Former President Bill Clinton has expressed remorse over his role in negotiating a 1994 deal that resulted in Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal, suggesting that Russia never would have invaded its smaller neighbor if it still had nukes.
https://nypost.com/2023/04/05/bill-clinton-regrets-having-ukraine-give-up-nuclear-weapons/amp/
why is Bill taking the blame for Dictator Joe? Dictator Joe said Putin was skeered of him. also Dictator Joe said small incursions are ok. Dictator Joe is a failure and should be impeached.
shareI thought he's taking the blame for Obama. Under Obama the intelligence apparatus staged a coup in Ukraine in 2014 that ousted their democratically elected leader who wanted good relations with Russia, and installed a leader who would: 1. install Democrat-connected cronies into political positions of influence, like on oil company boards; 2. arrange more US interference; and 3. pursue friendly relations with NATO and hostile relations with Russia.
shareA democratically elected leader who sicced his own security services on the people of Ukraine, and reneged on closer ties with the EU. Then fled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nNFrvGOb9o&t=5s
Do not pretend that the USA somehow staged a coup when this was what was going on.
And which of his actions predate intervention from the CIA et al?
shareI would think he apologizing for agreeing to defend Ukraine and for Dictator Joe. at least Russia never invaded Ukraine while Obama was prez, but Russia did invade and annex Crimea. but thats a whole nother box of worms. as of now, its been over 2 years and the US has spent at least $250 billion and has gained nothing and has not weekend Russia. the best thing to do would be to negotiate a cease fire, and create a DMZ and call it a day.
shareThis was set in stone when the rabid dogs of our government fomented the Maiden coup in the Ukraine and pressed to admit that country into NATO when by all norms it should have remained within the sphere of Russia. The Obama intelligence people and the unhinged Kagen cult in the State Department are the ones that unleashed and perpetuated this.
shareWhy should Ukraine be forced to remain "in the sphere of Russia" if its people don't want to be?
And Ukraine is, and was, nowhere near joining NATO.
And why should ethnic and linguistic Russians within the (former) borders of the Ukraine be forced to remain there and suffer Ukrainian violence for the temerity of desiring self-determination?
But whatever the Ukrainians want or don't want, the facts are that historically and geographically they are within the sphere of the Russians. Realpolitik makes that unavoidable. We, your country and mine, have no reasonable interest in that country. Now, the children of Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, and Joe Biden have financial interests in the Ukraine, as do countless other thieving grifters in our ruling class, but we have no more business in the political situation there than Russia would in Wales or American Samoa.
>And why should ethnic and linguistic Russians within the (former) borders of the Ukraine be forced to remain there and suffer Ukrainian violence for the temerity of desiring self-determination?
Where is your evidence that they collectively suffered violence as a consequence of state policy?
>But whatever the Ukrainians want or don't want, the facts are that historically and geographically they are within the sphere of the Russians.
It's not 1910 anymore. The world should move on from this archaic imperialistic bullshit.
>We, your country and mine, have no reasonable interest in that country. Now, the children of Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, and Joe Biden have financial interests in the Ukraine, as do countless other thieving grifters in our ruling class, but we have no more business in the political situation there than Russia would in Wales or American Samoa.
And what's your opinion on Taiwan, may I ask?
Well, that's a very interesting question as I spent several years living in Taiwan and my wife and daughter hold dual citizenship. In fact, we own a small plot of land on the island of Penghu. That said, despite my affections for the people of Taiwan, the issue of Taiwanese independence is a matter to be settled by the Taiwanese people. Whether it's 1910 or not, the racial, linguistic, and historical ties between the mainland and Taiwan, as well as its geographical proximity make it a matter of greater importance to Beijing than to Washington. That's natural and that's how it should be. Biology matters. Mind you, the situation is not analogous as Beijing wishes to completely incorporate Taiwan within its borders, whereas the Russians only want to ensure the safety of its people within and on the periphery of an independent Ukraine.
share>Well, that's a very interesting question as I spent several years living in Taiwan and my wife and daughter hold dual citizenship. In fact, we own a small plot of land on the island of Penghu. That said, despite my affections for the people of Taiwan, the issue of Taiwanese independence is a matter to be settled by the Taiwanese people.
They don't want to be governed by the PRC.
There's no debating this factoid. They want to be a self-governing nation.
>Biology matters. Mind you, the situation is not analogous as Beijing wishes to completely incorporate Taiwan within its borders, whereas the Russians only want to ensure the safety of its people within and on the periphery of an independent Ukraine.
So Russia claims, yet have annexed territory in Ukraine way beyond the Donbass and primarily comprised of Ukrainians.
They don't want to be governed by the PRC.
There's no debating this factoid. They want to be a self-governing nation.
That's a very lawyerly way to phrase it, although it's factually correct and I personally don't blame them. Nonetheless, the Taiwanese understand they are Han first and foremost, with a shared history, culture, language, and ancestry. That's never going to be overcome by ideologies like liberal democracy.
>That's a very lawyerly way to phrase it, although it's factually correct and I personally don't blame them. Nonetheless, the Taiwanese understand they are Han first and foremost, with a shared history, culture, language, and ancestry. That's never going to be overcome by ideologies like liberal democracy.
Taiwan has already overcome it by just *being* as they are. They are a liberal democracy.
All right, then what should the West do vis-a-vis Taiwan? And if that prompts military action by the mainland, what next?
shareNothing. Status quo is fine. But don't pretend that the Taiwanese maintain the status quo for any reason other than to placate China. They don't see themselves as Chinese anymore, don't care about retaking the mainland, and just want to be left alone.
shareThey don't see themselves as Chinese? On what do you base that claim?
And I want to be sure I'm clear. You said, "nothing". Even if China attempts to militarily conquer Taiwan?
>They don't see themselves as Chinese? On what do you base that claim?
https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7800&id=6961
Taiwanese Identity Polling
>And I want to be sure I'm clear. You said, "nothing". Even if China attempts to militarily conquer Taiwan?
Blockade, sanctions. I would potentially support US, Japan, Korea coming to their defence there.
You're conflating political identity with racial identity. If NCCU asked Taiwanese people whether they consider themselves Japanese (given the decades long colonial period) or Chinese, the answer would be 100% Chinese.
share>You're conflating political identity with racial identity.
That's what I meant originally. No idea why their racial background matters in the slightest anymore than their linguistics. Austrians and Germans aren't the same. Australians and British people aren't the same.
Self-determination ought to matter.
Because those are the things that tie a people together, and they matter a great deal to everyone except, to use a Chinese term, baizuo, i.e. white leftists. People feel a connection to their own kind in a way that is far stronger than the connection they feel to a political or economic system.
share>Because those are the things that tie a people together, and they matter a great deal to everyone except, to use a Chinese term, baizuo, i.e. white leftists.
It matters not to the Taiwanese who wish to govern themselves. All data indicates this to be true.
Austrians don't want to join Germany. Australians and New Zealanders don't want to join with the UK. The Swiss, a mixture of people who speak German, French and Italian do not wish to see their nation dissolved and split up.
You keep arguing a point I never made, which is that Taiwanese wish to join the PRC.
Have you ever been to Taiwan? Spoken to Taiwanese who don't live overseas or who don't speak English? What they primarily support is remaining apart from CCP domination. They're generally not averse to the idea of sharing a nation with their fellow Han. They just prefer not to have it happen under current circumstances.
>You keep arguing a point I never made, which is that Taiwanese wish to join the PRC.
>Have you ever been to Taiwan? Spoken to Taiwanese who don't live overseas or who don't speak English? What they primarily support is remaining apart from CCP domination. They're generally not averse to the idea of sharing a nation with their fellow Han. They just prefer not to have it happen under current circumstances.
Right, but they also realise that unless the PRC collapses (which is not remotely likely) that they'd just rather go their own way. So it is.
Again, that's not a point I argued. What you're assiduously ignoring, however, is that the question involves more than just political differences.
shareSure. But the implied premise that "oh these people speak the same language so they must want to be part of the same nation" is completely unevidenced.
The Taiwanese have accepted liberal democracy. They aren't somehow incapable of it because of their han ancestry.
^^^this^^^
shareThe real travesty is this was was over 2 weeks in. Ukraine and Russia has agreed to a peace deal. The Democrat party administration blocked it. The blood of hundreds of thousands so far, is on their hands. And threat of a looming nuclear war, is on their hands.
Democrats have been utterly incompetent in foreign policy since they killed JFK.
If Ukraine wanted to seek peace, there would be nothing the Democrats could do. Ukraine borders Russia.
shareYour boy Boris Johnson was sent to scuttle to the deal and pressure the Ukes to fight on. This was all so unnecessary. Countless Ukrainians are dead because of feckless and callous nature of our ruling class, especially a certain Tribe that sees Russia as an ancient enemy.
shareWhat exactly could the UK or Boris Johnson do to force Ukraine? Convincing Ukrainian politicians and negotiators is not the same as forcing them to do anything.
shareYou're the only one who used the word forced. Would "coerced" be any better?
shareCoerced how?
shareI wasn't in the room but the evidence is irrefutable that it happened.
And if I'm getting this right, you're supportive of Western meddling in this war that has unnecessarily prolonged it at the expense of countless lives, primarily Ukrainian. Yikes.
Not an argument. How did they "coerce"? What coercing could the UK do that surrendering to Russia wouldn't somehow prevent? Russia being literally their neighbour.
>And if I'm getting this right, you're supportive of Western meddling in this war that has unnecessarily prolonged it at the expense of countless lives, primarily Ukrainian. Yikes.
No, I am supportive of the west providing Ukraine with aid for as long as they want it, and the will is there. Which it is. If Ukraine was to surrender, there is nothing the west could do to stop it.
That's a distinction without a difference. You're saying you support sending our money to people who will inevitably squander it - what little manages to filter through the layers of rent-seekers - in a doomed quest to be the last one killed. That's ghoulish.
shareYes, so long as Ukraine wants it. It's not forcing them to fight if they choose to fight.
share