Thoughts on Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin enters the St. George Hall at the Grand Kremlin Palace at the Kremlin in Moscow, on December 12, 2013, to deliver an annual state of the nation address. (Mikhail Klimentyev/AFP/Getty Images)

  • On TC’s show last night he had a stand in but the words that came out of the new man’s mouth were exactly what TC would have said. So, I can only conclude that the producers and writers are Russian assets whether witting or unwitting.
  • I have come to the conclusion watching him that V. Putin has gone a bit mad. His actions are incomprehensible and unpredictable.
  • As someone said here, there is an American 5th Column at work that favors Russia. I think this is motivated by fear. OK. The USSR evidently did not understand that it could have declared the annexation of parts of W. Germany by the DDR, extended its nuclear umbrella over it and then just walked in. pl
This entry was posted in Russia, Ukraine Crisis. Bookmark the permalink.

141 Responses to Thoughts on Ukraine

  1. KjHeart says:

    Col. Lang

    Every time TC had a good show there would still be one or two ‘non-facts’ that got added in, things I would let go of because – well -MOST of it was OK.
    Those ‘non-facts’ have been adding up
    I have come to the conclusion that,
    at the end of the day, Tucker is for Tucker

    Now we are going to find out who has been paying TC’s Bills


  2. p s c says:

    Tucker Carlson does not want his country to engage in a war that may go nuclear because of an inter-Slavic centuries old race-religion-turf thing that does not matter to most Americans. That makes Tucker a patriot.

    Catherine The Great ruled the Ukraine prior to our existence as a nation.

    • TTG says:

      p s c,

      Tucker Carlson, in his own words, is rooting for Russia to win. He’s cheerleading for one side in this inter-Slavic centuries old race-religion-turf thing, the invader’s side. That he does this on nationwide TV make’s him a Russian asset, not a US patriot.

      • alainbick says:

        Every monologue of his is on YT and I never heard that.

        Could you point to a specific instance he did say that, please?


        • Pat Lang says:

          Not worth my trouble. Do your own research.

        • TTG says:


          Tucker on 25 November 2019 said, “Why do I care what’s going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I’m serious. And why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am.” He’s been consistent in both those thoughts since then.

          • Pat Lang says:

            Well, IMO he is f—-d up.

          • Muralidhar Rao says:

            Sir I think it is not useful when we look at history as a very short period perspective. If you go back to 8 years in 2014 then president of Ukraine made a deal brokered by EU big powers to share power. The very next day there was a revolution (coup) overthrowing that very president and knives were out for his skull. At that time Ms. Nuland had a famous saying “F”” EU, we will go with Arsenik” So then the leaders were appointed by Ms. Nuland not the Ukranian people. Since then there deals for autonomy for Eastern Ukraine Minsk 1 and 2 which were never implemented and I belive Ex President Porshenko said “Minsk 1 and 2 were signed to buy time and arm the Ukranian army to subdue the rebellious East Ukranians” Even last year and early this year president Macron and Shultz made various trips to broker a peace deal. What I couldn’t understand is why they couldn’t ask President Zelensky to implement the peace deals? I thought all the while that western democracy and human rights is for people to have an expression in their rulers and how they are ruled. Did I get my thinking wrong? In this context may be just may be TC has similar thoughts. Thanks

          • TTG says:

            Muralidhar Rao,

            The 2014 Euromaidan was a continuation of the 2004 Orange Revolution. What precipitated that round of violence was Yanukovych’s reneging on that EU deal in favor of the Russian deal. The EU deal was worked on, approved and supported by the Verkhovna Rada. Yanukovych’s sudden back room deal with Putin, announced just days before the EU deal was to be signed, reignited the orange flames.

            Of course our 5 billion dollars over 20 years did rile up the orange revolutionaries with all that talk of democracy. Unfortunately, it also riled up the right wingers of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor. Perhaps it was the rise of those right wingers that dampened any real EU and US enthusiasm to confront Russia’s predations in Crimea and Donbas back in 2014 and 2015. But it was also the rise of those right wingers that goaded Russia into her first invasion of Ukraine in my opinion.

          • longarch says:

            Tucker on 25 November 2019 said, “Why do I care what’s going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I’m serious. And why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am.” He’s been consistent in both those thoughts since then.

            I think that saying such a thing in 2019 did not amount to supporting Russia as a combatant in a shooting war. However, if he has been consistent, presumably I will be able to find that Carlson has made more recent and more damning statements in 2022 to the effect that Carlson explicitly supports Russia as a combatant in a shooting war. If I find more damning statements I will post sources and archives.

    • Leith says:

      p s c –

      Kiev ruled over Russian lands prior to Moscow’s existence as a city.

      • jld says:

        Yes, of course, the original “Rus land” was centered on Kiev.
        What does this makes of the claim of the Ukrops that they are not Russians?

        • Pat Lang says:

          Nothing. That was then. This is now.

        • Leith says:

          jld –

          What I make of it is that Russians were more like Ukrainians, or Varangians perhaps. Not visa-versa as Putin tries to twist it, or as PSC tries to put it.

          But Colonel Lang is right, neither 9th Century nor 18th Century history has anything to do with the current situation.

        • Peter Hug says:

          If you go with Putin’s logic in trying to make a claim on Ukraine, the history really says that either Ukraine or Sweden have a far more legitimate basis for claiming sovereignty over all of Russia, and anything they have ever controlled. (I can’t imagine that either of them have any desire whatsoever to do that…)

          • Marc says:

            To be honest Putin didn’t make a claim on Ukraine, he simply acknowledged that people from some parts of Ukraine decided that they wanted to join Russia.

          • jld says:

            @Peter Hug
            Sure, just like the Native Americans have a far more legitimate basis for claiming sovereignty over all of the US. 😀

          • Peter Hug says:

            That’s incorrect. Putin has in fact claimed that Ukraine as a country doesn’t really exist and it’s an intrinsic part of Russia. Multiple times.

          • Marc says:

            Peter ,
            In 2014-15, Russia promoted the Minsk agreements (1 and 2) that were preserving Ukraine’s territorial integrity while aiming to grant some autonomy to the Donbass regions, so that they could continue to use their language, for exemple. How is this a claim on Ukraine?

            Then from 2015 to 2022 the Ukrainian govt refused to enter into discussion with the Donbass republics to implement these agreements. Had they done it, there would be no war.

          • Leith says:

            Russia would not exist today if a Grand Prince of Kiev had not fortified a small village on the junction of the rivers Moskva and Neglinka. Ukrainians today call it Yuri Dolgoruki’s Mistake.

          • Peter Hug says:

            The Kyiv City Council has rectified that mistake. Moscow no longer exists as a legitimate municipality.

          • Leith says:

            Peter –

            When is the next election? I’m hoping Klistchko runs for Prez of Ukraine.

        • Bill Roche says:

          It makes Russians Ukrainians.

          • borko says:


            Well, Putin always says they are the same people.
            Next step, Ukrainians invade Russia to reunite with their brothers and sisters.

  3. Scott K says:

    The AFU just need to get to Vuhledar to put Mariupol within rocket range — a long, hungry winter for Russian forces in the south if that’s the case. After Kherson & Kharkiv, what chance there’s a third Ukrainian force gearing up now?

    Tucker Carlson mistakenly believes that the Russian Federation is wholly white & Christian, so it shouldn’t be this hard to to suss out his sympathies for a strongman.

  4. William says:

    p s c,

    I agree with you completely. It is fine for adults to disagree about this moronic war. The West encouraged this conflict by encouraging Ukraine to join NATO – a remarkably stupid idea. Now everyone is incensed that Putin the butcher behaves like a butcher. Grow up, this is the war that the DC policy bufoons have pushed for years.

    It is not in the US’s interests to take significant risks of a nuclear conflict with Russia because we would ALL DIE. This risk reward equation is completely out of balance and anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool.

    • Pat Lang says:

      Not in Portland, Oregon. Who cares?

      • “Who cares”

        People who care more about America than about Ukraine.
        People who swore an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”,
        not some specific territorial boundaries in eastern Europe.
        People for whom the proper role of the Department of Defense is the defense of America, not Ukraine.
        People who take seriously the Fourth of July address of John Quincy Adams:

        She [America] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others,
        even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings,
        as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

        She has seen that probably for centuries to come,
        all the contests of that Aceldama the European world,
        will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

        Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled,
        there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

        But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

        She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

        She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

        She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

        She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own,
        were they even the banners of foreign independence,
        she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication,
        in all the wars of interest and intrigue,
        of individual avarice, envy, and ambition,
        which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

        The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….

        She might become the dictatress of the world.
        She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….

        I made an exception to that with my support for the U.S. war in VN,
        part of the struggle to hold back Communism.
        But definitely not for U.S. involvement in eastern European conflicts.

  5. mcohen says:

    Putting has got the the all clear to rearrange ukraine from the powers to be.

    • Barbara Ann says:


      More important; Putin has got the all clear from the powers that be to rearrange Russia. Notwithstanding the setbacks in Ukraine, Russian nationalists are triumphant after Friday’s speech. They see it as evidence that Putin has finally given up balancing their interests with the pro-Western liberals & oligarchs (which the nationalists see as Russia’s own 5th column). In this view the partial mobilization is just the first step in re-engineering the whole of Russian society onto a patriotic war footing. Time will tell if they are right I guess, assuming Putin remains in power of course.

  6. Fred says:

    What is the US national interest in Eastern Europe? Why do all these increasing defense obligations to be assumed by the US benefit this country?

    • Racan says:

      Callously letting Putin wipe Ukraine of the map and making it part of Russia is setting an extremely dangerous precedent. You do realize that this would only embolden others to try this. The chance that Xi would make a move to grab Taiwan by force would rise dramatically.

      • borko says:


        If China makes a move on Taiwan, it will do so regardless of Ukraine and Russia.

        Also, don’t forget that many US actions justified in Putin’s mind his own actions. Invasion of Iraq on false pretences, expansion of NATO, bombing Serbia and taking away one of their provinces from them, bombing and overthrowing Ghadafi, helping (organizing ?) a coup in Ukraine, occupation of parts of Syria and taking their oil and many others.

        It took us years to get to this point, and now we are in a pickle.
        The previous generations managed to keep us out of nuclear armageddon, we’ll see how this generation does.

      • Fred says:


        Thanks for the strawman arguement of “calously …” etc. What the US has done to date certrainly can’t be described as that.

        Wipe Ukraine off the map? You mean like the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? That’s so NATO partying like its 1999. How about Rescuing Libya from Ghadaffi, or whatever the bombing campaign rationale was not that many memoryholes ago? (The incoming Italian prime minister certainly has a rather different take on what happened in Libya than is generally told here in the US.) But lets forget all that. Can you point to where in the NATO charter it required the members, the US in particular, to defend Ukraine from the inception of the organization, especially since it was a member of the Warsaw Pact (hadly a US ally, eh)? I sure don’t recall that being any obligation of the USA until 2022. Shocking that we had zero obligation until then.

      • Muralidhar Rao says:

        Sir inspite of the propoganda about Taiwan we always followed 1 China policy since Nixon’s time. Which means Taiwan is an integral part of China as Texas is a part of our USA no matter what the governor of Texas says. So why are we pulling our hairs out for Taiwan while watching indolently the immigration crisis in Texas? Just don’t get it. Thanks

        • Pat Lang says:

          You are right. You don’t get it. Texas is a whole other country. The only part I like is around San Antonio where I used to lecture on Islam at the universities.

        • Longarch says:

          If the USA abandons Taiwan, then the USA will have a lot of trouble getting enough microchips. If the PRC takes Taiwan, and the USA is allowed to buy microchips from the remaining factories in occupied Taiwan, those chips may fail to work properly and may contain bugs or other unedited functions.

          But if Taiwan were occupied, the factory owners might decide to blow up their delicate equipment rather than allow the PRC to capture it.

          The USA used to be able to make its own microchips. The USA would find it difficult to recover that ability in a timely manner.

          • frankie p says:

            You have a very shallow understanding of the makeup of both the owners and the management structure of TSMC and the semiconductor fabs in Taiwan. First, the “factory owners” are investors, and the majority of the investment in TSMC comes from international investors. These folks would have absolutely no say in what would happen in the unlikely case of a PRC attack on Taiwan. Second, the management, the people who run the fabs and the company. Yes, they also own shares, some of them significant amounts of shares, making them worth millions. Keep in mind, though, that TSMC is one of the world’s 20 top companies by market share; the ownership by management is small in the grand scheme of things. This is not an American tech company, an Amazon, a Google, a Facebook, a Tesla, where the top men own billions and billions of dollars in stock. That’s a feature of the corrupt American system. The management of TSMC and the semiconductor fabs are loyal to TSMC and the semiconductor fabs. Their objectives are to continue to run these fabs profitably. They are in that globalist group who don’t really care who is in charge of the government. And yet you say they “might decide to blow up their delicate equipment”. Sorry, that’s highly unlikely to impossible. Blow up your lithography machines and the only ones who benefit is ASML when you have to order more. Even the government of Taiwan would not dare to sabotage the semiconductor fabs. Doing so would disrupt the supply chain for countless manufacturing processes, and could well deepen and extend the coming depression.

          • longarch says:

            @Frankie P: I don’t think I will retract my claim any time soon.


            The chairman at TSMC – a company crucial to global chip supply – has considered tech industry fears of a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan, concluding such an event would render its fabs inoperable.

            “Nobody can control TSMC by force,” Mark Liu said in an interview this week. “If you take a military force or invasion, you will render TSMC factory non-operable, because it is such a sophisticated manufacturing facility.”

            The chairman of the world’s 11th most valuable company, with a market capitalization of $449.96 billion, was speaking during a rare interview with CNBC released earlier this week.

            Speaking of the fabs’ delicate ecosystem in the event of a hypothetical military incursion, he noted that Taiwan-based TSMC’s production facilities “depend on the real-time connection with the outside world: with Europe, with Japan, with the US.”

            The company needs to keep contact with outside engineers, creating an effective kill switch in the event something happens and communications are shut down.

            “From materials to chemicals to spare parts to engineering software diagnoses… it [takes] everybody’s effort to make this factory operable. So, if you take it over by force, you can no longer make it operable.”



            Mark Liu did not threaten personally to plant explosives in his delicate machinery. However, other highly placed people have discussed the possibility seriously. IMHO Frankie P is not in a position to judge the depth of anyone’s knowledge on this topic.

            Other relevant comments on destroying the fabs rather than allowing the PRC to steal them:



          • Jovan P says:

            Longarch and frankie p

            Wouldn’t problems in the TSMC benefit Intel?
            These two are the main players. Others will come and are coming, but it takes time.

          • longarch says:

            @Jovan P

            Wouldn’t problems in the TSMC benefit Intel?
            These two are the main players.

            Intel does not stand to gain much. All the chip companies are happy if the supply chain functions as smoothly as possible. Samsung (and Global Foundries and SMIC) would stand to benefit much more than Intel because they have the right kinds of foundry capacity.

            If Taiwanese people destroy their chip-making equipment, it will not be due to corporate struggles for profits. It will be an act of nationalistic warfare, motivated mostly by the same human causes that start most wars — fear, class resentment, historical grievances, etc. Such self-destruction would be most effective if it were carried out in all foundries within Taiwan, not just TSMC foundries. However, the Americans are well-connected to the ultra-rich Taiwanese who could make it happen, both at TSMC and at UMC. So it would be feasible if the American elites offered sufficient inducements to the Taiwanese elites. The common people in both countries would be largely oblivious until the damage was done.

          • frankie p says:


            Thanks for the links. They are very interesting. I would rate most of Mark Liu’s words as bluster, though his argument about the need for constant communication with and supply from overseas colleagues is relevant. As to his argument, it differs fundamentally from your assertion that TSMC would blow up its delicate equipment. Liu’s argument is rational and informative; TSMC depends on a supply chain of chemicals (Japan), spare parts and service for machinery (US, Europe, Japan) and engineering know-how (customers who designed the chips) that requires constant communication with the US, Europe, Japan, etc. Again, apples and oranges. The “kill switch” that Liu argues about would be the Empire forcing suppliers (semiconductor manufacturing machinery, chemicals, etc) to STOP selling to TSMC if China takes over. In my humble opinion, this contravenes the wishes of the management of TSMC. Let’s face it; TSMC took a hit of 13% of their revenue when the US forced them to stop selling 5nm chips to Huawei. The idea that Huawei would use its smart phones as some kind of espionage trap for users is truly laughable. The US, no longer able to compete in the global marketplace, is now FORCING the companies of allies to stop business with China. Sound familiar? Russia?
            The end results of this kind of punitive action, banning the sales of semiconductor manufacturing machinery to Chinese companies, is very clear to all analysts, and it has been articulated clearly by the CEO of ASML, THE premier manufacturer of lithography machinery. The Dutch government will not give ASML an export license to sell their EUV machinery to Chinese companies. CEO Peter Wennick has made a few points regarding this. First, this move hurts US and European makers of semiconductor manufacturing equipment, stripping them of their fastest growing market. Second, China already has bought this machinery, and the ban will fast-track their work to study, reverse engineer, and produce domestically made equipment. Nobody is arguing that they will succeed overnight, but let’s face it, China has proven able to make amazing progress in tech areas with proper investment and hard work. Wennick said that China will eventually succeed in making EUV lithography machines, though they initially will not have the same quality as ASML. Thus, as China makes adjustments and improves, ASML will lose any chance at the Chinese market. Following that, China will ramp up production of these machines and begin to sell them on the international market at prices far below ASML. THIS is a major concern for Wennich and ASML. This is what happens when you deny the “free market”.

            By the way, Mark Liu is the one who gave into pressure (Trump) and went forward with the 5nm fab plans for Arizona, a project that is ALREADY proving to be a massive headache and will most likely end up a huge failure and loss. Morris Chang, founder and honorary chairman of TSMC, has made a number of statements about the prospect of semiconductor manufacturing in the US. They are not rosy. There is no high-tech industrial infrastructure for this (in a training session I facilitated for managers at TSMC, they told me that they had to scour the entire southern US to find a company able to install some of the large machinery in the Arizona fab, causing a huge delay. That’s right, they looked from California all the way across to Alabama); there is no workforce trained for this; there is no downstream for the produced chips. You can only sell so many to the defense department. Yes, TSMC will line up with Intel and the other companies at the pig trough to suck up the government money from Biden’s CHIPS Act, which is basically evidence that the US cannot compete on equal footing with global semiconductor manufacturers. The horse has left the stable.


            Jovan P,
            Intel has excellent chip design and limited capacity to fab semiconductors. So your statement that these two are the main players is inaccurate; in truth, these two operate in different fields, although Intel recently made strategic moves to try to compete again in the actual manufacturing of semiconductors. TSMC is an OEM operation; they do NOT design chips for customers, rather they mass produce the chips designed by their customers. They are by far the best at it in the world. The competition is Samsung, UMC (Taiwan/Global), SMIC (China), Global Foundries (US).

    • Pat Lang says:

      What was the US national interest in defending W. Germany?

      • Personanongrata says:

        There weren’t any – two wrongs don’t make a right.

      • Fred says:


        An excellent question. They certainly changed when the USSR collapsed, taking the Warsaw Pact and the threat of a war of conquest with it, and allowing Germany to be re-unified. NATO should have held a victory parade and disbanded, instead it steadily marched East, creating ever greater foreign entanglements for the US.

  7. borko says:

    Yes Putin seems to have changed.
    I listened to the Finnish president Sauli Niinistö the other day. He is usually very careful and thoughtful in his statements. He met with Putin a number of times and when asked about it, he was of the opinion that Putin’s behaviour has changed in the last couple of years. And not for the better.

    Putin has been in power for so long and it is unclear how the combination of that experience, age and circumstance might affect an otherwise reasonable person.

    I’m a bit worried. He is a lawyer and now that part of Ukraine in his mind is now mother Russia to what lengths he might go. Especially since his army has started losing.

    Might not even be just about Russian army losing but him personally losing power.
    I’ve heard it mentioned a number of times that he was very uneasy watching what happened to Ghadafi. Recently Dugin’s daugther Darya was blown to bits.

    In his mind he might be thinking that Russia losing would result in him losing power badly and then his enemies would come after him and his family.
    Remember what happened to the last Russian Tsar.

    I’ve said before he strikes me as a fatalist. This is troubling.

    • Al says:

      borko, good points!

    • Bp says:

      Yes, Putin has changed. For over two decades he has sought a rapport with his “western partners” and has been continualy rebuffed. He has finally realised that he has wasted his time, that the neocons running the US government and their poodles in Europe have never had any intention of ever negotiating with him on fair and equal terms. He has now written us off and is acting in what he sees as his country’s best interests. Frankly how can we blame him?

      Personally I have lived through the second world war and everything that has since followed, but when I see the decadence, greed and stupid wokeism that now dominates so much of our lives here in the West I might wonder if maybe I have lived too long – except that life is too valuable and interesting simply to give up. Nonetheless I despair for my children and grandchildren and can only hope that somewhere along the line the pendulum might start to swing back in favour of decency and commonsense.

      • blue peacock says:

        “Yes, Putin has changed. For over two decades he has sought a rapport with his “western partners” and has been continualy rebuffed.”

        Bp, you make a very good point. Bill Clinton rebuffed Putin which IMO was a great strategic error. He could have brought Russia into the western fold and created a new security alliance in Eastern Europe with the newly independent Eastern European countries and Russia and provided NATO a new mission to secure the sanctity of borders in Europe. Or disbanded NATO and created a new organization that included Russia to secure the borders and provide conflict resolution. George Bush and Obama also had this opportunity.

        This alliance would have enabled us to focus on the real threat – the Chinese Communist Party.

      • Deap says:

        Hilary Clinton duplicitously turning Putin into an international rogue agent boogyman just to get OrangeManBad; and the relentless Democrat drum beat of Russia-Russia-Russia used to cover up Obama spying on Trump, probably took its toll on any beneficial Russia-US relationship.

      • borko says:


        how does all that justify this carnage in Ukraine ?
        This situation is in Russia’s best interest ?

  8. MT_Bill says:

    I guess it all depends on who you think is at war. Obviously it’s a bunch of poor slavs killing each other, but why?

    This war was desired by a certain contingent in the West, the neocon, PMC axis of ex-Bush, Obama, and Clinton staffers like Victoria Nuland. That’s why they funded a coup, did little to support the Minsk agreements, and scuttled any talk of peace agreements in April.

    Many here in the U.S (rightly) view that particular group of people as a common enemy. With no particular ill-will towards the Ukranians, they want to see the Russians win so the neocons lose. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Simple as that.
    The fact that Russian invaded a sovereign nation is just a side note. That sort of behavior has been so normalized over the last 30 years it barely registers. I don’t think a single year has gone by since I graduated high school that the U.S. hasn’t invaded, bombed, or otherwise ignored the sovereignty of some other nation. So it’s hard to get worked up when someone else does it. Only some countries really get to have self-determination and looks like Ukraine is not on the list.

    With Tucker it’s hard to tell if he actually feels that way or just has a real good read on his market demographics. It was telling that in one of Putin’s most recent speeches he brought up the bit about Russia not wanting to be a country with “Parent 1 and Parent 2” or “having more than 2 genders”. He was targeting that divide. The only time I see a “We stand with Ukraine” yard sign, it’s next to the rainbow flag, the black lives matter sign, and the defund the police banner.

    • Barbara Ann says:


      That was Friday’s annexation speech, in which Putin used the word “Satanism” to describe what Russia is fighting against (gender reassignment surgery was an example given). I’m therefore forced to revise my earlier opinion that the Duginists haven’t much influence in the Kremlin. Fighting Satanic forces is 100% Dugin. Also 100% Vox Day, for those who read him. What Putin is describing is Holy war, nothing less. If he is going mad we are in big trouble.

      Here is the transcript:

      • Muralidhar Rao says:

        Thank you for your post. You say “What Putin is describing is Holy war, nothing less. If he is going mad we are in big trouble.” So in your opinion these barbaric acts of gender reassignment of impressionable teens and drag queens in schools are something that should be tolerated as social progress? Honestly I am appalled to the low level school curriculum has been dropped to make Math as racist (I can tell you it requires hard work and descipline to learn that subject) but concentrate on LGBT rights I fear for the future of my country. Thanks

        • Pat Lang says:

          I am a paleoconservative and very opposed to all that wokie crap.

          • Marc says:

            So at least you must have enjoyed that part of Putin’s speech.

          • Pat Lang says:

            What part is that?

          • Marc says:

            that part : “Let’s answer some very simple questions for ourselves. Now I would like to return to what I said and want to address also all citizens of the country – not just the colleagues that are in the hall – but all citizens of Russia: do we want to have here, in our country, in Russia, “parent number one, parent number two and parent number three” (they have completely lost it!) instead of mother and father? Do we want our schools to impose on our children, from their earliest days in school, perversions that lead to degradation and extinction? Do we want to drum into their heads the ideas that certain other genders exist along with women and men and to offer them gender reassignment surgery? Is that what we want for our country and our children? This is all unacceptable to us. We have a different future of our own.”

        • Deap says:

          Putin’s interviews with Oliver Stone, long before this current situation, clearly indicated this was a holy war either bring the Russian part of Ukraine either back into the fold, or establish autonomy from Ukrianian usurpation of their Russian heritage, language and religion.

          Oh yes, and don’t ever flirt with joining NATO. That too.

    • frankie p says:

      Thank you for such a logical, accurate comment about the American people who oppose the actions of the US in not only Ukraine, but all of the Eastern European countries, blitzed by NATO membership and hosting US weapons systems with only one objective: threaten and contain Russia.

      It becomes tiresome hearing the endless chants of “Russia invaded a sovereign nation” and “Putin started the war”, as well as descriptions of the belligerence as “inter-Slavic centuries old race-religion turf thing” and even “war between Russia and Ukraine.” This is NOT a war between Russia and Ukraine. This is a war between NATO (US+poodles) and Russia, currently being fought with Ukrainian lives. This belligerence did NOT begin in February 2022; it started in the 20th NATO Summit in 2008 in Bucharest, when the powers that be (US neocon run foreign policy wonks) declared that Georgia and Ukraine would become members of NATO. This was a red line; Putin said so and was ignored. Events in Georgia weren’t sufficient to convince the neocons that they had overstepped; neocons have this grand fear of backpedaling and would prefer to double down. It continued on in Ukraine in 2014 with the US backed coup, described surprisingly accurately (well, almost) by TTG above in this thread. TTG downplays the US role and tries to make the Orange Revolution and Maidan Square look like organic protests and revolts; they weren’t. So, after the shock and awe of Russia stepping up and taking Crimea, the US went in full force. Any rational analyst could have told you that Russia would NOT ALLOW Crimea (read Sevastopol) to fall into the hands of the west. THAT would certainly have been the end of Russia. Now the shocked and awed neocons hatched their double down: we will arm and train Ukraine AS IF they were NATO members, but never give them the formal NATO membership. And that’s how it went down. NATO trainers, officers, and arms flooded in to train the (let’s use TTG’s words) right wingers of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor. In addition, Ukrainian troops were extensively trained with NATO forces in Western Europe, etc., for example Combined Resolve XI on Dec. 7, 2018, in Hohenfels, Germany. According to Jens Stoltenberg, “NATO allies like the United States, but also the United Kingdom and Canada and some others, have trained Ukrainian troops for years.” According to Stoltenberg’s estimates, “tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops” had received such training, and are now “at the front fighting against invading Russian forces.” The secretary general went on to credit the Brussels-based alliance with the fact that the “Ukrainian armed forces are much bigger, much better equipped, much better trained and much better led now than ever before.” Speaking of being “better led”, keep in mind that current Ukrainian strategy is carried out by NATO and US military joint working groups in Kyiv. Ukrainian military moves are coordinated and planned using intelligence from ALL NATO and US satellite information. This provides more evidence to the idea that this is a proxy war for NATO and the US. Remember, NATO = US (all decision making) + poodles (no power).

      I am a US patriot. I refuse to support “my country, right or wrong.” When my country is WRONG, I have a responsibility, a sacred responsibility, to speak out. This responsibility grows from integrity, which comes from God. That is where I stand. Of course you have the freedom to label me a “Putin bot”, or a “Russian asset” as you wish. I believe in freedom of speech. I know what I am and what I am not, and I’m comfortable in my skin with my opinions and worldview.

      • Bill Roche says:

        Who ever would support their country when they thought it was NOT doing right? That is hardly a novel point of view. You post says the west wants to “threaten and contain Russia”. Interesting, no? Why “contain”. Contain implies Russia is not satisfied w/her borders. Does Russia have a wish to conquer others?

        • Marc says:

          They clearly didn’t, after USSR demise. But now they might be willing to conquer buffer zones around areas inhabited by Russian speaking people living in former USSR republics and feeling threatened or oppressed (rightly so or not) by the governments of new countries that emerged after 1991.

        • frankie p says:

          “Who ever would support their country when they thought it was NOT doing right?”

          Surely you jest. It’s not a question of who would support their country when they thought it was NOT doing right, rather it’s a VERY LARGE group of Americans who believe that their country CANNOT do wrong.

          As far as containment, it goes beyond that. These neocons and their allies are interested in splintering Russia into 5 or 6 nations and then feeding on the resources. Same as it ever was. The containment regards Russia’s desire to protect ethnic Russians in the nations that were once part of the USSR. It’s clear that Russia has no designs on Kazakhstan, the Baltic States, etc., but there are large ethnic Russian populations in these states, and Russia will not sit by if they are oppressed, their language and culture vilified and removed as was done in Ukraine, etc.

          • TTG says:

            frankie p,

            Russia has used forced mass migrations as a weapon from her imperial days, through her communist days and now in the era of Putin. If she really cared about her ethnic Russian populations abroad, she could invite and entice them to return to Mother Russia.

        • frankie p says:


          It is my understanding that Russia has offered citizenship to every ethnic Russian living in Ukraine. Is this inaccurate?

          • TTG says:

            frankie p,

            They also forced them on non-Russians in the occupied zones. However those Russian passports did not guarantee access to Russia as many are now finding out.

  9. Pug Henry says:

    I submit that Russia has the potential to destroy civilization as we know it, but hasn’t the ‘bandwidth’ to execute the sort of ‘invade and conquer’ campaign that NATO was originally conceived for. In other words , leaving out the ability to deliver strategic weapons, globally, Russia lacks the competency and the economic breadth to mount and maintain a campaign involving garrisoning of significant amounts of territory.

    I’d even wager that, in this day and age, they understand they don’t need to.

    This doesn’t mean that those countries and territories on its periphery should ignore Russia’s concerns ….it just means that if said countries want to be ‘good neighbors’ they need to observe the ground rules with their larger and more well equipped neighbor.

    Because I believe that Russia has the capability to destroy civilization as we know it …AND ..because I think we can get precisely what we want from Russia via negotiations, I am in complete agreement with Tucker …..

    There is an ulterior motive behind the Biden puppet masters desire to remove Putin that, if revealed, I believe this democratic republic would not support.

    I don’t trust our current leadership as far as I can throw it. Examining how they handled the pandemic and the vaccines, they have demonstrated nothing that should cause “WE the People” to get behind and support their efforts here.

    Russia is not a threat to the USA ….it just wants to be left alone to pursue its own interests. I also believe, that if , under different leadership, we embarked on a “Nixon to China” diplomatic outreach to Russia, we could cleave them off of their growing relationship with the CCP .

    • Bill Roche says:

      Russia just wants to be left alone? It wants t/b left alone to subjugate the Baltic /Slavic nations on her southern and western borders. Why should the US care? Should Pa. have cared about Mass in 1775. Should Delaware have been concerned about NY. There was no existential threat to South Carolina created by the British invasion into N.J. in ’77? Speaking of Britain, she was obviously the aggressor in declaring war on Germany for its invasion of Poland (I guess the Brits thought the Russian invasion of Poland was just peachy-keen?) b/c Poland was not an existential consideration for Britain. And really, if N.K. invades S.K. there really isn’t any existential threat to America. I tend t/b a libertarian but its not 1775 anymore. America can’t hide b/h the ocean.

  10. eakens says:

    If his writers and producers are Russian assets, then what does that make virtually every other media outlet vis-a-vis Israel.

    You are equating somebody who thinks there are more logical ways to weaken Russia other than an escalatory war, with a Russian asset. Sure, the US is in a geographically and militarily strong position, but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t have done a multitude of other things to weaken Russia without having to watch Europe self-imolate. For one, we could have gotten Iranian gas into Europe via Iraq & Syria, and dare I say Haifa, while building additional LNG infrastructure around Europe to intake North American gas before slapping on sanctions on Russia.

    But we didn’t and that means there is something else going on. Namely, this war is about getting the Russians out of the Black Sea, and creating another Israel in Eastern Europe. The rest of the media, when acting in concert, should tell you more about the desires of Israel than it should about whose payroll TC is on.

    • Pat Lang says:

      I would call them Israeli assets. I would categorize the late Senator McCain, Senator LG of South Carolina and Joe Lieberman the same way.

      • Muralidhar Rao says:

        Sir in that case how do we get American Assets in our American Media. After all we are paying these guys (through their advertisement revenues)

        • Pat Lang says:

          Surely you know that the great majority of media people are just ignorant scum poorly educated and groupies for wokism. After five of six years of taking network money as an on/off air expert I just couldn’t stand them and refused to renew any of my contracts.

          • Marc says:

            I do believe the vast majority of people in those 4 Ukrainian regions indeed absolutely wanted to be either indépendant/autonomous from Ukraine, or attached to Russia (due to the failure by Kiev to implement the Minsk 1 & 2 agreements). Denying it is simply a form of intellectual dishonesty. If people from Taiwan decides through referendum that they want indépendance from China, I would approve it too.

        • Barbara Ann says:

          Muralidhar Rao

          The anti-American propaganda factory known as ‘the media’ is indeed funded with ad revenue (i.e. viewing figures/clicks). Isn’t is obvious then how to change the system; simply direct your eyeballs/money elsewhere.

          I haven’t consumed any mainstream ‘news’ for over 2 years – since with a single voice I was told that all civil liberties had to be suspended because of a bad case of the flu. As it happens the ‘rona was a very useful litmus test to identify dissident viewpoints. I now keep myself informed via the opinions of a curated list of people whose views I find interesting – the internet is full of them. This diet may not be for everyone, but it suits me and I am lucky enough to have the time required to dedicate to my bespoke news aggregation algorithm.

          • Whitewall says:

            You expressed my sentiments exactly.

          • Deap says:

            Perhaps media members are also AFTRA union members, extending professional courtesies to other union members in the deep state. Which makes all of them card-carrying Democrats for life.

    • jld says:

      “without having to watch Europe self-imolate”
      No, that is part of the “plan” (PNAC) about on the same footing as weakening Russia.
      This is called vying for Hegemony and it is fully endorsed by Col. Lang, which explain some of his funny opinions. 🙂

    • Peter Hug says:

      I don’t think there’s any great danger of Ukraine turning into Israel. I suppose they could end up being Switzerland on steroids (neutral, heavily militarized, large citizen army), but at this point I expect them to fully expel the Russians and join NATO. The only real question IMO is what will happen when the Russians are fully kicked out and don’t stop popping standoff missiles into Ukraine at civilian and infrastructure targets. I fully expect that to happen, and I hope the Ukrainians and NATO are giving some thought at the policy level of how to respond to that.

      • Marc says:

        If you think Ukraine is going to reconquer the 4 provinces that just joined Russia (and Crimea too), I think you might be in for a surprise. But, I may be wrong of course.

  11. Sam says:

    “I have come to the conclusion watching him that V. Putin has gone a bit mad.“

    Col. Lang,

    Putin must be under severe stress since his “special military operation” is floundering to the point that the Ukrainian military is now chasing Putin’s military out of the Donbass. This battlefield reversal is not only demonstrating that the Russian military is not what it was perceived to be and their supposedly “superior” weapons have not panned out to be what they were advertised.

    There is a foreign military non-intervention segment among Americans and I consider myself one of them. However, I’ve changed my views on the Ukraine invasion by Putin because in none of this advocacy for Putin there is consideration of the real fears of the Eastern Europeans who have direct experience of occupation. This is further reinforced by Putin’s irredentism. None of them can accept Russian interference in their sovereignty. Recall that Trump said Putin was smart to invade. Now the Ukrainians are showing that a motivated military with reasonable weapons can take the fight to the Russian military. And this without receiving modern aircraft or long-range ballistic missiles which shows western restraint.

    IMO, to accede to Putin’s nuclear threat would be foolish as the prime minister of Estonia noted recently that the Russian negotiation strategy is to threaten and make demands because any gain would be a gain. I remain convinced that the Russian nuclear chain of command are not Jim Jones cultists who will commit suicide for Putin’s hegemonic fantasy.

  12. Al says:

    PH, “… (Russia) just wants to be left alone…” to invade other countries.

  13. Al says:

    Rather, (Putin) than (Russia) in my prior comment.

  14. MT_Bill says:

    So just as a side note relative to the referendum’s, does anybody doubt that a simple majority of the folks in those parts of Ukraine would rather be part of Russia? I bet they could even get 2/3 of an honest vote in support of joining Russia.. So should they be allowed the right of self determination?

    To that end I know people in Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington In the US would much rather be part of Idaho or some other state that isn’t dictated by Seattle and Portland but they have absolutely 0 chance of that ever happening.

    • Leith says:

      MT Bill –

      I doubt it. The whole thing was a sham. Not even 50% would want RF citizenship if those oblasts were unoccupied and unthreatened by Putin and his puppets in LPR/DPR; if there were no Russian linecrossers posing as Ukrainians; and if legal referendums were held under the observation of honest third party witnesses.

      Same for Crimea.

      Same same for Syrian Alexandretta which was stolen by Turkey 80+ years ago with a phony referendum backed by military force and renamed Hatay Province.

    • fredw says:

      “…does anybody doubt that a simple majority of the folks in those parts of Ukraine would rather be part of Russia?”

      I don’t doubt that was the case in 2014. I seriously doubt it in 2022 when they have had a chance to sample, or at least observe, how that works.

    • Bill Roche says:

      I live in that reviled part of America called NYS. But the disgusting part of my state, unbeknownst to most, is really just the “big five” cities of Yonkers, NYC, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. Unfortunately their pops comprise 51% of the vote. The remaining 49% of NY’ers, about 8 1/2 million people, are decent, hard working, law abiding, patriotic people w/o any political representation. I have no doubt that they would jump at the chance to be part of a “new state of York”. But there is zero chance of that happening and so zero chance of the citizens of “York” having any political representation. There are several states w/similar political imbalance. So never mind Ukraine. This needs to be corrected or we will have a political explosion right here in America.

  15. fredw says:

    In any case, it would have been a simple a simple matter any time in the last 8 years to demonstrate with a free vote in Donbas and Luhansk. Invite in the outside observers and prove the point. But free votes are not their thing. And any vote that goes 95% one way is not a free vote. In the real world you couldn’t get that kind of majority for outlawing cannibalism.

    • Peter Williams says:

      Falkland Islands.
      On a turnout of 92%, 99.8% voted to remain a British territory, with only three votes against.

      Remain a member of the European Union, 95.91%.

      Obviously neither were free votes.

  16. Christian Chuba says:

    The sign of a desperate country is when they impose censorship to protet the party line.
    So who is panicking? Let’s see, Southfront has been disabled by NATO for weeks on end.

    Yep, we are going to win Col.

    • TTG says:

      Christian Chuba,

      These are excerpts from a CFR document.

      “TV Rain and the radio station Echo of Moscow, shut down following Putin’s signing of the March 4 “fake” news law, which threatens imprisonment for any journalist who deviates from the Kremlin’s portrayal of the conflict in Ukraine.”

      “Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other foreign social media platforms that disseminate Russian language information are blocked, and TikTok temporarily banned users in Russia from uploading new content. But YouTube and the encrypted message app Telegram, which are used heavily by state propaganda sources, are reportedly still available and widely used in Russia.”

      “The government has blocked the Russian-language websites of media outlets including the BBC, Latvia-based Meduza, the US-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and Voice of America (VOA), and Germany’s Deutsche Welle.”

      I can understand Russia blocking Western funded and sponsored sources like RFE/RL and VOA. But censorship in Russia is now truly oppressive. We do know who’s panicking and we also know Ukraine, and the West, are going to win.

      • Marc says:

        Russian media such as RT or Sputnik have been disabled here in France (and I suppose EU in general) since the start of the war. More generally, reporting on this topic has been absolutely outrageous : Russians bombing a nuclear plant that they occupy, slaughtering civilians queuing to reach Russian-occupied territories, bombing the place where they detain Azov battalion members, sabotaging the pipe-lines they spent years and money to build (giving them some options should Germany or others reconsider the ´sanctions’ policy), Putin being plain mad and/or having terminal cancer, etc. etc. One can rationally argue about Russian actions of the past 6 months or even the past 8 years but at least let’s base the discussion on facts and logic? This is clearly not the case in the West.

        • blue peacock says:

          And neither in Russia or China. Every country has its propaganda and cancellation of all and every view that is contrary to the official party line. At least in the west there is a limited outlet for dissent.

          Let’s see how long it would take folks to fall out of windows if they criticize Xi in China or Putin in Russia.

      • Fred says:

        Funny, I don’t recall the CFR issuing a statement about Trump being banned by Twitter, or the throttling of discussion of Ivermectin or Hydroxyqulaquine. Did we miss those?

        • TTG says:


          Trump was banned from Twitter, a private commercial enterprise, for repeated violations of terms of service. The same thing happens to a lot of dickheads on Twitter.

          • Fred says:


            That is the standard partisan response to deflect commentary. Trump was serving as president, thus not private citizen, and that was an overt act of a publicly traded company (which claims section 230 immunity) and not just some random dickhead being banned.

            Did CFR issue any complaints or commentary, I sure don’t recall seeing any?

          • TTG says:


            Yes, Trump was president. He was also a dickhead banned for violating TOS. The two are nor mutually exclusive. Some people echoed Trumps comments verbatim on legitimate accounts and got promptly banned for violating those TOS. Trump was given far more leeway simply because he was president.

            I don’t know if the CFR issued any complaints or commentary about this. Were they required to?

          • Fred says:


            I was responding to your comment on CFR complaining about Russia banning ““Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other foreign social media platforms…. ”

            It seems CFR was not concerned when a social media platform itself engaged in censorship. Which you and I both know they didn’t give a damn about because they opposed Trump. It’s a rather hypocritical take for an organization concerned about that thing Joe Biden called “Democracy!” at then end of his ‘red’ speech in Philly.

          • TTG says:


            It wasn’t the USG that threw Trump off Twitter or even the Democratic House of Representatives. They impeached him, but didn’t ban him from Twitter. If they banned Twitter, the CFR might have something to say about it. Nor has the USG banned Gettr, Gab, or Parler. They all have their own TOS and ban people accordingly. I doubt that rises to the CFR’s concern.

          • Deap says:

            Virulent TDS is making “covid” jealous, TTG.

          • jld says:

            It’s a waste to argue with partisans, they are sincerely dishonest because, you know, they are the Good Ones (especially on the left 🙂 )

  17. Al says:

    MT_B, “3/4 willing” to vote for Russian control…. Then why are armed Russian soldiers needed to present the ballots at residents doorways?

    • Peter Williams says:

      Armed Police were present to protect the ballot boxes and poll workers. Armed Police at polling stations are common in some EU countries, and in some non-EU European countries.

      Going to residential building to allow the elderly, infirm and those too bscared to leave the building due to Ukrainian shelling, is not dissimilar to poll workers going to Nursing Homes and Hospitals in Australia, in order that people can vote.

  18. Stefan says:

    The Yugoslav civil war started in 1991 and ended in 2001. A series of different, but connected related conflicts. Russia, supporting the Serbs and the territorial integrity of the country. Croats, Bosnians and other minority groups in the country seeking independence. These minority groupings were supported by various elements in the West, Croats first by the Germans, then the US and much of western Europe getting behind the minority groups in their quest to divide and destroy the original nation, based largely on ethnic boundries.

    These western nations supplied arms, and eventually used military force against the Yugoslav state in support of the ethnic minorities pressing for independence. After US/Western involvement the conflict, the Croats and Bosnians were able to break away from the Yugoslav state and control their own destinies. In 2001, after a campaign of violence and forced expulsion of its Serbian minority community, the Kosovan people held a vote for independence. 99% of the votes cast voted for independence, of course the 200,000 Serbs in the region either didnt vote, or had already been expelled and could not vote. The area that voted for independence was considered the spiritual heart of the Serbian nation and their national mythology.

    There are many parallels between this conflict and the one in Ukraine. The US and the west supported the destruction of a nation and the ability of ethnic minorities to decide their own future and the future of the land they occupied despite the wishes of the original state. In Yugoslavia/Serbia the US supported the right of the ethnic minority in part of the country to vote on their future.

    Large portions of Eastern Ukraine are majority ethnic Russians, a minority within the Ukrainian nation. The conflict there is as much of a civil war as it is a national struggle. But the US/West did not support the right of the ethnic minority there to decide their own fate like they did in the former Yugoslavia. This stance of the US/West has been consistent since 2014, so cannot be seen as a response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    I have yet to hear someone make a cogent argument as to why the US/West was okay with ethnic minorities within one state to deciding their own destiny, whether by force of arms, or via the ballot box (even with ethnic cleansing happening before the vote) at the expense and collapse of the national state, but then not supporting the right of ethnic minorities in other states to do the same.

    I think US/western support for the breakaway ethnic regions of Yugoslavia set a very bad precedent, especially in this area of the world. Imagine what would happen if the various ethnic groups in Central and Eastern Europe, who have harboured dreams of their independence, decided to strike for their freedom?

    Either ethnic minorities, within a nation state, have a right to decide their own future and that of the land they occupy, or they dont. From 1991 to 2001, we (the US and most of the West) enthusiastically supported the idea that ethnic minorities DID have a right to control their own destiny, even at the expense of destroying a nation state, and we supported their means of either physical force or the ballet box with proceeding ethnic cleansing.

    It would seem to me that we have different set of rules and guidelines depending on what we view as best benefitting our own national interests. We have no fixed set of morals or princples. Our princples and morals are decided on a case by case basis.

    • TTG says:


      We did appear to stumble into and through the breakup of Yugoslavia. I think that one was bound to happen whether we stuck our nose in or not. I knew several Serbs that told me that there was no Yugoslavia without Tito. We didn’t do anything about the breakup of Czechoslovakia.

      For Ukraine, I doubt there’s a majority in any oblast itching to be part of Russia now. Kharkiv is majority Russian ethnicity and they want no part of Russia, especially now. Once this is over, I doubt pro-Russian parties will have near the support they once had in Ukraine.

      • Stefen says:


        The Russian parties have been banned. The government has outlawed any political activity on the part of ethnic Russians. Continuing a general movement of the government since 2014.

        If ethnic Russians, 20% of the pre war population, think things were bad before the war, what will they be like after the conflict ends? If the east is not lost Ukraine will need to find a way to entice ethnic Russians back into the fold, make society inviting enough to make them not want to continue to advocate for union with Russian. System discrimination and prohibition is a sure way to guarantee another conflict in the future.

        Either that or cleanse the area of the Russians and rid the area of this issue. Historically speaking, this would have been the likely course of action. Eastern Europe is full of displaced ethnic communities from various different conflicts. Ask the multiple German communities of the east which now mostly reside within the borders of post WW2 borders.

      • Fred says:


        “stumble into” So that was what caused that bombing campaign. You would think the West had better control of its military forces than to allow them to take military action without civilian oversight.

        • TTG says:


          When the Berlin Wall fell and the WTO disintegrated, we became uninterested in Eastern Europe, including the Balkans. We were directed to release our East European assets, because there was no longer a need to monitor the region. Somewhat rebelliously, we managed to redirect some of better East European sources towards the USSR and later Russia in order to keep them in the stable. We continued to report about the rumblings of impending breakup in Yugoslavia, but were told not to worry about it. Germany nudged us into Croatia. Sure, once we were nudged into the former Yugoslavia, we went all in. Those of us with Slavic language skills were immediately put into “turbo-Serbo” training and released into the refugee population to rebuild our stable of assets.

          The same was happening with NATO. It wasn’t NATO marching eastward. It was the newly independent countries of the region banging on the doors to come westward. In the early days, Solidarnosc and the trade unions forming in East European and former Soviet states were warning of Moscow’s inevitable recidivism. They warned that Belarus would be the first to fall to Moscow. These states wanted to join NATO. Granted we could have turned our backs on these states and said not our problem. I’m damned glad we didn’t.

          • borko says:


            Russia was willing to live with that reality, but it drew the line in Ukraine in Georgia. It said so clearly and repeatedly through the years.

            Why was it necessary to encourage their banging on the NATO door ?

          • Fred says:


            You certainly don’t mean the World Trade organization? Your analysis is stuck in the bad decision maker of intelligence agency restructuring. The semantics of who applied to join NATO leaves out why it would be in our national interest to expand it rather than come home. The Europeans had then a much smaller problem to deal with and one in which institutional interests overrode rational analysis of what was needed for relations amongst European nations. There was no longer any compelling reason for our defense commitments, nor making them to an expanding number of nations with no reciprocal benefit to the US.

          • TTG says:


            WTO = Warsaw Treaty Organization

            The question of why the US stayed in NATO is worthy of discussion. Events might have been very different for a NATO without the US, although I doubt it was ever a topic of discussion in DC.

    • Jovan P says:


      Nice analysis. The Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija and their western deep state curators, when self proclaiming independence in 2006, made the mistake not to hold a referendum. People who think they’ve won, tend to make mistakes. Otoh, the Serbs have a saying – ”it’s not the size of the force you’re facing that matters, it’s the sacred thing you’re protecting that matters.”

      The ..rules based order” you mentioned, was the crucial demand from the Russians directed to the Biden administration before the 24th of February.

    • borko says:


      You speak of ethnic minorities in Yugoslavia and how the West made it possible for them to break up the country. I don’t think this is correct.

      Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians and ultimately Montenegrins were not minorities. They had their own federal units. In those republics, they were majority.

      Bosnia is a complicated case but I’d call the US intervention there positive since it helped bring that war to an end.

      I agree with you on Kosovo, that was a dangerous precedent that Putin is currently using to justify his own imperialistic ambitions.

      • Bill Roche says:

        The draft dodger Clinton said he w/n fight in Nam b/c we had no business in their civil war. But as President he used American military power to defeat Serbia which was involved in its civil war. WTF?? Clinton (we) made a mistake in Serbia. Bush (we) compounded it in Kosovo. The war in Ukraine is not a civil war. Russia invaded Ukraine, a sovereign nation, in an act of colonialism. If not colonialism, in 2022 no less, why would Russia have invaded Ukraine?

        • borko says:


          when I say that the US helped bring an end to the war in Bosnia I mean exactly that, Bosnia. This was in ’95, when the US (NATO) bombed Bosnian Serb positions in the aftermath of the Srebrenica massacre. It also apparently aided the Croatians in recapturing a big chunk of it’s territory from Croatian Serbs. This was also in the summer of ’95. Finally it hosted talks in Dayton to finally come to the political agreement. Overall I would call that a positive contribution.

          Kosovo came later, in 1999 and I agree with you on that. Bombing Serbia into submission and taking away one of its provinces can’t be legal.

          • Bill Roche says:

            Borko, I know what you meant about Bosnia and Croatia. It was not, IMHO, a good thing that America (NATO) took sides in what was a settling up of southern Slavic hatreds and differences. Absent NATO Serbia w/h won and it would have been restored. W/NATO Croatia and Bosnia remain. That’s ok too, but it was not NATOs call. Hmmmn, have I just argued myself out of NATO assistance to Ukraine?

          • borko says:


            Yes, you kind of did just that. 🙂

            As for NATO intervention in Bosnia, it came in the aftermath of the Srebrenica massacre and another potential humanitarian catastrophe was imminent in western Bosnia. Nato intervention was relatively light and came near the end of the conflict. Serbian forces would not have prevailed since by that time both Croatian and Bosnian Muslim sides were well armed and pretty capable.

            It did however help prevent the humanitarian catastrophe in Bihac and bring a quicker end to the conflict.

      • Stefan says:

        So you support the right of Russians to go their own way as long as they form maj0rities in the local/state/region? I would say that the ethnic Russians of Eastern Ukraine who just voted to leave Ukraine would argue this is exactly what they did. Using Kosovo as a model, ethnic cleansing and ethnic violence could also be used to help adjust populations in the run up to a vote on the status of an area.

        The borders in the former Yugoslavia did not end up following along ethnic lines pre-war, they fell on the ethnic lines after a war of genocide on all sides. All sides in that conflict, to one extent or another, engaged in ethnic and sectarian warfare and cleansing.

        I have no dog in this game. I am a typical American mutt with roots in Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Croatia and Ukraine. My iossue is that the playbook set up the last 30 or so years in Europe seems to have different sets of rules depending on who is playing.

        My reading of the history of the area, back in the 1990s when I closely followed the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, made me predict that the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia would be used by others in the future to try the same play. I also knew that depending on the players, the goal posts and rules would change.

        Yes, it ended some blood shed, led to other blood shed, and that was just in Yugoslavia. Russia was unable to do anything about the situation at the time. Had the Russia of the 1990s been the Russia of the 2000s things would have been different.

        Again, in this region of the world people will almost always identify closer to their ethnic roots than they will to any national state. History has shown this time and time again. When the global powers that be backed the disintegration of a state based on ethnic borders it unleashed something that we still dont understand yet.

        • borko says:


          You are right the borders did not exactly follow ethnic lines, except in Slovenia. The Yugoslav constitution at the time also was pretty vague in whether the right of secession from the Federation is reserved for the Republics or the main ethnic groups.
          Each side interpreted the constitution according to its own plans and interest.

          As far as I know Ukraine is not a federation and the oblasts or the main ethnic groups do not have the right to secede.

          Considering that Ukraine is not a homogeneous country and there are significant differences between east and west perhaps it would function better as a federation, if it ever manages to recapture lost oblasts and prevent the Russian “liberation” of Odessa, Kharkiv and Dnipro.

          • Bill Roche says:

            Yes many hetero states are not nations. Great Britain s/b broken into 4 states; Spain s/b three states. Russia could be, I can’t count how many states!! Then too Brazil, Canada, U.S., and Mexico s/b broken up. Everyone can have their own little republic of Slobovia; population 2500 or so. We w/b rtng to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Has the western world ever really left 1918?

          • borko says:


            Not sure what your point is. I’m not arguing for the breakup of Ukraine, Russia or any other country you listed. Each is a specific case.

        • Deap says:

          The new book “Adriatic” surveys the state of the current Balkan countries – their alignment today sounds far more thuggish and tribal than as emerging modern nation states.

          Yes, Slovenia appears to be a refreshing exception, but then it always saw itself more former Austro-Hungarian than an Adriatic, southern Mediterranean nation.

          • Bill Roche says:

            Deap, I understand that thinking re Slovenia. What did the book “Adriatic” say about Croatia?

          • borko says:


            the region was deeply influenced by the Ottoman conquest. Slovenia and Croatia were part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire while the eastern Balkans were under Ottoman rule.

  19. John Merryman. says:

    It does seem the Ukrainians are putting a lot of their energies into the north, but it seemed prior to this, the prediction was Russia would grab the coast. What if that is still the plan and they waiting until the Ukrainians get a bit more tired?

  20. Barbara Ann says:

    OK so here is something to file under the “a bit mad” category: TASS is reporting the borders of the annexed Kherson oblast will include “two districts of the Nikolayev [Mykolaiv] Region”. The first is the district around the town of Snegirevka, which as I write is actually occupied by Russia – albeit the majority of the surrounding district is not. The second is Aleksandrovka settlement. Now the only Aleksandrovka [Ukrainian: Oleksandrivka] I can find in Mykolaiv oblast is about 75 miles behind the Ukrainian lines in the Voznesensk district further up the river Bug. The referendum there must have been held by telepathy I guess.,_Mykolaiv_Oblast

  21. Notfakebot says:

    Tucker is a pacifist to a fault, not a Russian asset. Fifth column talk belongs in the same category of deep state claims as far as I’m concerned. Overreaching bureaucracy and foolishness don’t amount to conspiracies against the US.

    Whatever happened to Occam’s razor and quacking like a duck? IMO Tucker needs perspective from someone who can smarten him a bit. Maybe sir it would be best he got in touch with you or someone like you.

    Of greater import, I saw reports of nukes on the move in Russia. Putin might be a bit mad, but we should do the sensible thing and find a resolution. We tempt the fates to be left in the hands of a madman if we don’t. I believe he would accept a victory that amounts to nothing eventually. Loss of territory today might be returned later by a post-Putin Russia that is willing to be more reasonable, so long as that is conditioned to restore better relations with us in the West and their Ukrainian brethren. After all, Russia had a Gorbachev at one point and may have another much like him if the Russians realize that the direction Putin took is not a good solution for them.

    Patience and good will can go a long way. Now that Putin lost his pipeline with Germany and failed in his conquest of Ukraine, the tide has turned against an old man who seems to have little time left. Reasoned heads should know all this. Let him declare mission accomplished and be done with this war.

    • Peter Hug says:

      Carlson is not a pacifist. He’s a privileged, entitled, trust fund wimp. He’s never had to work a day in his life, and it shows. I don’t know if it’s Putin or Murdoch who is running him, but I don’t think he is currently an independent actor,.

  22. blue peacock says:

    Russia’s forces are approaching mutiny – and when that happens, Vladimir Putin goes the way of the Tsars

    When Margarita Simonyan, the head of RT in a program for a Russian audience brings up the reference to the Battleship Potemkin and warns Russian military commanders then it must be clear that the situation on the battlefield is not going well for the Russians.

    • Marc says:

      This is debatable, difficult to assess in the absence of accurate info about losses on both sides. But indeed, as Michael Hudson pointed out before the start of Russian ´SMO’ or whatever you want to call it, it has become much more difficult for any developed country to wage total war/invasion on any other large country with decent armed forces, simply because professional armies do not have the manpower to occupy and secure large territories, and full scale conscription has become more difficult to enforce due to people in such countries having become used to comfortable and ‘risk-free’ lives. Russia may have hit this wall, and in my opinion so has the US too, considering its unwillingness to wage war to countries like Iran or North Korea, short of going nuclear which is not a realistic option IMHO.

  23. Deap says:

    Thoughts on America. Re: 2022 election integrity:

    ………..”The best answer may have come this weekend from Virginia Republican congressional candidate Hung Cao during Sunday night’s debate with his Democratic opponent, Rep. Jennifer Wexton.

    “Do you believe the 2020 election was free, fair and untainted, and Joe Biden is the duly elected president of the United States?” the moderator asked. “And do you feel confident about the election process this year?”

    “Sir, Joe Biden is the president of the United States,” Cao responded. “If you don’t believe me, go to your gas pumps, or go to your grocery stores, and that’ll tell you who is.”

Comments are closed.