Ukraine War

[Satchel 6938]

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

Cornel West can Fuck Off too

 

He’s worn out his welcome at every Ivy in the country, so he must need money. He’s irrelevant.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

7 minutes ago, Satchel said:

He’s worn out his welcome at every Ivy in the country, so he must need money. He’s irrelevant.

That was my first thought, "Destroying any relevance he has left."

Saw this one too

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20395]

 

Reuters saying it appears to be true: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/traffic-stopped-crimean-bridge-due-emergency-russian-backed-governor-2023-07-17/

 

[Gatorubet 30215]

30 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is a really great thread, but first, some of my own thoughts. Without going all CR, I believe that the Obama administration’s by turns idealistic and then cynical Ukraine and Russia policy was a deep miscalculation. I think much of it was driven by a misplaced desire to avoid grappling with the new post-Cold War reality. I believe a not-insignificant bit of personal vanity to ensure that his famous campaign retort to Mitch Romney about 1980s policy didn’t get proven wrong played into things. 
 

In 2014 Russia murdered 298 souls on a civilian aircraft from across NATO. They lied about who did it, and they lied about who was in the Donbas, just as they had lied about everything.  And we swallowed those murders with some mostly symbolic sanctions and took ages to firmly stand up against the Kremlin lie machine. 
 

The time called for bold and decisive action. For instance—- publicly taking Putin at his word that there were only separatists and no Russians fighting and announcing a peacekeeping deployment to protect civilians and civil aviation. Or at least, the announcement of a rotating symbolic troop presence well west of the LOC in the east as a training/advisory/deterrence mission, or rotating NATO fixed wing units to air police behind the LOC. 

 

Russia will not reward you no matter what choices you make, but will respect or cower in the face of bold action.  For too long, we let ourselves believe the Medvedev that went to get a Ray’s Hell Burger represented something meaningful in Russia. 

 

 

 

My read on the Mitt thing is different.  As a 2nd term POTUS, Obama did not have a reelection to worry about.   I tend to think he would not consciously just allow Russia to take Crimea because of a 2011 election debate topic…..at least not when he was not facing an election.  

While I agree that a harder stance would have been better, did Ukraine have the political and military chops to engage Russia in 2014 like it did in 2022? Was NATO ready for that fight then?

 

[Eastwood 4394]

3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

 

My read on the Mitt thing is different.  As a 2nd term POTUS, Obama did not have a reelection to worry about.   I tend to think he would not consciously just allow Russia to take Crimea because of a 2011 election debate topic…..at least not when he was not facing an election.  

While I agree that a harder stance would have been better, did Ukraine have the political and military chops to engage Russia in 2014 like it did in 2022? Was NATO ready for that fight then?

 

The simplest answer is best, here. Obama just got Russia wrong. There’s no “save face” for his Romney retort. He truly believed it when he said it and never pivoted. The approach at the time was that these were small regional incidents without much impact on the West. Obama essentially played the role of Neville Chamberlain and took Putin at his word that Crimea and the Donbas was all he wanted. 
 

Obama was new school, with all of his national political experience being post-Cold War. With the response we see now from Biden as President, I’m betting Biden was in his ear about a firm and hard response but didn’t get any traction. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

Obama was wrong. full stop. 

But hindsight is 20/20, and conditions were different back in 2014. The world was pretending Russia was a legitimate global partner. 

[Gatorubet 30215]

2 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

The simplest answer is best, here. Obama just got Russia wrong. There’s no “save face” for his Romney retort. He truly believed it when he said it and never pivoted.

Total nonsense.   He absolutely misplayed our response.  Nobody denies that.  But hinging that to his Romney debate is silly.   Just like I told my gun nut neighbor in 2009, Obama won’t support any gun legislation before 2012, as reelection concerns motivate all politicians. Similarly, you can take unpopular action in your second term as there is no personal political blow-back. Obama did not preface our foreign policy on one dig line in one debate years earlier.  

The approach at the time was that these were small regional incidents without much impact on the West. Obama essentially played the role of Neville Chamberlain and took Putin at his word that Crimea and the Donbas was all he wanted. 

Obama was new school, with all of his national political experience being post-Cold War. With the response we see now from Biden as President, I’m betting Biden was in his ear about a firm and hard response but didn’t get any traction. 

I get you dislike Obama.  So make up a story in your head. 

see response in  bold

[Gatorubet 30215]

18 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Obama was wrong. full stop. 

But hindsight is 20/20, and conditions were different back in 2014. The world was pretending Russia was a legitimate global partner. 

Agree totally. Our biggest mistake was in so massively underestimating Russia’s stupidity. We should have known they would be willing to fuck their own people and country. 

[956 Worldwide 34705]

I think I should clarify what I meant. Personalities matter, and Obama is famous among biographers and insiders for being deeply analytical, for hating to be wrong, and being loath to change his mind. Having so publicly staked out his belief on how best to approach Russia did play a role in his unwillingness to reassess what Russia was and the way it intended to remake the world and what the U.S. response should be.
 

That’s my own opinion and it doesn’t hinge on my personal feelings for the man, who I deeply admire. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by 956 Worldwide

[Eastwood 4394]

19 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

see response in  bold

Not even close to disliking Obama. He just called it wrong. That’s the gig. That’s what being President is. He had his intel, he had his advisors, and he made the call. The call has costs billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and countless atrocities. But that’s part of the job.
 

If you’re familiar with the photo of Kennedy, I think it is called “The Loneliest Job,” where he is standing silhouetted over his desk, head down, shoulders slumped, with the weight of the nation on his back, that’s how I always thought the Presidency should feel for the person who holds the office. It’s a monumental task with historical consequences that will cost people their lives, and all the fallout that it entails, for decades.

We can call out the mistakes of a President without disliking them. Accountability shouldn’t be partisan. 

[MissingInAction 25041]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Obama was wrong. full stop. 

But hindsight is 20/20, and conditions were different back in 2014. The world was pretending Russia was a legitimate global partner. 

Regrets are all about the women we didn't ask out.

[Chad Fuck 17671]

4 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Regrets are all about the women we didn't ask out.

Disagree.  There are definitely some regrets about the ones we did ask out.

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

see response in  bold

There is a significant disconnect between your response and the post you quoted. I suggest you reread @Eastwood's post as it seems to me that you're both saying the same thing. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20395]

Obama was 100% right re: Russia in 2012.

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Obama was wrong. full stop. 

But hindsight is 20/20, and conditions were different back in 2014. The world was pretending Russia was a legitimate global partner. 

Obama got it wrong but there was precedent. His predecessor got it wrong too. I’m not sure what in retrospect Obama should or could have done that would’ve made a difference other than leaving a mess for his successor to deal with. Russia’s invasion of Crimea came so soon after the uprising against and ouster of Russian puppet Viktor Yanukovych. I’m not sure anyone knew what the state of Ukrainian leadership was at that point and Obama didn’t suffer politically for inaction.

Did Americans really start caring before the Russians shot down the Malaysian airliner over eastern Ukraine in July, 2014? Even then it took awhile before the investigation proved conclusively that it was the Russians who did it, even though I think everyone pretty much knew that it was. 

29 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Regrets are all about the women we didn't ask out.

And sometimes the ones we did. 

[bolverk 29668]

I really wish we still had the "What's happening in Ukraine?" thread archived and accessible.

Edited July 17, 2023 by bolverk

[Brisketexan 105096]

Not even close to disliking Obama. He just called it wrong. That’s the gig. That’s what being President is. He had his intel, he had his advisors, and he made the call. The call has costs billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and countless atrocities. But that’s part of the job.
 
If you’re familiar with the photo of Kennedy, I think it is called “The Loneliest Job,” where he is standing silhouetted over his desk, head down, shoulders slumped, with the weight of the nation on his back, that’s how I always thought the Presidency should feel for the person who holds the office. It’s a monumental task with historical consequences that will cost people their lives, and all the fallout that it entails, for decades.
We can call out the mistakes of a President without disliking them. Accountability shouldn’t be partisan. 

Great post. When I think about the POTUS job, and the people who have held it who genuinely care about the job (which is almost all of them, no CR), that burden pops to mind, always. You have to make calls. A lot of them. Sometimes it’s the wrong one, and bad things follow. Sometimes it’s the RIGHT one, and bad things still follow, because that’s how life is. It wears on you tremendously.
I make calls all the time that really matter to people - it’s a MUCH MUCH smaller scale than those a POTUS makes…and they still keep me up at night. Because of advice I gave, a dozen people are going to lose their jobs, or someone’s business is going to fold, etc. I’m paid, and expected, to make hard decisions that often aren’t any fun at all and involve no good choices. It’s a lot of responsibility and again, it’s a fraction of a fraction of a sliver of the responsibility that the POTUS carries. No matter who the POTUS is, I empathize with him wrestling with that. It’s a hard goddamn job.

[Tuco 5076]

As Americans, I think we are predisposed to perceive the state of the world as consequences to our actions, or inactions.  

13 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

While I agree that a harder stance would have been better, did Ukraine have the political and military chops to engage Russia in 2014 like it did in 2022? Was NATO ready for that fight then?

Yep.  On the military front, obviously providing weapons for six years had a big effect on their military.  That's not just a credit to Obama, but to even to complete shitstains like Graham and McConnell.  And, of course, it's a credit to the Ukrainian military for preparing for this.  

But, the difference in politics is probably bigger.  It is not only the reason why we are more likely to support them, it is why Putin felt he needed to invade.  In 2014, Ukraine was at a turning point.  By 2019, they were clearly moving westward after Zelensky's decisive victory.    

 

13 hours ago, Eastwood said:

Obama was new school, with all of his national political experience being post-Cold War. With the response we see now from Biden as President, I’m betting Biden was in his ear about a firm and hard response but didn’t get any traction. 

Can someone provide a clear distinction between Obama's 2014 response and Biden's early 2022 response?  In both cases, I see 1) provide arms, 2) pressure allies for sanctions, 3) absolutely, positively do not risk American lives over it. Ok, the level of arms and sanctions may be different, but the basic response was the same.  And Biden early 2022 is not responding the same as Biden July 2023.  As the war goes on, we increase the sophistication of the weapons we send.  It's not about Biden becoming more old school; it's about gaining the confidence that the Ukrainians can make good use of it.  It's also about recognizing that there is little escalation the Russians can do at this point.  2014 was just different in both aspects.

That being said, there are very few people I would rather have dealing with this.  In 2008, I supported Biden over Clinton and Obama, precisely because of his foreign policy chops.  As the VP, Ukraine was one of Biden's pet projects. In 2014 and 2015, he travelled to Kiev to push anticorruption measures.  Remember when Trump was whining that Biden threatened to withhold funds if Ukraine (Poroshenko) didn't fire the Prosecutor General (Shokin)?  Well, it is true, but that is because Biden was pushing hard to change the corrupt political culture in Ukraine and Shokin is a corrupt sack of shit.  And it was precisely those kind of political challenges that made it difficult to go all in on Ukraine in 2014-2016.  I don't think Biden was "in Obama's ear," as much as he was guiding the policy. 

 

11 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Did Americans really start caring before the Russians shot down the Malaysian airliner over eastern Ukraine in July, 2014? Even then it took awhile before the investigation proved conclusively that it was the Russians who did it, even though I think everyone pretty much knew that it was. 

I don't think the Malaysian airliner made any difference in the American perception of situation.   

Regarding our allies, we couldn't even stop Germany from codeveloping Nordstream II with the Russians, despite making their gas shipments Ukraine-proof.  It wasn't until 1) Russia did the full scale invasion and 2) the Ukrainians repelled it that people started giving a shit.  If Kiev had fallen in March 2022, you know we would currently be working on "normalizing" relations, including rolling back sanctions.  People like underdog stories, and this is an amazing story.  

[atomheartbevo 89652]

27 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Yep.  On the military front, obviously providing weapons for six years had a big effect on their military.  That's not just a credit to Obama, but to even to complete shitstains like Graham and McConnell.  And, of course, it's a credit to the Ukrainian military for preparing for this.  

I think all of the training we pumped into Ukraine (along with our allies) is the real game changer prior to Feb 2022, as I mentioned in the DT thread - we saw plenty of instances where the Russians were still stuck in the Soviet mindset of senior officers making decisions that junior officers should be making, and junior officers making decisions that NCOs should be making, and it paralyzed them at times. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians bought into the whole "adapt, improvise, overcome" mantra of the West and it shows.

27 minutes ago, Tuco said:

But, the difference in politics is probably bigger.  It is not only the reason why we are more likely to support them, it is why Putin felt he needed to invade.  In 2014, Ukraine was at a turning point.  By 2019, they were clearly moving westward after Zelensky's decisive victory.    

Yeah, as much as I agree with Zeihan on some things about demographics, Putin probably felt they were on a timer in terms of Ukraine embracing, and being fully embraced by, the West.  Putin's age probably played a role, and I'm sure Putin and his people were aware that Russia had hit a tipping point of sorts in terms of future conscription numbers, but Ukraine also had natural resources in the Black Sea that were starting to be looked at/worked on by Western companies. As time went on, those Western companies would start lobbying Congress (and other countries) to do more to support Ukraine.

27 minutes ago, Tuco said:

As the war goes on, we increase the sophistication of the weapons we send.  It's not about Biden becoming more old school; it's about gaining the confidence that the Ukrainians can make good use of it.  It's also about recognizing that there is little escalation the Russians can do at this point.  

And Putin can't escalate much more without losing China/India, and potentially Iran (we or the Israelis might start dismantling parts of the Iranian military-industrial complex if things go to far with Russia).

27 minutes ago, Tuco said:

That being said, there are very few people I would rather have dealing with this.

Amen.

27 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Regarding our allies, we couldn't even stop Germany from codeveloping Nordstream II with the Russians, despite making their gas shipments Ukraine-proof.  It wasn't until 1) Russia did the full scale invasion and 2) the Ukrainians repelled it that people started giving a shit.  

I'm still really shocked, and fully give the Europeans credit for this, at how fast Europe worked to get themselves off of Russian gas.

[956 Worldwide 34705]

16 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Obama was 100% right re: Russia in 2012.

This is kind of my point. What was plausible, even accepted wisdom in 2012 was no longer tenable in 2014, especially after 2014. And yet— again, my own opinion— I don’t think the Obama team fully accepted exactly how much Russia had changed and was not open to influence. And I think a big part of that unwillingness to accept was based on a firm commitment to the idea that the Cold War was over, it wasn’t returning, and that Russia remained fundamentally better and more reasonable than the USSR. As expressed in the quip about 1980s foreign policy. But Russia got a vote, too, and by 2014 had clearly told us that Cold War and intractable hostility was back and we didn’t get to demur.

And there were bold choices we could have made, with risks, that could have exploited Russia’s still veiled and deniable invasion. MH17 provided a great pretext. For instance, we could have worked with Kyiv to declare a military no-fly zone with NATO air policing out of Kyiv or Lviv to ensure the safety of civilian air traffic. And could have told Russia that we don’t understand why they’re upset since they disavow that there is any Russian units in Donbas. 
 

We could have sanctioned NS2 and taken a tougher line on what the new real was with our EU Allies. We Cooke have accelerated weapons deliveries. We did not send the first Javelins to Ukraine till 2018 for fear of upsetting Russia.  
 

 

[atomheartbevo 89652]

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

And I think a big part of that unwillingness to accept was based on a firm commitment to the idea that the Cold War was over, it wasn’t returning, and that Russia remained fundamentally better and more reasonable than the USSR. As expressed in the quip about 1980s foreign policy. But Russia got a vote, too, and by 2014 had clearly told us that Cold War and intractable hostility was back and we didn’t get to demur.

I wonder if the denial that the Cold War was back or that Putin wanted to bring the Soviet Union back was coming out of younger state dept. members/advisors who didn’t have a clear grasp of what the Cold War was truly like, why many in Putin’s generation viewed the fall of the Soviet Union as a tragedy, etc. or maybe it was folks who couldn’t grasp why Russia would ever want to bring those things back.

Regardless, lots of people were in denial even though Georgia should have put them on high alert and Putin himself was telling the world what he intended to do.  

[956 Worldwide 34705]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I wonder if the denial that the Cold War was back or that Putin wanted to bring the Soviet Union back was coming out of younger state dept. members/advisors who didn’t have a clear grasp of what the Cold War was truly like, why many in Putin’s generation viewed the fall of the Soviet Union as a tragedy, etc. or maybe it was folks who couldn’t grasp why Russia would ever want to bring those things back.

Regardless, lots of people were in denial even though Georgia should have put them on high alert and Putin himself was telling the world what he intended to do.  

I think it was far more likely to have been the more senior people who were so invested in the post-Cold War order and a Russia that was a difficult, demanding, but fundamentally “normal” partner. Along with a deep desire to execute the “Indo-Pacific Pivot” and let Russia fade into the background. Remember, a full 20 years had gone by since 1992 and so you had people who started at the end of the USSR collapse in the absolute prime of their careers, not wanting to believe that Russia had been “lost” again. Younger guns were more willing to see what the new game was. 

Former Ambassador McFaul has a great book (From Cold War to Hot Peace) about the process of abandoning optimism. 

[wildcat09 29349]

51 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I wonder if the denial that the Cold War was back or that Putin wanted to bring the Soviet Union back was coming out of younger state dept. members/advisors who didn’t have a clear grasp of what the Cold War was truly like, why many in Putin’s generation viewed the fall of the Soviet Union as a tragedy, etc. or maybe it was folks who couldn’t grasp why Russia would ever want to bring those things back.

Regardless, lots of people were in denial even though Georgia should have put them on high alert and Putin himself was telling the world what he intended to do.  

Well there was probably denial that Putin wanted to restore the Soviet Union because he doesn't want to do that.

[Gatorubet 30215]

21 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

There is a significant disconnect between your response and the post you quoted. I suggest you reread @Eastwood's post as it seems to me that you're both saying the same thing. 

I should have been clearer.  The only thing I disagree with is 956 and Eastwoods’ take on the Romney debate and Russia zing.  The purpose of a presidential debate is to get votes. You get votes by promising things you can’t deliver and you get votes by making the other person look bad.  That slap at Romney about his Russia as biggest enemy Comment was just a one-off debate Zing, it was not Obama’s, reasoned, foreign policy objective pronouncement.

Obama did, however, run on the principle of ending all the Bush era wars in the Middle East. Naturally, that was easier said than done, and Obama was not able to extricate us from the Middle East as quickly as he wanted, or as well as we wanted. That said, Obama did have a mandate to try to end the United States’ participation in unnecessary foreign wars. That belief likely had far more to do with our decision not to rumble with Russia in 2014, given the then current climate.   The one thing that was promised was no more unilateral military adventurism.

Compared to now, the unified anti-Russian feeling was different.  The UN condemnation had like 60 abstentions and 10 no votes.  Something like that.  So world support was different, and we were still fighting in the middle east.   Those factors were the likely policy drivers, not the ghost of TV theatrics of a debate and its “gotcha” soundbite mentality.  

Both posters went into a psychological interpretation of why Obama was holding on to his Romney debate zing as policy, which is the only point I had. I don’t buy it. 

That is just my opinion I might be wrong. 

[pyrohornIII 4814]

Seems if this conflict would have started in 2014 and not 2022, the Russian military machine would not have been as decrepit and unreliable.   I wonder how many US and  allied military advisors foresaw the fact that Russia not maintaining their forces would fail them so fantastically?

[956 Worldwide 34705]

41 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Seems if this conflict would have started in 2014 and not 2022, the Russian military machine would not have been as decrepit and unreliable.   I wonder how many US and  allied military advisors foresaw the fact that Russia not maintaining their forces would fail them so fantastically?

The Russian military badly underperformed in 2008 when they gave this a test run against Georgia. They won, but had a tough slog and it revealed a lot of cracks and long-term underinvestment and modernization since the 1990s.  They’d been on a big rearmament and reformation push since about that time, and a lot of their adventurism in Syria should be seen as an effort to test out systems, equipment, and people, especially in the Aerospace Forces. The sanctions applied post-2014 did not meaningfully cramp their efforts. I think it’s unlikely that 2014 Russia was more capable and in fact it was likely substantially less. 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

Sean Hannity needs to see the same fate as Tucker. Removed from TV and radio.

[achooloco 1067]

10 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Sean Hannity needs to see the same fate as Tucker. Removed from TV and radio.

thats it? karma should take a whole lot more from their traitor asses

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

thats it? karma should take a whole lot more from their traitor asses

I deleted what I originally typed out and went with a more "diplomatic" response.......but yes these traitors need to see max retribution.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

45 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

50 minutes ago, achooloco said:

thats it? karma should take a whole lot more from their traitor asses

I deleted what I originally typed out and went with a more "diplomatic" response.......but yes these traitors need to see max retribution.

why? whose sensibilities are you protecting? no one in this forum is writing a history report on this

[atomheartbevo 89652]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

why? whose sensibilities are you protecting? no one in this forum is writing a history report on this

It's not like he's running for office.  For all we know, he's busting his ass working a day job and doing Harvard Extension School at night.

[wildcat09 29349]

 

 

Fuck these assholes.

[Neonmoon 38129]

What the fuck is the Heritage Foundation?

 

[wildcat09 29349]

19 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

What the fuck is the Heritage Foundation?

 

You've never heard of Heritage? They're an incredibly influential Republican think tank, that was traditionally one of the more staid Republican think tanks. Them going full pro-Russia is yet more evidence that there are no "respectable" factions left within the GOP.

[TwiceHorn 31451]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You've never heard of Heritage? They're an incredibly influential Republican think tank, that was traditionally one of the more staid Republican think tanks. Them going full pro-Russia is yet more evidence that there are no "respectable" factions left within the GOP.

Heritage has been insane on most things lately.  

[NameAlreadyInUse 5112]

Heritage has been really great for decades at fighting against the acknowledgement of rights of the gays and other minority groups.  If you are looking for a retrograde opinion, they are a good place to start.

[elfenix 34231]

 
 
Fuck these assholes.

Heritage foundation fully supports taking $900 from every American and handing it to billionaires.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Isn’t Heritage Foundation that started the dominoes on Bill Clinton that started with Whitewater and ended with Monica Lewinsky?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

9 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Heritage has been really great for decades at fighting against the acknowledgement of rights of the gays and other minority groups.  If you are looking for a retrograde opinion, they are a good place to start.

ah, so they use 'heritage' much like those who call themselves 'conservative'. Potato, Po-tahto.

[Born to Run 6569]

ah, so they use 'heritage' much like those who call themselves 'conservative'. Potato, Po-tahto.

Heritage not hate. Pretty skimpy fig leaf on thier intent.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

32 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

ah, so they use 'heritage' much like those who call themselves 'conservative'. Potato, Po-tahto.

Heritage not hate. Pretty skimpy fig leaf on thier intent.

Wonder how far back they care to trace that heritage relative to the time people have inhabited this continent. 

[Born to Run 6569]

Wonder how far back they care to trace that heritage relative to the time people have inhabited this continent. 

They like to focus on the time period when a few chronically drunk white dudes wrote using fucking feathers. They wholly ignore everyone else that was around at the time, conveniently.

Kinda odd...

[956 Worldwide 34705]

Heritage got started because the rising politicized Christian right didn’t like how the American Enterprise Institute stuck mostly to hating welfare and the goddam Commies (personal note, I also hated the goddam
Commies and now I hate their successor thugs in the Kremlin). 
 

So Heritage had to get started to construct and then defend the culture war barricades that the tweety nerds over at AEI just didn’t understand. It’s still that way in a lot of ways and Heritage is far more malleable and reactionary and ready to go to bat foe the latest far-right thing. And now they like Russia and will express it in the dumbest ways possible. 

[Mo Horn 8832]

 

[Biff Tannen 45676]

Surprised it took this long.

[YChang 3443]

Of course this is how it ends for Yevgeny

[TeeDubya 3362]

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by TeeDubya

[TeeDubya 3362]

Sometimes the "Find Out" part of the formula doesn't take long.

[Evil Bill Obrien 3277]

Pringle man either just got turbo waxed...or this was a very creative way to fake his death and make himself disappear to somewhere not nice to live out the rest of his life away from Putin...can't decide which one I want more.