Napolitano & Ritter

[vita3]

talk about current events in Ukraine.

Napolitano actually asks some in-depth none generic questions & Ritter answers are must hear for truth seekers

[vita3]

Controversial CIA officer gives spot on analysis of Ukraine & American position

No fluff: 100% worth read

https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-...-post-ukraine/

[vita3]

Napolitano & Col Macgregor

[kahless]

---

[TheTexan]

I like Macgregor's "Trump Won" coffee mug

[TheTexan]

Macgregor @9:35 and @10:20 highlights the error in most people's assumptions about this war.

Putin did not invade because "Putin does not want NATO on his borders". Nor did he invade because he is worried about "Pershing missiles in Eastern Ukraine".

Putin invaded because Eastern Ukraine is historically, ethnically, and culturally Russian, and they asked for help.

Why is this so hard for people to understand/accept? Are people just not aware of the historical background of Donbass, or do people think Russia is just deathly afraid of NATO, or what is it?

This narrative, that Putin invaded because he doesn't want NATO to expand its borders (in a general sense, not specific to Eastern Ukraine)... is completely unsubstantiated. Why does it persist, amongst people who should presumably know better?

@Occam's Banana If I understood your position correctly, you once held this view.... knowing what you do now, do you maintain that position?

[Occam's Banana]

@Occam's Banana If I understood your position correctly, you once held this view.... knowing what you do now, do you maintain that position?

I continue to hold the same position I've held from the start, but I have no desire to ride another endless merry-go-round over this, so I will summarize my position as concisely as I may and leave it at that. Make of it whatever you will:

Putin's actions are informed and motivated by a desire to maintain Ukrainian neutrality. He would be a fool (and a very un-Russian one, at that, given Russia's history) were he not so motivated - and I do not believe that Putin is a fool. I cannot take seriously any contention that Russian intervention in and invasion of Ukraine are in no way concerned with maintaining its continued neutrality. That his actions may also be significantly informed and motivated by other factors as well - such as halting the persecution of Russian ethnics - is in no way contrary to any of this. Absent any one of those concerns (enforcing Ukrainian neutrality, ending the persecution of Russian ethnics, etc.), the likelihood of Russian intervention/invasion with respect to Ukraine would have been less than it otherwise was.

If you have understood my position to be anything other than what I have stated here, then you have failed to understand my position, I have failed to make my position adequately clear, or both.

[TheTexan]

I continue to hold the same position I've held from the start, but I have no desire to ride another endless merry-go-round over this, so I will summarize my position as concisely as I may and leave it at that. Make of it whatever you will:

Putin's actions are informed and motivated by a desire to maintain Ukrainian neutrality. He would be a fool (and a very un-Russian one, at that, given Russia's history) were he not so motivated - and I do not believe that Putin is a fool. I cannot take seriously any contention that Russian intervention in and invasion of Ukraine are in no way concerned with maintaining its continued neutrality. That his actions may also be significantly informed and motivated by other factors as well - such as halting the persecution of Russian ethnics - is in no way contrary to any of this. Absent any one of those concerns (enforcing Ukrainian neutrality, ending the persecution of Russian ethnics, etc.), the likelihood of Russian intervention/invasion with respect to Ukraine would have been less than it otherwise was.

If you have understood my position to be anything other than what I have stated here, then you have failed to understand my position, I have failed to make my position adequately clear, or both.

Thanks. I just continue to be stumped how basically everyone in libertarian media automatically assumes that Putin's fear of NATO is so far and away the most dominant reason for Putins invasion, that any other reasons aren't worth discussing. When really the opposite is true.

I expect this of course from MSM, but had hoped by now libertarian media would have figured this out a little better.

[jmdrake]

Thanks. I just continue to be stumped how basically everyone in libertarian media automatically assumes that Putin's fear of NATO is so far and away the most dominant reason for Putins invasion, that any other reasons aren't worth discussing. When really the opposite is true.

I expect this of course from MSM, but had hoped by now libertarian media would have figured this out a little better.

Well...the U.S. invaded Grenada for no reason other than there were Russian and Cuban advisors on that tiny island in the middle of nowhereville. So for me it's easy to look at Putin from the standpoint of WWRD. (What would Reagan do). But yeah, I agree the Donbass shelling is just as much if not more of a reason.