or make special trips out for gas to save a few pennies a gallon wasting time and probably more money in gas than she saved.

@JeffMurray I will continue to refuse to accept the notion that appeasing our pocketbooks or our tycoons is valid reason for exploiting and/or dominating people in any other part of our world. If we take action to support the Ukraine let it be for reasons supported by the majority of humanity in the world as demonstrated by THEIR actions. Our comfort and greed is not enough reason to take on yet another never ending war.

[scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net]

@Normanbites Did you miss the part where I explained if we allow the conquering of sovereign nations it could very well lead to the launching of nukes by one being conquered? While that would cost us money (unless we all died) I hardly think money is the important part of that equation.

@JeffMurray It seem you routinely miss the part where I strongly attest it is NOT up to the US ALONE to make and act upon determinations of this nature. The rest of the world has skin in this subject as well and it is time they acted the part.

@Normanbites And if no one else did anything about any of the global problems that would ruin shit for us we should just not do anything either?

@JeffMurray If Hitler had taken that point of view about the "Jewish problem", WWII would never have happened.

So, yes!! That is exactly what I am saying.

@Normanbites First of all, that is a ridiculous comparison as the existence of Jewish people isn't an actual problem. More importantly, that's a self-defeating argument that shows how ridiculous your position is. If no one did anything during WWII that "wasn't their problem" Hitler would have continued to conquer all of Europe and who knows what else.
Same is true for Climate Change (or was, it's too late now). If there are some countries that won't take appropriate steps to reign in carbon emissions, does that mean we shouldn't either? No one should? That was Trump's take on global policies like these. Sorry, but that's the thinking of a petulant, myopic child.

@JeffMurray It is a perfectly valid comparison. "The Jewish Problem" was a problem perceived by Hitler and his lackeys. If he had kept it in his pants and waited for the rest world to act on this problem, there would have been no World War II.

I actually have no problem with the way the US entered WWII. We did wait until the rest of the world acted or until it impinged directly on our concerns (Perl Harbor).

But in proposing we act because YOU feel a pinch in your wallet, makes you much more like Hitler.

As for climate change, that is actually another good example of why we should take the posture I advocate. If ONLY the US were to take action against climate change, what good would it do and what would that do to your precious wallet? It requires a unified action by the global community, not the the howling tantrums of a spoiled brat like yourself.

@Normanbites If you think any of what I said was about my wallet, you haven't heard a single fuckin' word I said.

And tantrums? That's you, bro. "Waaaaa! I shouldn't have to do the right thing unless EVERYONE else is already doing the right thing!" I was dead on. You, just like Trump, behave like a petulant myopic baby-man.

@JeffMurray Sometimes waiting for everyone else to see the problem IS the right thing to do, dimbulb.

You seem to think the US is morally obligated to whipsaw everyone else in the world to see things our way. I will never agree with that.

Such a position is extremely self absorbed and short sighted. Humanity has grown to be a global society. We need to act in unison to have any impact at all. To do otherwise is to act with futility and without regard or concern for the rest of the world.

@Normanbites

1. Sometimes
2. I don't really believe in "morally," so no, that's not what I think. Nothing I've said should signal to anyone with decent reading comprehension skills that I'm talking about moral obligations.
3. You are super fuckin' naive if you think we live in a global society. Yes, some problems almost require everyone get on board, but the fact that everyone isn't on board for obvious problems like global warming shows how silly your "global society" theory is. And acting alone sometimes is how you act with regard for the rest of the world.

@JeffMurray Spoken like a true amoral imperial capitalist. Congratulations! Your universe revolves around you.

Put down that Kalashnikov at once, I tell you!

We absolutely should be going to war. If it ends the world, then it ends the world. If we are forever too scared to stand up and fight evil, the world will effectively be over anyway. Do we really think the new global policy should be 'If you're powerful enough to take over another country, then you're more than welcome to do it at a financial cost likely less than the value you'll gain taking over said land'?

@Spongebob Very good, thanks.

It's so obvious. Putin knows the west will do nothing meaningful to stop him. The USA is divided and fighting among themselves. The UK is impotent by themselves and both are unwilling to put troops on the ground to protect Ukraine. So here we are. Ukraine was foolish to have given up their own nuclear weapons when they did and now it has come back to bite them. North Korea and Iran will take this as a perfect example of why they should pursue their own nuclear weapons. If I were them, I'd declare that openly now while the world is watching. And even if they don't say it openly it would be foolish not to, knowing they put themselves at risk. Putin really is making the world less safe and should be stopped but...

You don't even need to take it all the way to the US. There are 7 other countries with nuclear weapons (that we know of, I suppose). If we stand by as nations conquer other nations, sooner or later one of them will use any means at their disposal. A tiny angry irrational part of me thought we should give nuclear weapon(s) to Ukraine and tell Russia we did it. That it was no longer up to us if, how, or when they would be used. That their decision to attack Ukraine carried with it the same risk as attacking any other sovereign nation that is a nuclear power. Would he have refrained from invading? If he didn't, would Ukraine have refrained from launching? If they didn't, would Russia retaliate and begin the end of the world? I hate mankind and I'm ready to die, so I know I can't think about that with an unbiased point of view. But I just don't think it's right that countries can just do whatever they want because they're richer or more powerful.

@JeffMurray You could not be more correct.

@creative51 I already have.

@Krish55 shocking indeed. In fact I made a separate post of this. South Africans and other non - white skins are also trapped and being pushed to the back of the queues.

Racist reportage on Ukrainian Refugees:

[youtu.be]

[youtu.be]

[youtu.be]

@TimeOutForMe Thanks!

The war could have been prevented with such guarantees that Putin asked for.

@Krish55 I can see Putin's concern about NATO expanding east. Don't agree with the taking of Crimea or the invasion of Ukraine. But there's going to have to be some concession made to Russia for this to end.