John Bolton on Trump and Putin
-
-
-
@Horace said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@Renauda So it's simultaneously a "rant", while it mirrors what cooler heads have been saying all along. I see.
It's possible that it is a "rant" that happens to include a few things that mirrors what cooler heads have been saying.
-
I just don’t get how you expect a people who have been paying in blood to accept falsehoods about themselves to get to peace.
It’s asinine. These people have already gone to war for their rights and dignity. They’re not gonna give it up for Donald Trump of all people. This isn’t a bank loan application.
-
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
I liked VDH when he first came on the scene. A smart counter-narrative voice. Now he’s become just as predictable as the rest on what his position on any given subject is going to be.
Audience capture is a hell of a thing.
He certainly has a predictable directionality, but I suspect you would be hard-pressed to listen to him and point out what he's demonstrably wrong about.
Funny thing about politics and culture, it's very rare for anybody to be provably correct or incorrect, because the issues are actually infinitely complex. It's not an inherent fallacy to make arguments from a consistent perspective. Where people differ, is in the quality of their arguments.
-
‘a-blowe yow and be-kele yow wel, and comyth up all with your ease’ ~ attributed to Henry V
-
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
I just don’t get how you expect a people who have been paying in blood to accept falsehoods about themselves to get to peace.
It’s asinine. These people have already gone to war for their rights and dignity. They’re not gonna give it up for Donald Trump of all people. This isn’t a bank loan application.
And the non-asinine perspective is embracing a forever war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win, because losing face by accepting a peace deal penned by a guy who said mean words about them, would be unthinkable. Interesting priorities, but they have a faint whiff of armchair principles.
-
@Renauda said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@Horace said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@Renauda So it's simultaneously a "rant", while it mirrors what cooler heads have been saying all along. I see.
Of course it’s a rant and an animated and, at times, mirthful rant at that.
I particularly enjoy when he impersonates Obama. He is surprisingly mirthful, especially with his Skeletor face and tone.
-
@Horace said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
I just don’t get how you expect a people who have been paying in blood to accept falsehoods about themselves to get to peace.
It’s asinine. These people have already gone to war for their rights and dignity. They’re not gonna give it up for Donald Trump of all people. This isn’t a bank loan application.
And the non-asinine perspective is embracing a forever war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win, because losing face by accepting a peace deal penned by a guy who said mean words about them, would be unthinkable. Interesting priorities, but they have a faint whiff of armchair principles.
I don’t think the option set is war of attrition or peace. There’s zero guarantee that Putin holds up his side of any bargain that’s struck here. I don’t think they’re afraid of losing face, they’re afraid of being oppressed (or worse).
-
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@Horace said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
I just don’t get how you expect a people who have been paying in blood to accept falsehoods about themselves to get to peace.
It’s asinine. These people have already gone to war for their rights and dignity. They’re not gonna give it up for Donald Trump of all people. This isn’t a bank loan application.
And the non-asinine perspective is embracing a forever war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win, because losing face by accepting a peace deal penned by a guy who said mean words about them, would be unthinkable. Interesting priorities, but they have a faint whiff of armchair principles.
I don’t think the option set is war of attrition or peace. There’s zero guarantee that Putin holds up his side of any bargain that’s struck here. I don’t think they’re afraid of losing face, they’re afraid of being oppressed (or worse).
I have no territorial claims in the Sudetenland. Sorry, sorry, Ukraine.
-
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@Horace said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
I just don’t get how you expect a people who have been paying in blood to accept falsehoods about themselves to get to peace.
It’s asinine. These people have already gone to war for their rights and dignity. They’re not gonna give it up for Donald Trump of all people. This isn’t a bank loan application.
And the non-asinine perspective is embracing a forever war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win, because losing face by accepting a peace deal penned by a guy who said mean words about them, would be unthinkable. Interesting priorities, but they have a faint whiff of armchair principles.
I don’t think the option set is war of attrition or peace. There’s zero guarantee that Putin holds up his side of any bargain that’s struck here. I don’t think they’re afraid of losing face, they’re afraid of being oppressed (or worse).
Ok. The absence of an alternative plan is still remarkable. The unspoken implication remains that it is America’s obligation to up the ante in a war against Russia until Russia leaves Ukraine alone. For some reason, the people who pigeonhole their attitude to exactly that, don’t really want to say it out loud.
I like Rubio’s point that if America has an economic and strategic interest in Ukrainian resources, as per the settlement on the table, that constitutes a nice de facto guarantee of our support against aggressors.
-
-
-
In a rare fit of transparency for the Biden admin, his National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan appeared on Yascha Mounk's podcast called The Good Fight, and talked about some of the prior administration's thinking about Ukraine.
- he considers the current level of support for Ukraine sustainable indefinitely
- He does not feel that America should be playing any role in negotiations, that any negotiations should be initiated by and between Ukraine and Russia only.
- He rejects the notion that different allocations of American military equipment would have changed the outcome (F16s earlier, different tanks, etc)
- He thinks the ongoing war is a huge success, compared to the predictions at the outset of a Russian steamroll into Kiev.
So, his plan was to support the war indefinitely, until Ukraine negotiated a deal on its own terms.
-
Maybe I’m being dense and over-simplifying, but I would have thought that Ukraine would only give mineral rights if they’re going to get tangible military aid (that they intend to use) in return.
I guess what I’m hearing is that the mineral rights make it defacto US territory, and Russia won’t attack the US. I don’t know enough about the situation to comment on that.
