stevenkesslar

I posted these Zelenskyy quotes already in another thread. But they are funny, and sad: Zelenskyy said this: First, polls consistently show this is how most Americans feel. A brand new CBS poll after the Oval Office shit show shows one third of Americans see Russia as an enemy, one third as unfriendly, and only one third see Russia as friendly or an ally. Second, this is the exact opposite of what Trump thinks and says. This kind of language is now branded as unhelpful, if not warmonger, for people like Trump who want Peace. Third, these were actually things House Speaker Mike Johnson just said, in an article about why Zelenskyy may have to resign. He is basically saying Trump is wrong, and Zelenskyy is correct, and saying what most Americans think. And Zelenskyy should have to resign for that. WTF?

Putin can, and in fact has, come up with an endless list of grievances about how Ukraine or NATO forced him to invade. But no one forced him to invade. The easy way for me to agree with your basic point is to go back to Bucharest in 2008. Donald Trump was a reaction to many things. But many of those things were George W. Bush. In the film version, I would send the 2025 version of Donald Trump back to Bucharest, I would have him show W. what the bloody current outcome would be for Ukraine. I'd also show him the devastation in Iraq. And the humiliating end in Afghanistan. I might add January 6th, and point out that the reaction against you led to this. George. And add how his Veep's daughter is now persona now grata among the new MAGA Republican Party. I don't think W. planned on any of that. So my hope is he would react in abject horror, and shut the fuck up about Ukraine joining NATO. On an objective level, it is now clear that no good came of it so far. Kissinger at the time said that Ukraine should be a neutral bridge between Russia and the West. Maybe that was a better idea. That said, I think the same holds true for Putin. This is clearly a good moment for Putin. Maybe a bit like W. under his "Mission Accomplished" sign in Iraq. Famous last words. But W. actually thought he had won in Iraq. All Putin has is a bloody stalemate. My argument, which you won't agree with, is that this has already gone badly for Putin. And it's not going to end well in the long run. It is interesting that you focus on 2019 in your journal of grievances. Trump was President then. And he would kick you out of the Oval Office, too, @Moses, for suggesting that he did not have his buddy Vlad's back. So what if Zelenskyy did this or that? Trump wasn't going to let them join NATO. Nor was Biden. Nor did Biden. Nor will Trump now. It's a weak argument to say that Putin had to invade Ukraine because of something that has been talked about for 15 years, but has always been an empty promise. I will repeat again that, for all his horrors, I would take Trump over W. in a heartbeat. At least this version of the Republican Party isn't launching an adventure like Iraq. And if Harris had won I think there would have been pressure to find a way to freeze the stalemate, too. So I'm personally good with a break in the forever wars. And its now clear that both Ukraine and the EU won't make it easy for Trump to throw their interests under the bus to make a deal Putin would love.

Brzezinski Interview 1998 Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski on Afghanistan in Le Nouvel Observateur So this post will be really off the rails. I am long winded, anyway. But this one is a bunch of complicated but fascinating ideas. In summary, my point is that I would be quite worried that Putin just won a huge battle, but will still lose the war. This post is about Afghanistan and Poland, in particular. And the point is that Zbig, as I will call him, was a native Pole who was the hawk in the Carter Administration. His theories about how these national conflicts play out over the long haul have sure proven to be accurate, every time. His belief in the Carter years was that Poland was too culturally different than Russia for the Warsaw Pact to last. And the job of the US was to gradually and slowly engage in positive ways and pick that alliance apart. That strategy obviously worked under Reagan and Bush 41. Putin would argue that if any country is just like Russia, it is Ukraine. I've never been to Ukraine. So what do I know? But I suspect Zbig's theory is right in this case, as well. Whatever peace or truce or stalemate is created, this will never be forgotten or forgiven by Ukrainians. At some point, when Brezhnev Andropov Gorbachev Yeltsin Putin is dead, Ukraine will probably get their chance for what they all now want: to get out of Russia's orbit forever. Trump will just be a sad chapter in history. The way I got to Brzezinski and 1980 is something Jeffrey Sachs said in that interview I posted above. Sachs is the peacenik who I admire. He is sympathetic with Putin's view, that somehow Putin was almost forced to invade because of NATO. Sachs claimed in the article I posted that Zbig admitted before he died that he and Carter started funding the Afghan rebels even before Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan. He said their goal was to lure the USSR into a Vietnam-like trap. I had never heard that before. So Sachs railed against the US, and also indirectly the USSR. Both empires broke this poor nation Afghanistan for 40 years, he argues. No wonder people hate the US, and the USSR or Russia. We treat their countries like toys, break them, and walk away. I agree with his overall rant about US and USSR and Russian imperialism. He is largely right. Exhibit A for me on the US side is always the Iraq War. But part of Sachs' point is that Afghanistan was a disaster for both the USSR and the US. Brezinski's theory was that this kind of subjugation is always easy to gradually pick apart, if you try. So he thought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, a country that has always repelled outsiders, was a sitting duck. He was right. This is from the 1998 interview of Zbig I hyperlinked above Famous last words. Little did Zbig know that those agitated Muslims would attack America in 2001, and draw the US into the same quagmire. So both the US and USSR are guilty of enormous amounts of stupidity and hubris. Sachs is wrong on his point about Zbig, I think. I found some 104 page essay on this topic from 2012 and read the whole thing. Carter and Zbig did not lure the US into Afghanistan. They of course did not want the invasion. In part because it made Carter look weak. Zbig's point is that if the Soviet Union does invade, we will help the indigenous rebels turn it into the their VietNam. The first installment from the US was only $500,000 in non-lethal aid, given months before the invasion. When it was pretty clear the USSR would invade. So my rejoinder to Sachs is that Afghanistan has done a pretty good job fucking up their country on their own, thank you. When neither the USSR nor US were helping. But it does speak to how even the biggest superpowers in the world can not subject people who don't like them for long. The really fascinating parts of that essay go into great detail about how the beginning of the end of the Warsaw Pact started under Carter. Again, Zbig's theory was that people in Poland and the Iron Curtain wanted to be free. So he pushed the idea that instead of being afraid of provoking Breshnev, we should be doing everything we can to promote Western values and ideals in Poland. Fate intervened, and perhaps God was on Poland's side for once. Zbig met Pope John Paul II when they were both nobodies. They became immediate allies, Poles who hated the USSR domination. In a few years Zbig was in the White House, and we had our first Polish Pope. They talk about when the Iron Curtain really ended was when John Paul II went to his Polish homeland in 1979. We all know the history. It took another very messy decade or so for Poland to become a free market democracy, and for the USSR to collapse. But Zbig's basic theory has proved true, whether in a Muslim nation like Afghanistan or Catholic Poland. When Zbig and Reagan and the Pope set about to turn all these cultural and political and economic cracks into canyons, it really wasn't particularly hard. I think Ukraine falls into exactly the same historical pattern. I'm quite sure the CIA manipulated the hell out of Ukraine. Just like Putin has manipulated US elections. Did the CIA actually set a trap for Putin to invade Ukraine, knowing it would be a quagmire like Afghanistan? First, there is no proof. Second, I doubt it. Much like Carter did not want to be seen as weak when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, I don't think Trump or Biden or anyone wanted Putin to invade Ukraine. Whether it was intended or not, has Ukraine been a trap for Russia? Yes. I think it has. It killed lots of Russians. It screwed up your economy. And so far what you have is a bloody stalemate. And while it seemed objectively true 10 or 20 years ago that Ukrainians were neutral if not friendly to Russia, that world is gone. They hate you. They just spent years killing you. Zelenskyy was undiplomatic in the Oval Office for a reason. His people clearly hate Putin, and don't trust Russia to do anything but kill them, rape them, and steal their children. Trump has put Republicans in the impossible position of having to argue everything Zelenskyy says about Putin is true. But he should resign for saying so. Even though most Americans and Ukrainians agree with him. Putin did not have to invade. I think everything Brzezinski argued correctly would play out in Afghanistan and Poland and the rest of the Warsaw Pact will probably play out in Ukraine as well. You and I agree, I think, that as long as Trump is POTUS there will be some kind of peace or truce or stalemate in Ukraine. Neither Trump not Putin will want to mess with each other. So that is potential good news. I don't think Trump will convince the US, or the EU, that Putin is now our ally. Quite the opposite. But there will be a cold peace, at least. I would be worried that this is much worse than Poland in 1980. The reality is that the USSR could have invaded and crushed Poland in 1980, and almost did. The fact that they were bogged down in Afghanistan actually saved Poland from an invasion, some former Brezhnev associates have argued. But I'm sure the USSR could have crushed Poland's nascent rebellion if they tried. They did try to crush Ukraine. And it failed, badly. So now everyone gets a time out. But there is no reason to think the Ukrainians won't be just like the Poles. I think Putin walked into it a trap of his own making. Check with me in a decade, when Trump is long gone. And Putin is either old, or dead.

Thanks for a clear answer. That is the big one, of course. And I think it is clear that Putin has won that, at a very steep price for both Russia and Ukraine. This may not be entirely fair. But I do blame this on W. His two great horrors were the Iraq War and the Global Financial Crisis. The first was clearly his fault. I blame the second on him as well, since he ran all the regulatory agencies that at the very least tolerated Wall Street building a mortgage time bomb. But W.'s insistence that Ukraine had to join NATO could be seen as a third time bomb, that just took longer to go off. John Mearsheimer is one of my Top 10 academics that I listen to a lot. He is viewed by some as a Putin apologist. But mostly what he talks about is how Ukraine joining NATO was of course always going to be an existential threat to Russia. I think the honest statement that has to be added to that now is that the US turned out to be a paper tiger. If Ukraine wanted to be part of NATO, and the US was absolutely determined to make it so, that is one thing. But the US has basically shown again it is unreliable in the long run. So with 20/20 hindsight I think W was the original sin back in 2008. Congratulations. If Putin's goal was to keep Ukraine out of NATO, I think he won that. At least for a long time to come. That said, no one forced Putin to invade. It's not like Zelenskyy was just about to sign a treaty joining NATO. Quite the opposite. W.'s original sin in 2008 - if we view it as a sin - was that it was an empty promise. Ukraine was divided about NATO until Putin invaded. Now they are unified in hating Putin, and wanting nothing to do with Russia. So the ironic thing is that, now that Ukraine is unified around hating Russia and wanting to be in NATO, suddenly Trump wants to take away the empty promise. History has many strange and sad turns.

Great, Vlad. I cited the source. But you don't believe facts. Third time in a row, thank you. You are good at proving how stupid AI is.

The Gilded Age Is Back — And That Should Worry Conservatives It's a massive conflict of interest. Musk has specifically gone after the government agencies that regulate his businesses, and enforce public safety. But the obstinate pig Trump won't get in President Musk's way.

Again, thanks. You are proving AI is stupid. It actually does cite the You Gov/Economist poll I am referring to. Trump said that Ukraine started the war. In the UN, he amazed the world by having the US (along with Russia, and North Korea) vote against a resolution calling Russia the aggressor. In fact, only 4 % of Americans say Ukraine started the war. So Trump actually disagrees with 96 % of Americans on that. It's not an exaggeration. It's treason, as far as I am concerned. The same poll shows that only 3 % of Americans sympathize with Russia more than Ukraine. Anyone watching that Oval Office slap down could logically conclude that Trump does not sympathize with ungrateful Ukraine. But he talked a lot about what poor Vlad and him had to go through together, when Vlad interfered in US elections. So I think it's fair to say Trump sounds like he disagrees with 97 % of Americans, who do not sympathize with Putin and Russia the way he does. Again, Mike Johnson twisted himself into a pretzel disagreeing with Trump while blaming Zelenskyy for saying my people need security guarantees. I sympathize with poor Mike Johnson, having to cover up and lie for Trump all the time. You did not answer my question, so I will repeat it: And on this subject, I have a question for you, our local Russia expert. Assuming there is some kind of cease fire or "peace" agreement, whatever form it takes, do you think Putin would break it while Trump is POTUS, and try to take all of Ukraine again? Again, I think the answer is no. Trump is Putin's great gift. I think Putin will take the win, and let Trump break US alliances and be the insolent pig he is. I've said several times, and will keep saying, it is a huge win for Russia. Putin and his piglet obviously feel that way. But I at least hope the silver lining for Ukraine is that Trump and Putin both have to appease each other. And MAGA does not support Putin. So hopefully Putin will act like he wants peace while Trump is POTUS. I hope. What do you think?

Again, thanks for educating me about how stupid AI really is. At least whatever model you are using. I'll just focus on the first statement, which is obviously a figure of speech AI didn't get. Trump has revealed in clear terms that he is a traitor who sides with Putin's view of the world, unlike 95 % of Americans. So it's very logical to think "from now on" we'll need a different strategy - through 2028. AI probably did not get that I was referring to our next Presidential election. After 2028, "from now on" may mean something very different. It's early days. But it's a pretty good guess that a lot of Americans will feel, "This is not what I voted for when I voted for Trump. I don't want Genocide Man as an ally." If a Democrat is elected, I'm guessing Ukraine and Europe will will be quite happy, and welcome US leadership back. Just a hunch. Check and see what AI thinks. And here's another job for AI. Ask AI to figure out Mike Johnson's latest set of illogical verbal contortions, to defend the insolent pig Trump. So there you have Mike Johnson clearly contradicting the insolent pig Trump, who called Zelenskyy a dictator and said Ukraine started the war. Johnson is accurately stating what most Americans think, according to polls. And yet the point of the article is that Johnson is saying Zelenskyy may have to resign, for saying things much less negative about Putin. Zelenskyy's main point in the meeting with Trump, and with US Senators beforehand, was that we can't have peace without security guarantees. Which is exactly what doves like Jeffrey Sachs are saying as well: Ukraine and all these countries, like Estonia, need "security guarantees" so hat Genocide Man will not attack them. Again, most Americans agree. See if AI can figure out why Johnson is contradicting Trump's lies, while saying Zelenskyy may have to resign for stating things most Americans agree with? And on this subject, I have a question for you, our local Russia expert. Assuming there is some kind of cease fire or "peace" agreement, whatever form it takes, do you think Putin would break it while Trump is POTUS, and try to take all of Ukraine again? My answer is no. I think Putin understands that the insolent pig Trump is a huge gift for Russia. So he will just sit back and enjoy all the damage Trump does to US interests, and the interests of our allies. No reason for him to pick a fight with Trump. If true, "from now on" until 2028 Trump himself is a sort of security guarantee for Ukraine. Because Putin won't want to get in the way of all the things Trump will break. If true, it is a silver lining in the cloud of his betrayal of Ukraine. That also gives the EU and Ukraine four years to get their shit together on security guarantees, if they can. Because under Trump it is clear that the US is unreliable as shit to our allies.

It's a shame @Barknaway doesn't post fewer videos. And more thoughtful ones like these ones with Jeffrey Sachs. When he first started his mindless and endless yapping, I watched every one of at least 50 videos. Maybe more like 100. I wanted to see what I would learn. Basically what I learned is that there is an awful lot of stupid in MAGAland. Seasoned generously with outrageous lies and extra helpings of hate. Mostly I think the MAGA concept is a torrent of nonsense that will intimidate and suppress, while they bitch about censorship. LOL. What a joke. Personally, I welcome it. The more MAGA spews their venom, the shorter their political lifespan. They barely came back from the dead, thanks to inflation. And Joe Biden being too close to being dead. And now they are racing right back into their coffin. It is an intellectual disservice to Sachs to throw him in with this cauldron of ignorance, lies, and hate. But since you have: Jeffrey Sachs: Bipartisan Support of War, from Iraq to Ukraine, Is Helping Fuel U.S. Debt Crisis That's a nice and relatively recent Sachs 101 interview. I strongly agree with him that warmongering is not good for our budget. How about child tax credits instead? If we put money in the hands of the working class, like AMLO's party in Mexico did, maybe we could win a landslide like his party did, too. I have read and watched lots and lots of Sachs for many years. I agree with most of what he says. So I'll make these comments. 1. It would be helpful if the Republican Party had been on board with Sachs 20 years ago, or more. He is right that there is a bipartisan military industrial complex. Ike said that loudly, even though he helped create it. Obama said it quietly, even though he helped use it - unsuccessfully, as Sachs argues - in Libya. That said, the Republicans are the biggest warmongers most of the time. Exhibit A: W., and weapons of mass destruction. The US was the warmonger and aggressor. Why didn't Republicans listen to Sachs then? 2. My main gripe with Team Trump is that they want to end this war and ally with Russia and Putin, which 95 % of America does not want. Why? So they can prepare for war with China, who they think is the competitor we need to arm up for. I don't disagree that China is a threat. But, again, I mostly agree with Sachs. He is arguing that getting out of the fire with Ukraine to jump into the frying pan, or nuclear Armageddon, with China is really fucking stupid. I agree. 3. I do have a problem with saying Ukraine or the EU are "warmongers" for wanting to defend themselves from an aggressor. I do wish, like Michael Caine suggested, that Trump and Republicans would just calm down. They went from this extremely aggressive pro-war strategy in Iraq, which was doomed to fail and did, to the opposite: an abandonment of our principles and our allies. And that is not a principled Republican doctrine, as lots of Republicans trashing Trump right now are being clear about. My Republican Dad is rolling in his grave. This is just Trump being a horrible diplomat and POTUS. He basically sees Putin as a fellow criminal or mafia thug he knows and can work with. 4. Sachs uses the right two words, which are exactly the two words Zelenskyy got into trouble over: "security guarantees". What are the security guarantees for Ukraine? And, as Sachs asks, for the Baltics? What if Estonia is the next target? Maybe it was undiplomatic for Zelenskyy to "Ukraine-splaine" this on TV. But I am glad he did. As Sachs would argue, we have a right to know! Trump should have an answer. Not an insulting lecture to our allies about how ungrateful they are. Or a stupid Tik Tok video with lies and hate. 5. I completely agree with Sachs that Europe should take the lead, both diplomatically and militarily. These two paragraph I read today were music to my ears: I'm not sure "from now on" actually makes sense. But it clearly makes sense "from now on" until 2028. It's all so up in the air that it's not clear whether Trump is negotiating with Putin, or the EU is, or Ukraine is, or all three. Trump clearly wants to play the honest broker. That's kind of a funny concept in an of itself. But if it keeps Putin from more genocide, I think anything is worth a try. 6. I keep reminding myself that Trump is still a million times better than W. So far, at least. I thought the legacy of W. was two global shit bombs: Iraq and the Global Financial Crisis. Which all the federal agencies W. ran helped set up. Or at least tolerated, while Wall Street planned a global meltdown. I think it is now fair to say that W. left a third ticking time bomb, by insisting in 2008 that Ukraine had to be part of NATO. There are good arguments on both sides of that debate. But I think the verdict is in: it was a key factor in why Putin invaded. But that does not justify an invasion. And Putin has lost the war. Because now everyone in Ukraine would prefer their brothers and sisters in Russia to simply be dead. That is the big humanitarian win of Putin's invasion and genocide. Ukraine wants Russia to just die. The consensus is now that they want to be in the EU. Good luck changing their mind, Vlad. You'll have to invade them and kill them instead. 7. The best model for success is the US/NATO/UN/EU intervention in the Balkans in the 1990's, that did stop a genocide. The lesson I take from that is that someone had to be a leader. And come up with a tough plan to punish anyone who did not agree to peace. Clinton did that. He finally grew the balls to bomb the shit out of whoever would not come to the table and negotiate. A second lesson, which Sachs alludes to, is that the EU at worst can be a paralyzed nightmare of bureaucracy. Clinton ultimately felt that he had to work around the paralysis of the EU and UN. So if Trump wants to play Clinton, and see if he can create a lasting peace, good luck to him. Little Marco was spouting off today about how Trump is the only guy in the world who can even bring Putin to the table. What ridiculous bullshit. But this is not a horrible configuration. Let Ukraine and the EU take the lead on defining what "security guarantees" in Europe means. Starmer is right that the US will ultimately have to get behind it. But if Trump wants to play peacemaker with Putin, go for it. It is better that Trump NOT try to define security architecture. Because he sucks at it. 8. Trump's end game here is still to ally with Putin, a stupid and unpopular idea that won't work, to prepare to go to war with China. The warmongers Sachs does not like are assembling around Trump to plan for that. So anyone who is taking Sachs seriously ought to be afraid of where the Trump Train and its warmonger club car are ultimately headed. By the way, at first I thought this might be some joke. That EU diplomat or parliamentarian or whoever he is in that video sure looks like Sascha Baron Cohen!

Of course Putin has no loyalty to Trump. We agree. The question is, what does "conquer" mean? Do you think Putin would try to conquer Ukraine while Trump is President? No one knows, of course. But I don't think that. I think the insolent pig Trump is far too valuable to Putin, and Putin will not piss Trump off. As you're saying, he knows Trump is a fool. Play his weakness and narcissism now, and rebuild for Round Two later. That's at least what I would do if I were as smart and sexy as Vlad. My guess is the insolent pig knows that himself. Let me do something fucked up and weak, call it peace, and get my Nobel Peace Prize. Let's not talk about security guarantees. I could care less what Putin does after he rearms for a few years. Little Marco, the loyal piglet, is running around saying more dumb shit: "What's wrong with Trump trying to be a peacemaker?" Exactly. What's wrong with seeking peace by calling Zelenskky a dictator? What's wrong with seeking peace by telling the ridiculously insane lie that Ukraine started this war? What's wrong with seeking peace by telling the 95 % of Americans who don't want to be allies with a murderous KGB thug that we are all wrong? What insolent pig would think this is the art of the deal? It seems to be all out of Roy Cohn 101. Maybe this shit worked in the Bronx or somewhere. And dealing with Putin is like dealing with the mafia. But Trump is mostly proving how bad he sucks at diplomacy. And how weak he is. I think even his own party understands he wants peace through weakness. This won't lead to his demise. But I don't think this is helping Trump. It will lead more people to think that, as Harris wanted, Putin will eat him for lunch. I think it is in Putin's interest to just sit back, enjoy his good luck, and taunt everybody he would love to rule, but can't. I think that is enough victory for him for now. Little Marco will come to life and pop a boner when he figures out that Putin really does want peace - on his terms. But I don't think that means Trump can hand over Ukraine to Putin. Even the insolent pig is too smart to believe he can get away with that. I hope, at least. If Vlad does goes for broke and try to take Ukraine, it probably is World War III. And if he is really that reckless - which he has NOT been for the last 20 years - there is a cold logic to doing it while Trump is President.

That's not hysteria. That's hysterical, in what it says about both AI and you. I am one of those people who is scared shitless about AI. For all I know, YOU are AI. Maybe @barknaway is AI. If we think misinformation and lies are bad now, just wait. @Barknaway is proof of concept. But this kind of stuff makes me think I am worrying about AI too much. Or, should I say, being hysterical? 😉 Because AI thinks that confrontational language is "disproportionate" to the situation being discussed. Which is G.E.N.O.C.I.D.E. So tell that to millions of Jews and Gays who Hitler slaughtered. Tell them they were being hysterical. Since you have tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of stolen children in Russia, tell them the Moms and Dads who Putin killed were being hysterical. Or just shut the fuck up, lying hypocrite.

He's a principled conservative. To state the obvious, this is the biggest test of democracy in America for a long time. Thankfully, this is not the Civil War. At least not yet. The best comparison to me is VietNam and Nixon. There had to be a center, and it had to hold. In part that meant there was a Silent Majority that did feel things were out of control, and elected Nixon to stop it. But there was a center that held in the Republican Party, too. When they told Nixon he had to go. People who don't agree on most things can meet in the center and agree on some important things. This is one of those times. And Trump makes Nixon look like child's play. Since I am praising Republicans I mostly disagree with, I will add Dan Crenshaw to my list, for two reasons: Dan Crenshaw appears to threaten Tucker Carlson in hot mic moment How can anyone not like Crenshaw for saying that? Except Tucker, of course. Talk about insolent pigs! But here is another think I like about Crenshaw, that I think meets the moment. I would like to put him in a room with Ukraine's Special Ambassador To Kiss Trump's Ass, as well as some EU elitists. Dan Crenshaw: Europeans can boost defense spending or 'shut up' on Ukraine negotiations In fact, 55 % of Americans oppose Trump leaving the EU out of negotiations. 59 % of Americans oppose Trump leaving Ukraine out of negotiations. And Crenshaw can sound ungrateful. Since Europeans have done a lot of things Americans have not done. Like let swarms of Ukrainian women and children into their countries, homes, and schools. Regardless, I think most Americans would agree that the EU should step up. And the more they do it, the more it calls out Trump's pro-Putin treachery.

I think a few things have become relatively clear. Whether intentional or not, Zelenskyy did the world a huge favor by not kissing Trump's ass. As Keir Starmer apparently told him, Zelenskyy now needs to somehow find some way around the obstacle he created by not politely kissing Trump's ass. He needs to somehow mend fences with Trump. The Divine Miss Graham, always a clever political whore, advanced the idea that if Zelenskyy does not resign, he should change his mind or send somebody else. I think the Ukrainian Parliament should appoint a Special Ambassador To Kiss Trump's Ass. Just play the arrogant fuck. The insolent pig advertised to the whole world, and Putin, that he just wants to be stroked and played. So do it. Miss Graham knows that, of course, since licking Trump's ass is now his reason to exist. He proudly advised Zelenskyy to do the same. Zelenskyy is no doubt speaking to his own base. Unlike Trump, he is doing it accurately. America wants to be on Ukraine's side. Not Putin's. So I do believe what Zelenskyy said above probably does reflect how 90 % of Ukraine feels. They want peace with strength. The polls mostly say the same. As opposed to how 90 % of Putin's loyal piglets feel. This mineral deal offered pretty much nothing in the way of security guarantees. Let alone actual weapons. Saying that if Zelenskyy had just kissed Trump's ass somehow it would change Trump's behavior is a dumb idea. Trump is a dumb insolent pig. And his deeply felt affection and loyalty to Putin has been obvious since Day One of Season One. I think Zelenskyy should keep being Zelenskyy, the tough scrapper who calls out the truth about Putin. But they now need a Special Ukrainian Ambassador To Kiss Trump's Ass. Sniffing and licking Miss Graham's ass a little would probably be a good idea, too. 🙄 Breaking Down the U.S.-Ukraine Minerals Deal That was a very helpful article. The way Fareed Zakaria explained it in a brief piece you can Google if you want is that Zelenskyy got pretty much everything he wanted. Fareed described what I would call a $500 billion extortion ok Ukraine as Trump's "protection racket" money. Apparently all that got stripped out. Which this article also seems to confirm. So now it is more like a joint US/Ukraine venture to develop Ukraine's minerals and rebuild Ukraine. As far as it goes, it seems like a good enough idea for a Special Ukrainian Ambassador To Kiss Trump's Ass to finalize. Miss Graham will love it. Whether it actually leads to security guarantees or weapons is a whole different question. Whether the mineral deal itself will lead to anything real is a whole different question, too. The more I read, the more it seems like a fig leaf designed by whores like Miss Graham and Actually Smart People like Bessent to let Trump feel like his dumb ass actually made a very very smart deal. A perfect deal. But nobody seems to know what minerals Ukraine actually has that are feasible to develop. And even if we did, it would take decades to mine and develop and sell them. And even if that made sense, no mining company will invest in a country that could be part of Russia, or at war, a few years from now. So it all goes back to security guarantees. Zelenskyy is doing the right thing by insisting on security guarantees. As long as he keeps doing that, I think he has both Ukraine and Americans on his side. But not our insolent traitorous pig of a POTUS. Ukraine will somehow have to work around that. The interesting question no one can answer is this: will Putin invade Ukraine while Trump is POTUS? My guess is NO. The insolent pig is far too valuable an asset for Putin to piss off. To me, this is one of the best reasons to think Trump could actually do some good, just by appeasing Putin. Maybe Putin will be Hitler, and just decide to go for broke. But I doubt it. So it is a very fucked up way to build a security infrastructure. But as long as Trump is kissing Putin's ass, that may offer some protection to Ukraine. And it may be the best Ukraine can get until the insolent pig is gone.

Economic agreement with Ukraine off the table for now, Bessent says They must believe that most Americans are really stupid. And we get our information from Tik Tok. What's kind of surprising is that Bessent is smart enough to know that most Americans know Trump is spouting Putin's lies and talking points. And they don't agree. But of course Bessent, like Rubio, has to be a loyal piglet. He has to make stupid ideas and traitorous lies sound like artful diplomacy. So the way Trump shows there is "no daylight" between him and Zelenskyy is by calling him a dictator? The way Trump shows there is "no daylight" between him and Ukraine is by saying Ukraine started the war? A MAGA kindergartener could see through that ridiculous bullshit. This is not only a massive break from a mostly bipartisan consensus since Russia invaded Ukraine. It also reveals massive daylight between Trump and the American people. Including his own base. Which is why so many Republicans with principles are speaking out. And why the insolent pig is sending out his obedient and more articulate piglets to at least try to cover his dumb ass.

Exactly. You are pushing the idea that Trump's diplomacy is believing Putin's lies. The insolent pig has said Ukraine started the war. That is a Putin lie even most Republicans don't believe. You do. The insolent pig has said Zelenskyy is a dictator and Putin is an ally. You agree with the insolent pig. Few Americans do. As far as name calling goes, who called who a dictator? Who called who an insolent pig? If the insolent pig can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. He is just a weak stupid man with a narcissistic need to be tough. Which is why he is attracted to murderous strong men like Putin. But I agree. It's a free country. The US, I mean. Not Russia. People can judge from themselves.

Poor dog. He is not getting any treats from me today. Our very own Putin piglet is plastering the website with videos at an even higher rate than normal. And they all boil down to one point. And, no, it's not hateful anti-LGBTQ snark. He has a bigger assignment now. It's the idea that only Donald Trump and a few whack jobs understand diplomacy. Everyone else, including most Americans, or NATO, or the EU, or Ukrainians, or a bunch of principled Republicans like James Lankford or Lisa Murkowski, are just dumb. When Trump tells America Ukraine started the war, 96 % of America is dumb. Including 94 % of Republicans. When Trump tells America Zelenskyy is a dictator, and Putin is our friend and ally, Americans are supposed to say, "That's diplomacy!" It is such a stupid and traitorous idea that no one has even polled it. They have polled the idea of whether America thinks Trump wants to be King. A majority of both Democrats and Independents think Trump wants to be King. This sure makes it seem that way. Trump's subjects should just believe every lie he tells us. @Barknaway sure does! Sorry, but the insolent pig's obedient puppy doesn't get a treat for asking us to believe Putin's lies. This may be the thing that pivots Trump into net disapproval, which he is now 0.7 % away from. Can't imagine why!

63 % of the American public believes Russia started the war with Ukraine. 57 % of Republicans do. Only 4 % of Americans think Ukraine started the war. Only 6 % of Republicans do. The rest say they don't know, or both sides started it. So Trump is telling America a lie that is obvious, and insulting. Not even Republicans believe it. Not even the MAGA base. The only way they can explain this in their own minds is that somehow the insolent pig has to be playing 3D chess that they can't understand. When, really, Trump is just a stupid and insolent and traitorous pig. J6 was the set up for this. Everyone saw with their own eyes that people unleashed by Trump went to the US Capitol and beat the living shit out of cops to try to stop a free and fair transfer of power. As far as I am concerned, America asked for this when we elected Trump by 49.8 % of the vote. We made this bed. Now we sleep in it. We rewarded a traitorous and narcissistic liar for telling his own people obvious lies. This is what we get. No wonder Putin's piglet loves the insolent pig, and is cheering him on.

Thank you, Sen. Lankford. As an organizer and lobbyist, I have worked with Republicans for big chunks of my life, including many US Senators and state legislators. I often found my best allies in winning compromise laws were principled conservatives. They actually know what they stand for. So you can figure out ways to compromise for the common good. Lankford is that kind of guy. He was able to put together a conservative immigration bill with Democrats, that Trump killed. He was able to push for funding for Ukraine, which Trump consistently tried to kill. He understands this is about democracy and free markets. And not tolerating a murderous KGB thug, to quote him. I think he also put his finger on the two keys words: "security guarantees". Peace, or even stalemate, means nothing without that. Because, as Lankford correctly states, the murderous KGB thug breaks every promise. What is it about this truth that is so hard for clowns like Gutfeld and Trump to understand? Zelenskyy kept talking about "security guarantees" with the Republican Senators he met with. He brought it up in the Oval Office, before the insolent pig's loyal piglet tried to make it about whether Ukrainians are grateful enough. Zelenskyy, and Ukrainians, are right. And Lankford knows it. Without security guarantees peace means nothing. It is an invitation for Putin to arm up and start a new genocide. Republicans with principles clearly do not like the insolent pig's embrace of the murderous KGB thug. If this is what they are saying public, I can only imagine the private groans and laments.

PRO PUTIN LIAR You are a lying mess, honey. If your pro-Biden Mom is still alive, go have a nice long talk with her. You might learn something. Maybe she can at least get you to stop telling such obvious, stupid lies. "Have we approached anyone's border? No." What a sick and disgusting lie. Talk to your Mom, if you can. Maybe she can at least help you understand that invading another country goes well beyond approaching its border. Even one of the idiots on Gutfeld conceded that she did not support Putin invading a sovereign country. You are completely buried in pro-Putin obvious lies.

It would certainly align with President Musk's stated objective. His Girly Man First Lady just proved she had no balls. Maybe the girly man traitor just listens to President Musk, as well as Putin, to frame his stupid and traitorous ideas. Elon Musk appears to back US withdrawing from NATO and the UN

Thanks @Barknaway. When I saw this was Gutfeld, I thought I'd watch that. You educated me. If the idea is we are watching Saturday Night Live, I can go with this. It's satire. But it's not as funny. The main thing this confirmed, assuming this is typical, is that Gutfeld is strikingly and utterly stupid. I expect that from your Tik Tok videos. I thought maybe Gutfeld would be a little better. But this helps me understand why MAGA loves it. There's really nothing said in 5 minutes that makes any sense. Most of it is insultingly stupid. The part I like the best is the idea that Joe Biden capitulated to Putin, whereas Trump is showing us how the art of the deal is made. Not by capitulating to Putin, of course. Even though Putin's piglet is loudly shouting to the world that Trump just capitulated to him. I have a MAGA niece that I travel with a lot. We went on three trips in the last year or so, and are planning a weekend getaway now. Her husband, who is a nice guy, is even more intensely MAGA. Her politics changed when they hooked up. So the nice thing about my niece is she makes clear she'd rather talk about food, or travel, or rich people, or whatever. So we do. I do know Gutfeld is her favorite show, and she watches it a lot with her husband. The reason I know this is a few years back I asked her if she knew who Kevin McCarthy is. She did not. She did know the name of the Gov. of her state, Ohio, who she thinks is a "RINO." She did knot know Mike DeWine, like his predecessor John Kasich, had just been reelected in a 2 to 1 landslide. Because he is the kind of principled conservative who tries to compromise - like my Republican Dad, and my niece's Republican grand father - taught me. It was kind of embarrassing to quickly reveal that she is clueless about the Republican Speaker of the House, or the Republican Governor of your state. But when all this became clear in a brief conversation she defended herself by saying she loves to watch Gutfeld. It shows. And my guess is that she is smarter than 90 % of her MAGA cohort. She has a great corporate job she excels at, and that pays her well. And I love her. But watching this video did help me further understand why someone I love and who is very smart can be so stunningly ignorant about basic things. The deeply sad part to me, having talked with my Dad a lot about his view of America in WW II, which he fought in, is that his smart granddaughter has no fucking clue. She will definitely buy the line about how America dumped $150 billion into Ukraine and got "no return". Like defending freedom and free markets is NOT a return. i know that kind of Trump bullshit would offend my Republican Dad. He didn't understand that when he fought Hitler, I guess. This is a tragic exercise in stupidity, moral failure, and American greed and decline.

Why do you keep talking about Trump?

Russia celebrates US foreign policy that now ‘coincides’ with Moscow’s worldview Moscow hopes to take advantage of a growing rift between the U.S. and Ukraine, and Europe more broadly. 45 % of Americans see Russia as an enemy. 27 % see Russia as unfriendly. Only 7 % see Russia as friendly, and only 2 % see Russia as an ally. The insolent pig Trump is a traitor. I'm grateful to Zelenskyy. There's a good argument to be made that he just should have walked into the meeting with his balls on a platter, and thanked Trump and his loyal piglet for anything he could get. What he did instead, probably without intending to, is made dramatically clear that Trump wants something 98 % of America des not want. The insolent pig is a traitor.

Senator John Curtis (R-UT) https://x.com/SenJohnCurtis/status/1895632434554626431 The insolent pig is good at rape. The insolent pig is good at lies. The insolent pig is good at hate. The insolent pig is great at breaking shit that is worth a lot. But, no. The insolent pig sucks at diplomacy and statesmanship. I don't know that Trump can get away with this. The pathetically weak Putin loyalist, who liked having Putin allies bail his loser ass out for decades, of course talks like the big man. The King. He is a clown who breaks shit and is stupid as fuck. No Democrat or Independent is supporting him on this. Most Republicans are backing him, at least when Miss Graham speaks on TV. But their base doesn't want to be friends of Vlad. The fact that the ones with balls are speaking out proves it. The insolent pig is being put down by his own party. The insolent pig, a traitor, deserves it.