Ukraine War

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

It's not a fucking football game or superhero movie. It's fucking serious business. "Push those evil cunts out!" is a satisfying thing to say when the missiles aren't landing in your city and the non-combatant men in your family aren't captives in "filtration camps" where deprivation and torture are common.

It’s not about being a tough guy. It’s about listening to the people that know the most about the situation. See if you can find a common theme amongst the attitudes of the Eastern European countries. What does Poland want to do? What does Finland want to do? What did Ukraine want to do? Do you hear many cries from them to start pushing diplomatic solutions? Why do you think the countries that are most face-to-face with Russia have not been suggesting it.

[The Dog 43,788]

 

[wildcat09 29,220]

This letter is weird and stupid. Its actual text is mostly an endorsement of what we're already doing, but seems to be from a perspective that thinks we're doing something else? And a bunch of the caucus immediately started distancing themselves from it. Seems like this was something that was workshopped with the Quincy Institute months ago, the caucus decided they didn't want to do it, and then the institute basically released it yesterday anyway? 

Edited October 25, 2022 by wildcat09

[WhatTheBuck 28,705]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Another one who didn’t read past the headline, huh?

Y’all bitch and bitch and bitch about “pussy Dems” and “DEMOCRATS CAN’T MESSAGE!” and then fall for right wing both sides dishonest framing.

Is there a means through diplomacy to get Putin to cede all occupied lands including Crimea back to Ukraine and recognize them as sovereign Ukrainian territory? No? Then diplomacy can only mean negotiating a peace where Putin gets to keep at least some if not all of the land he’s already taken. First, that’s unacceptable. Second, if you think Putin would honor that agreement and not continue to take more Ukrainian land then you don’t know Putin or history. The time for diplomacy is past and suggesting it shows a sign of weakness in our resolve. That’s music to Putin’s ears. 

[wildcat09 29,220]

9 hours ago, Satchel said:

Has anybody figured out why Republicans want Putin to win? Don’t they know he’s opposed to democracies of any kind?

Yes, that's why they want him to win.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,051]

19 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

They are. They mainly want to limit killing and destruction. They don't say that Russia is entitled to any part of Ukraine. They don't advocate any lessening of military support for Ukraine.

It's a valid position. Frankly, I don't know any details about Biden's stance of not doing so. That means that I don't have a full understanding of that position and can't really tell if doing as the letter asks, mere direct contact, is a bad idea.

Lastly, the letter does not say to exclude Zelensky from the process as either a participant or someone whose approval is necessary for any possible agreement.

It's not a fucking football game or superhero movie. It's fucking serious business. "Push those evil cunts out!" is a satisfying thing to say when the missiles aren't landing in your city and the non-combatant men in your family aren't captives in "filtration camps" where deprivation and torture are common.

If a Russian army is pinned against a river and in danger of complete destruction, Putin may go with tactical nukes. We would if that was all that was left as an option. I would. You don't think a direct line might not be a good idea in that case?

It's subtle the array of possibilities in the fog of war. I have no sympathy for the Russian army or Putin. I like bleeding them white. I won't let blood lust cloud my mind or eyes from being open.

To what letter do you refer?

Indeed.  I agree.   And when I hear the "negotiate w/ Putin while Russia is occupying large parts of Ukraine" from Ukrainians, I might soften my stance.  Until then, fuck Russia and fuck appeasers. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,705]

23 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

They are. They mainly want to limit killing and destruction. They don't say that Russia is entitled to any part of Ukraine. They don't advocate any lessening of military support for Ukraine.

It's a valid position. Frankly, I don't know any details about Biden's stance of not doing so. That means that I don't have a full understanding of that position and can't really tell if doing as the letter asks, mere direct contact, is a bad idea.

Lastly, the letter does not say to exclude Zelensky from the process as either a participant or someone whose approval is necessary for any possible agreement.

It's not a fucking football game or superhero movie. It's fucking serious business. "Push those evil cunts out!" is a satisfying thing to say when the missiles aren't landing in your city and the non-combatant men in your family aren't captives in "filtration camps" where deprivation and torture are common.

If a Russian army is pinned against a river and in danger of complete destruction, Putin may go with tactical nukes. We would if that was all that was left as an option. I would. You don't think a direct line might not be a good idea in that case?

It's subtle the array of possibilities in the fog of war. I have no sympathy for the Russian army or Putin. I like bleeding them white. I won't let blood lust cloud my mind or eyes from being open.

To what letter do you refer?

We know Zelensky’s position. “Get out and give us back our land.” That’s it.

We have channels open with Russia. Our embassy in Moscow is still open as is theirs in Washington. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks with Sergei Shoigu. Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley speaks with his Russian counterpart. Sec. of State Antony Blinken speaks with Sergei Lavrov. Remember, we’re still negotiating for the release of Griner and Whelan, also. The lines of communication are open even though Biden and Putin aren’t speaking. Biden gets his message across. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

Well, that’s not embarrassing. 
 

 

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Someone is getting firedddddd.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

This letter is weird and stupid. Its actual text is mostly an endorsement of what we're already doing, but seems to be from a perspective that thinks we're doing something else? And a bunch of the caucus immediately started distancing themselves from it. Seems like this was something that was workshopped with the Quincy Institute months ago, the caucus decided they didn't want to do it, and then the institute basically released it yesterday anyway? 

props

[Bateshorn 9,898]

I suggest the House Progressive Caucus stop being little tankie bitches. 

[wildcat09 29,220]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I suggest the House Progressive Caucus stop being little tankie bitches. 

We're gonna need the inside dirt on what happened here. Throwing staff under the bus feels like bullshit, but the letter's release clearly caught a bunch of the caucus off guard.

[atomheartbevo 89,404]

11 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Two quotes from the Washington Post link provided above:

As usual, most people don't read past the lead. You may not agree with the letter. I may not agree with the letter, but it's not capitulation. It also in no way suggests lessening support for Ukraine.

I've never expected GOPs wise enough to abandon the hate engine and Trumpism to turn into Dems. I'm not crazy about them myself. Still, give the different facets of the party a fair hearing.

Plenty of us read it, and even though it now turns out it was workshopped or whatever months ago, it should never have happened in the first place.  I’m hawkish as hell, and I’m also used to Democrats doing dumb fucking things that make them look bad (at least Texas Democrats), but I just don’t believe this letter should have even been workshopped, and Zelenskyy should be the one setting out conditions on who gets a seat at the table.

I get the sentiment that we think we deserve a seat at the table because we’ve pumped money into Ukraine, but I also know this is the best money we’ve spent on defense in a long time, because we’ve removed a shitload of hardware from ever having a chance to be used against NATO, and we’ve knocked Russia’s stature and ability to fuck around in the world quite a bit 

 

[Bateshorn 9,898]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

We're gonna need the inside dirt on what happened here. Throwing staff under the bus feels like bullshit, but the letter's release clearly caught a bunch of the caucus off guard.

Jayapal is known for being one of the worst bosses on the hill. Just horrible to staff.

[atomheartbevo 89,404]

And quite frankly, it’s fucking stupid that anybody should be at the table besides Russia And Ukraine, because if Russia is facing anybody else at the table besides Ukraine, it just feeds into their martyrdom complex that they are fighting NATO.

Im not talking mediators - when all is said and done, I don’t anticipate there being anybody from current NATO members at the table.  

In fact, I don’t even think there will be formal peace talks, I think Russia fucks off back to Russia and Putin uses the media to spin it as a safer Russia and the Nazis were killed and he jails anybody who mentions it without permission.  

[The Dog 43,788]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Someone is getting firedddddd.
 

bullshit. the thing was vetted and they fucked around and found out. 

 

 

[Ghost of LL 15,475]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Someone is getting firedddddd.
 

I cannot imagine the amount of blowback that they got over the past several hours from the White House and from big Democratic donors who are pissed that they would drop that at all, much less two weeks out from an election.  It was just an intensely stupid move, both on substance and on strategy.

But that's also what I expect from the Progressive Caucus.  

[atomheartbevo 89,404]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I cannot imagine the amount of blowback that they got over the past several hours from the White House and from big Democratic donors who are pissed that they would drop that at all, much less two weeks out from an election.  It was just an intensely stupid move, both on substance and on strategy.

But that's also what I expect from the Progressive Caucus.  

If it had leaked, they might be able to claim it was a mixup or was canceled, but the official social media account sent that shit out, and those don’t get posted without approval of the elected officials.

Unless they are literally letting the staff and interns run everything.  That would explain the state of the Democratic Party in Texas.

[Satchel 6,908]

1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Well, that’s not embarrassing. 
 

 

 

What’s embarrassing about being open to changing one’s mind? It beats folding your arms and remaining intractable in the face information that is persuasive.

[WhatTheBuck 28,705]

5 minutes ago, Satchel said:

What’s embarrassing about being open to changing one’s mind? It beats folding your arms and remaining intractable in the face information that is persuasive.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

8 minutes ago, Satchel said:

What’s embarrassing about being open to changing one’s mind? It beats folding your arms and remaining intractable in the face information that is persuasive.

boom!  protected by levels of abstraction.  i'll do you even one better: what's embarrassing about typing a letter on beautiful stock paper?  better than trying to write it on drywall and rip it out of your house.

[atomheartbevo 89,404]

8 minutes ago, Satchel said:

What’s embarrassing about being open to changing one’s mind? It beats folding your arms and remaining intractable in the face information that is persuasive.

A) it’s the midterms, so this has a bit of “LISTEN TO ME”, but more importantly B) outside of a few hiccups, the Biden administration seems to be doing a fantastic job of this, with solid approval from many Americans (hence even Mitch making sure everybody knew Republicans would support this).

 

[Ghost of LL 15,475]

18 minutes ago, Satchel said:

What’s embarrassing about being open to changing one’s mind? It beats folding your arms and remaining intractable in the face information that is persuasive.

Well, if one is going to step on one's dick, then I suppose you're right that the sensible thing to do is to get off it.

But--and I'm just kind of shooting from the hip here--perhaps it would be better not to step on one's dick in the first place.

This is an open letter to the president of your own party.  Why on earth are you sending an open letter to a president of your own party two weeks before an election.  Let's just leave aside the substance of it--why in the fuck would you be trying to pick a fight with the president on an issue of foreign policy two weeks before an election?

But let's talk about the substance of the letter for a moment.  It's wrong.  And it's not just wrong, it's unpopular with a bipartisan majority of the American public.  So what's the supposed benefit of this letter?

Rescinding the letter is not embarrassing.  Issuing it in the first place isn't "embarrassing," either; it's positively mortifying.

[kevwun 15,611]

Negotiate with the leader and country whose word means nothing.  Sounds like a great idea.

[RomaVicta 29,773]

Curious about the picture accompanying the original article

I assumed this was a photo of the caucus making their announcement about the letter. It appears to be unrelated. I think that's another flaw in the coverage.

I think they're having to retract it because of people responding to the headline, "Liberals urge Biden to rethink strategy." It's broad and misleading. It also seems to have triggered the dread of Dem softness feared in their own party and (often wrongly and dishonestly) decried by the other party.

Frankly, I think the only thing wrong with this is the shallow but vehement level of discourse found in this country. The letter is not crazy. 

 

[RomaVicta 29,773]

4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

We know Zelensky’s position. “Get out and give us back our land.” That’s it.

We have channels open with Russia. Our embassy in Moscow is still open as is theirs in Washington. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks with Sergei Shoigu. Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley speaks with his Russian counterpart. Sec. of State Antony Blinken speaks with Sergei Lavrov. Remember, we’re still negotiating for the release of Griner and Whelan, also. The lines of communication are open even though Biden and Putin aren’t speaking. Biden gets his message across. 

So there is nothing earthshaking about the intent of the letter. It only represents a subtle shift in extant policy. 

[kevwun 15,611]

Biden has handled this hole deal about as well as he possibly could.  Why would a small group from his own party decide to publicly question him right before midterms?  It might not be crazy, but it's a really stupid fucking idea.  Putin isn't giving back an inch of ground he controls when the war ends.  The only way to make sure Ukraine gets all of their territory back is to drive the Russians off of it first.

Edited October 25, 2022 by kevwun

[Bozo_Casanova 26,275]

56 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Why would a small group from his own party decide to publicly question him right before midterms?  It might not be crazy, but it's a really stupid fucking idea. 

 

"So the President says to Pramila, 'Jesus, this is really fucking stupid and counterproductive, what would you call it?' And Rep Jayapal says, 'THE DEMOCRATS!!!'"

[The Dog 43,788]

[Sawbonz 27,396]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Another one who didn’t read past the headline, huh?

Y’all bitch and bitch and bitch about “pussy Dems” and “DEMOCRATS CAN’T MESSAGE!” and then fall for right wing both sides dishonest framing.

WaPo news article engaging in right wing propaganda?

[Sawbonz 27,396]

16 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I may not agree with the letter, but it's not capitulation. It also in no way suggests lessening support for Ukraine.

Why don’t you go ahead and explain to us what “diplomatic measures” the US can bring to bear that are not already being pursued that don’t involve a ceasefire which will allow Russia to regroup militarily? Russia has shown the world what they are. We should believe them 

[RomaVicta 29,773]

27 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Why don’t you go ahead and explain to us what “diplomatic measures” the US can bring to bear that are not already being pursued that don’t involve a ceasefire which will allow Russia to regroup militarily? Russia has shown the world what they are. We should believe them 

I don't know what they may be.

[Ghost of LL 15,475]

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Curious about the picture accompanying the original article

I assumed this was a photo of the caucus making their announcement about the letter. It appears to be unrelated. I think that's another flaw in the coverage.

I think they're having to retract it because of people responding to the headline, "Liberals urge Biden to rethink strategy." It's broad and misleading. It also seems to have triggered the dread of Dem softness feared in their own party and (often wrongly and dishonestly) decried by the other party.

Frankly, I think the only thing wrong with this is the shallow but vehement level of discourse found in this country. The letter is not crazy. 

 

I just really disagree with the conclusion that the letter is not crazy.

The letter is totally crazy.  There's more than a whiff of Munich to it, in that it distinctly implies that the Great Powers can get together and decide the fate of lesser states over their objections. 

And I'm sure you're going to say that's not what the letter says.  But that's totally what the letter says.  Because if that's not what the letter says, then what the hell is it saying?  The only reason to write and send that letter is to encourage "direct engagement" with Russia.  And direct engagement with Russia necessarily means the exclusion of Ukraine and the subordination of Ukrainian interests.

And let's talk about something else that's crazy about the letter: sanctions relief.  Nope.  Sorry.  At this point, we have interests that are outside anything that can be negotiated.  Russia has committed war crimes, and those justify sanctions that will remain in place until those war criminals are brought to justice.  We're not promising sanctions relief if the armed robber gives back part of what he stole, leaving dead and maimed in his path.

And then there's the decision to release this letter two weeks before an election.  That's not crazy.  It's absolutely fucking bonkers.  There's just no rational justification for it.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,275]

30 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

There's just no rational justification for it.

[WhatTheBuck 28,705]

4 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Curious about the picture accompanying the original article

I assumed this was a photo of the caucus making their announcement about the letter. It appears to be unrelated. I think that's another flaw in the coverage.

I think they're having to retract it because of people responding to the headline, "Liberals urge Biden to rethink strategy." It's broad and misleading. It also seems to have triggered the dread of Dem softness feared in their own party and (often wrongly and dishonestly) decried by the other party.

Frankly, I think the only thing wrong with this is the shallow but vehement level of discourse found in this country. The letter is not crazy. 

 

I was wondering about that too. The Squad are young and inexperienced but I would think Jamie Raskin knows better. 

[YGIFS 19,449]

^

this.  And all Raskin did was invite more scrutiny of the validity of his January 6th Committee and his choice in hair care products.  

I'm not a member of y'all's party and probably never will be despite voting and raising cash for a number of Democrats up and down the ballot.  But pro-tip...settle your own internal party bullshit way before or just after the mid-term elections.  What it broadcasts here at home is one thing, mostly bullshit from FoxNews.  But it is also not a great fucking look in Europe and those people are on pins and needles about our midterms as it is.  The fact that Tucker Carlson viewers combined with Ukrainian adults know who Jamie Raskin is now at 100:1 clip over his own fucking district is pretty disturbing.  

[atomheartbevo 89,404]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

And then there's the decision to release this letter two weeks before an election.  That's not crazy.  It's absolutely fucking bonkers.  There's just no rational justification for it.

So it’s a bunch of Texas Democrats?

[Tuco 5,076]

15 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I just really disagree with the conclusion that the letter is not crazy.

I don't think it's crazy.  I think it's naive, and perhaps stupid.  But, if you were to ask 10 people on the street, "should the US be open to direct talks with Russia to help resolve the Ukraine-Russian War?" most of them would say yes.  It aligns with intuition - that there is nothing wrong talking to avoid a fight.  It's the same reason Trump didn't see a big deal in having unilateral discussions with North Korea when our position has always been to have multilateral talks.  Who has a seat at the table is one of the first things to negotiate in a negotiation.  This letter is poor statecraft, but good statecraft seams a little crazy anyway. 

 

16 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Why don’t you go ahead and explain to us what “diplomatic measures” the US can bring to bear that are not already being pursued that don’t involve a ceasefire which will allow Russia to regroup militarily? Russia has shown the world what they are. We should believe them 

The way the question is worded is weird.  The US can't initiate a ceasefire.  If you are asking "what can the US offer that isn't up to Ukraine?", there are several items.  I imagine Russia would like to talk about NATO membership - Ukraine, but also Finland and Sweden.  Stepping back, it's possible that Turkey's objection to their joining may just be a stall to keep those cards on the table.  Of course there are the sanctions that predated this invasion and probably some that predated the Crimea invasion.  There are postwar weapons sales and troop deployments.  The implication that this is entirely between Ukraine and Russia is just a naive as the letter.  But, it has to be clear that the US will continue to support Ukraine as long as Russia troops are in Ukraine, including Crimea. That's not something the US will budge on. 

 

19 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

If it had leaked, they might be able to claim it was a mixup or was canceled, but the official social media account sent that shit out, and those don’t get posted without approval of the elected officials.

Unless they are literally letting the staff and interns run everything.  That would explain the state of the Democratic Party in Texas.

Yeah, she is probably lying.  But it's good that she was lying, right?  The only damage the letter did was expose a wedge between a small portion of Congress and the White House.  Lying demonstrates that Biden is still in charge.  Whatever division there is is minor.  Sucks for her staff, but I would rather have her throw them under the bus than stand her ground.  It's very important that she quickly pretended that she is on board. 

FWIW, after moving to Seattle 20 months ago, this is the first time I've disagreed with my new Member of Congress.  After decades of regularly cringing when reading the paper in Nebraska, it's a little weird.  

[wildcat09 29,220]

17 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I just really disagree with the conclusion that the letter is not crazy.

The letter is totally crazy.  There's more than a whiff of Munich to it, in that it distinctly implies that the Great Powers can get together and decide the fate of lesser states over their objections. 

And I'm sure you're going to say that's not what the letter says.  But that's totally what the letter says.  Because if that's not what the letter says, then what the hell is it saying?  The only reason to write and send that letter is to encourage "direct engagement" with Russia.  And direct engagement with Russia necessarily means the exclusion of Ukraine and the subordination of Ukrainian interests.

And let's talk about something else that's crazy about the letter: sanctions relief.  Nope.  Sorry.  At this point, we have interests that are outside anything that can be negotiated.  Russia has committed war crimes, and those justify sanctions that will remain in place until those war criminals are brought to justice.  We're not promising sanctions relief if the armed robber gives back part of what he stole, leaving dead and maimed in his path.

And then there's the decision to release this letter two weeks before an election.  That's not crazy.  It's absolutely fucking bonkers.  There's just no rational justification for it.

I think the letter was incoherent and had a little bit of everything to try to assuage the members of the caucus.  It reminded me of the Chronicle's recent endorsement of Mealer and DMN's Abbott endorsement, which had a huge disconnect between their apparent purpose and what was actually said, with a lot of internal contradictions in their reasoning. Which I'm sure is why they originally decided not to publish it in the summer and Jayapal I guess wanted to get her name in the papers right before the election so released it unexpectedly now? Just incredibly fucking weird all around.

Edited October 26, 2022 by wildcat09

[Tuco 5,076]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I think the letter was incoherent and had a little bit of everything to try to assuage the members of the caucus.  It reminded me of the Chronicle's recent endorsement of Mealer and DMN's Abbott endorsement, which a huge disconnect between their apparent purpose and what was actually said, with a lot of internal contradictions in their reasoning. Which I'm sure is why they originally decided not to publish it in the summer and Jayapal I guess wanted to get her name in the papers right before the election so released it unexpectedly now? Just incredibly fucking weird all around.

Regarding the timing, I am guessing one of two possibilities:

1) they were spooked by Meadows' statement about not giving a blank check to Ukraine support.  It's possible that both Meadows and Jayapal are seeing some potential far-left-meets-far-right pickups by opposing the war, and she was trying to shore up the flank.  Certainly, there are far-left voters who are open to progressive candidates, but are very concerned about the war machine.  Progressive candidates are going to hear those concerns more than others.  And the only threat to reelection that Jayapal has is being primaried from her left.  Although, it does seem like Seattle is solidly pro-Ukraine and I haven't seen any flyers for antiwar protests. 

2) the White House did something that pissed her off so she threw a shit bomb.  

[elfenix 34,170]

as a texan i'm not at all shocked that democrats are this bad at politics. 

[956 Worldwide 34,419]

The letter is dumb as shit, and it’s especially dumb to keep arguing it’s not dumb even now, when its signatories are treating it like the shit-soaked piece of paper it is. And looking to blame it on their staff. 
 

Like all this stuff, you have to read it as coded language. And nearly all the code is “give Russia things.”

1. “Ceasefire”— Ceasefires are good for the party that’s losing the war. Ceasefires allow aggressors to lock in gains and consolidate power and carry out atrocities behind the ceasefire line. They allow armies that are falling apart to get their shit together and restart offensives. They punish the party that is winning. And Ukraine is winning. Any ceasefire that comes into effect while Russia is controlling Ukraine territory helps Russia and hurts Ukraine’s efforts to get them to leave. 
 

2.  “New European Security Architecture”— the current European security architecture is a NATO with open doors for nations that want to freely choose to join. Any new architecture would be, by definition, something else. Translation: let’s give in to Russia on NATO and reduce the U.S. presence in Europe. 

3. “Negotiated settlement”— Loaded language that suggests that Russia has a claim to a fucking thing.  Russia has announced it wants Ukrainian land, it wants to oust the democratically elected government of Ukraine, it wants to dictate the alliances Ukraine can join, and it wants to destroy the Ukrainian military.  Which one of those things should be open to negotiation? Which should be on the table?

This letter was workshopped with Quincy and  Chomsky/Roger Waters aligned congressional staffers. Aka, the dumbshit wing of the American left. 
 

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,668]

this board is always a balance of factual discussion and cheerleading, and i expect to see some My Side cheerleading on any topic, but when the authors (as 956 says) immediately run from the letter, you don't need to run interference for it any more.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,833]

yeah, they fucked up and they realized it and are playing damage control. there really isn't much more to it.

[WhatTheBuck 28,705]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

as a texan i'm not at all shocked that democrats are this bad at politics. 

I don’t know if it’s going to have any negative fallout for them though. Since there are a lot of pro-Putin Republicans who would agree with the assertion in the letter, they can’t really attack them for releasing it. And I’m not sure how much mileage they’d get out of attacking them for rescinding it because then they’d be advertising their pro-Putin attitude. I’m not even sure how much national play the story got in the first place. 

[Hefeweizen 5,307]

My post got deleted in the war thread since it had some political implications, even though I used the magic “No CR” air quotes.  Sorry not sorry.

 

 This move by the idiot wing of the Democratic Party is why I am just anti Republican.  It is infuriating when the executive has been handling it so well, with guys like Kinzinger backing them up.  So now we have doofus McCarthy and a few dozen democrats free lancing foreign policy again?  Fuck that.
 

 

[Sawbonz 27,396]

3 hours ago, Tuco said:

I don't think it's crazy.  I think it's naive, and perhaps stupid.  But, if you were to ask 10 people on the street, "should the US be open to direct talks with Russia to help resolve the Ukraine-Russian War?" most of them would say yes.  It aligns with intuition - that there is nothing wrong talking to avoid a fight.  It's the same reason Trump didn't see a big deal in having unilateral discussions with North Korea when our position has always been to have multilateral talks.  Who has a seat at the table is one of the first things to negotiate in a negotiation.  This letter is poor statecraft, but good statecraft seams a little crazy anyway. 

 

The way the question is worded is weird.  The US can't initiate a ceasefire.  If you are asking "what can the US offer that isn't up to Ukraine?", there are several items.  I imagine Russia would like to talk about NATO membership - Ukraine, but also Finland and Sweden.  Stepping back, it's possible that Turkey's objection to their joining may just be a stall to keep those cards on the table.  Of course there are the sanctions that predated this invasion and probably some that predated the Crimea invasion.  There are postwar weapons sales and troop deployments.  The implication that this is entirely between Ukraine and Russia is just a naive as the letter.  But, it has to be clear that the US will continue to support Ukraine as long as Russia troops are in Ukraine, including Crimea. That's not something the US will budge on. 

 

Yeah, she is probably lying.  But it's good that she was lying, right?  The only damage the letter did was expose a wedge between a small portion of Congress and the White House.  Lying demonstrates that Biden is still in charge.  Whatever division there is is minor.  Sucks for her staff, but I would rather have her throw them under the bus than stand her ground.  It's very important that she quickly pretended that she is on board. 

FWIW, after moving to Seattle 20 months ago, this is the first time I've disagreed with my new Member of Congress.  After decades of regularly cringing when reading the paper in Nebraska, it's a little weird.  

The authors of the letter aren’t expending any energy trying to explain it or justify it. I’m not sure why you feel compelled to. I’m going to just agree with them that it never should’ve been released

[Tuco 5,076]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

The authors of the letter aren’t expending any energy trying to explain it or justify it. I’m not sure why you feel compelled to. I’m going to just agree with them that it never should’ve been released

I think I was pretty clear that the letter should not have been released.  That doesn't mean your question isn't still worth discussing.  You're the one who asked it after the Dems had withdrawn it.  Why did you? 

[The Dog 43,788]

[RomaVicta 29,773]

Checking back in. Tuco has answered questions better than I could. Compliments.