mtutiger

Wow

And that is fine. People are allowed to disagree or may see things differently. I would just suggest that the assumptions as such were a little too simplistic... arguably, they may play into Putin's line about Ukrainians lacking an identity which, as we are now learning, couldn't be further from the truth.

Indeed. And frankly, many observers in America misread this as well. Its almost like people looked at the percentage of the population that speaks Russian or whether particular oblasts or cities voted for Yanukovych in 2010 and assumed that all of those folks would be fine with an all-out invasion. It's more likely that Russian-speaking or Russian-leaning Ukrainians hold that position within the context of an independent, self-determined Ukraine... not under threat or realization of an actual invasion by Russians

Huh, imagine that.

You realize that the significant decrease in demand for oil caused by the pandemic was the primary driver of $1.75 gas in April 2020, right? That's the point... You can't just pick and choose when to blame the pandemic based on how it reflects on your dear leader.

Christ on a Cracker...

Wow, He called it

The country behind the shooting down if MH17 has thoughts on threats to commercial airliners... Can't make it up folks!

One thing I've been thinking about is what happens if there ends up being a jailbreak on Lukashenko in Belarus.... there have been suggestions that Belarusian troops should have entered into Ukraine by now but that there's resistance. Keep in mind that Luka likely lost by a significant margin in 2020 and only held onto power through his repressive security services and with the help of Russia. In other words, there's probably a lot of dissension under the surface and his grip on power is tenuous, moreso than Putin's If a conflagration were to occur there, it stands to reason that would force Russia to have their attention divided even further.

Its similar to COVID/911 in how I view it, but what differentiates this situation is the range of theoretical outcomes... some bad and some better. On one hand, you have the prospect of a Russian win. On another hand, Ukraine could prevent Russia from achieving its objectives (seems likelier by the day) or even outright winning. All the while the dictator saber rattles about nuclear weapons (which I dont think will happen, but is unsettling regardless). Incidentally, that range of outcomes exposes flaws in the standard right wing partisan line (ie. This wouldn't be happening if Trump were POTUS)... namely, if the dictator ends up falling, is that really an argument in Trump's favor?

Visa/MC pulling out is probably right up there with the sanctions on the Russian Central Bank.... BFD

O RLY?

Oh my

Fair enough. But ultimately the main stakeholder in this conflict is Ukraine... and in terms of where a negotiated ceasefire happens, who is involved on their behalf, etc., their word is gonna matter a lot.

The 'allies' technically aren't party to this conflict either. To the extent that there have been talks about ceasefires or ending conflict, it has happened between Russia, its proxy Belarus, and Ukraine. I doubt that will change. For Trump to act as a third party, Ukraine would have to agree to that. Which, knowing the history, I doubt they ever would agree to that (considering the first impeachment and the lack of trust emanating from that)

I doubt Ukraine would agree to having talks under those conditions

Random thought: watching Ukraine's government run laps around the vaunted Russian disinformation machine makes me wonder how effective they really were. Discuss

Ahh, yes. Trump gets all the credit for the good things, none of the blame for the bad. Rinse, repeat, etc.

It's Yacht:30 folks...

They seem to be making more gains right now, but they are also 92% committed, still short a lot of their strategic objectives, logistics are still a mess, domestically they are facing stiff sanctions, etc. I wouldn't bet against them. But who knows.

This all sounds like best case scenario

April 2020... when the unemployment rate was 14.7%. Does Trump get credit for that too? Or just the gas?