Abandoning allies

[Observer11]

History says Russia was at one time friendly to the US during the 1700s and 1800s. And was also an ally in WWII.

Or have we forgotten we fought the British at one time? A couple times, in fact. Japan was our ally, then they weren't, now they are again.

Current events change allies.

Why stop at 80 years of history?

 

[UberCougars]

This fits here:

https://x.com/usedgov/status/1893052700297728116?s=46

 

[Coug90]

History says that we will wait and let our allies suffer devastating losses until the public comes to the realization that if the bad guys win in Europe....they aren't going to stop there. If Russia and North Korea start going toe to toe with European forces, China will most likely decide it's time to take over Taiwan.....than the entire South China Sea.....then Vietnam and the Philippines and Guam...drawing us into a war with them and further reducing the chances that the US helps in Europe initially.

The good news is that Russia has proven to be relatively incompetent compared to the bad guys of the past. The bad news is that western Europe may be full of a bunch of armies that lack the willpower and fortitude of the Ukrainians. If the latter proves true and Russia starts expanding its power and China decides to throw in with the Russians to wipe out Western Europe, it's full blown WWIII as the US realizes that it can't beat both Russia and China if Europe falls.

Even if we were to just let it happen, imagine Trump shitting his pants when Russia takes over Greenland.

I've read articles saying that we don't have to worry about any of this because Russia has no aspirations of taking over Western Europe. It's important to remember that they said the same thing about Hitler in 1937. In early December 1941, nobody believed that Japan would have the audacity to attack the United States. As we see every day on social media, humanity by its very nature is selfish and insecure....always looking for ways to get what they can and prove their superiority over others. It's inevitable that conflicts continue to escalate until the bullies are beaten down.

To be honest, if you read this board, both sides of the current arguments are microcosms of what's going on in the world. We are all guilty of being assholes and jerks, belittling the other side as we argue over this. We all kind of suck in our own ways. The key difference is that the MAGA crowd is honest about the fact that they don't care how much "other" people get f#cked as long as they win and see some sort of financial gain, and the rest of us really only care because we are worried that if things change too much and that the selfish assholes win, it will create an imbalance of power that will eventually harm us as billionaires like Trump continue to seek more "wins". Because again, humanity is greedy and selfish and there is never enough money and power....they always want more.

My theory from what Trumps shown us with his fealty to Putin along with what we’ve seen and heard over the past six weeks; Putin has convinced Trump that he can have the Americas and Greenland while Putin expands his rule in Eastern Europe. I think Trumps dream that he’s been talked into is Xi, Putin, and him each rule their own third of the world, Xi taking Taiwan and further expanding in SE Asia. Wild? Naw. Putin’s been holding firm in Ukraine and Xi has been waiting patiently as well for this moment. They’ve got what they want now.

This 51st State and Greenland crap coming up now with Trump once again getting slapped in the chin with Putin’s balls is no coincidence. The dipshit can’t keep his mouth shut when he’s excited about something.

Of course there’s no way it plays out this way. Putin’s playing Trump like a fiddle just like Hitler did with Stalin at the onset of WW2. Yeah I could be way off, but as you said flat, nobody would have predicted what unfolded in the 30s and 40s. We now have 3 expansionist world leaders playing together in the sandbox just like we did back then.

 

[UberCougars]

First FBI director of color and suddenly, DEImocrats are silent?

Seems odd. Good speech though, yes?

 

[UberCougars]

My theory from what Trumps shown us with his fealty to Putin along with what we’ve seen and heard over the past six weeks; Putin has convinced Trump that he can have the Americas and Greenland while Putin expands his rule in Eastern Europe. I think Trumps dream that he’s been talked into is Xi, Putin, and him each rule their own third of the world, Xi taking Taiwan and further expanding in SE Asia. Wild? Naw. Putin’s been holding firm in Ukraine and Xi has been waiting patiently as well for this moment. They’ve got what they want now.

This 51st State and Greenland crap coming up now with Trump once again getting slapped in the chin with Putin’s balls is no coincidence. The dipshit can’t keep his mouth shut when he’s excited about something.

Of course there’s no way it plays out this way. Putin’s playing Trump like a fiddle just like Hitler did with Stalin at the onset of WW2. Yeah I could be way off, but as you said flat, nobody would have predicted what unfolded in the 30s and 40s. We now have 3 expansionist world leaders playing together in the sandbox just like we did back then.

You should hook up with Hillary and Shiff and let them know you’ve got the goods and are willing to testify!

 

[Coug90]

You should hook up with Hillary and Shiff and let them know you’ve got the goods and are willing to testify!

You should learn how to post a working hyperlink then get back to me with that thought 👍

 

[Coug90]

First FBI director of color and suddenly, DEImocrats are silent?

Seems odd. Good speech though, yes?

View embedded media

I don’t think the spirit of DEI is to find the least qualified person of color imaginable for the job.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

History says Russia was at one time friendly to the US during the 1700s and 1800s. And was also an ally in WWII.

Or have we forgotten we fought the British at one time? A couple times, in fact. Japan was our ally, then they weren't, now they are again.

Current events change allies.

Why stop at 80 years of history?

Because you have to have your Hitler reference while ignoring the Marxist revolutionary playbook that's happening right before your eyes.

 

[95coug]

History says that we will wait and let our allies suffer devastating losses until the public comes to the realization that if the bad guys win in Europe....they aren't going to stop there. If Russia and North Korea start going toe to toe with European forces, China will most likely decide it's time to take over Taiwan.....than the entire South China Sea.....then Vietnam and the Philippines and Guam...drawing us into a war with them and further reducing the chances that the US helps in Europe initially.

The good news is that Russia has proven to be relatively incompetent compared to the bad guys of the past. The bad news is that western Europe may be full of a bunch of armies that lack the willpower and fortitude of the Ukrainians. If the latter proves true and Russia starts expanding its power and China decides to throw in with the Russians to wipe out Western Europe, it's full blown WWIII as the US realizes that it can't beat both Russia and China if Europe falls.

Even if we were to just let it happen, imagine Trump shitting his pants when Russia takes over Greenland.

I've read articles saying that we don't have to worry about any of this because Russia has no aspirations of taking over Western Europe. It's important to remember that they said the same thing about Hitler in 1937. In early December 1941, nobody believed that Japan would have the audacity to attack the United States. As we see every day on social media, humanity by its very nature is selfish and insecure....always looking for ways to get what they can and prove their superiority over others. It's inevitable that conflicts continue to escalate until the bullies are beaten down.

To be honest, if you read this board, both sides of the current arguments are microcosms of what's going on in the world. We are all guilty of being assholes and jerks, belittling the other side as we argue over this. We all kind of suck in our own ways. The key difference is that the MAGA crowd is honest about the fact that they don't care how much "other" people get f#cked as long as they win and see some sort of financial gain, and the rest of us really only care because we are worried that if things change too much and that the selfish assholes win, it will create an imbalance of power that will eventually harm us as billionaires like Trump continue to seek more "wins". Because again, humanity is greedy and selfish and there is never enough money and power....they always want more.

There’s no doubt in my mind that if we give Ukraine to Putin, he’ll keep going. Appeasement doesn’t work. If he restricts himself to the former Soviet states, maybe the rest of the world lets him do it…but giving up Ukraine could embolden him and convince him that Poland or something the west cares about is fair game. If he does push farther, I can see Europe trying to stop him once he starts pushing Germany….but they won’t be able to before he re-establishes East Germany. And, they’ll need us to provide material support just like they did in 1940. Problem Russia will have is that they continue to have their military led by obedient personalities, not by competent soldiers. Same thing brought down the Axis in WWII. Hard to say whether Europe has any competent soldiers, since they haven’t really fought anything significant in a couple generations. At this point, it’s hard to say whether we do either, now that our leadership is also being replaced by puppets.

As for China….reality is that at most points in the past 70 years and any point in the last 20, they could have taken Taiwan before we could do anything about it. If they move on it, we don’t really have a choice but to let it go. As for taking the Philippines and Vietnam, I don’t know that any of those gain China anything that’s worth the effort. Not that logic necessarily matters in geopolitics.

It does seem like - in some ways - we’ve regressed back to the late 19th century, where everyone’s turned expansionist and wants to grow their empire. There’s really only 3 countries that can do that, and 2 (us and China) are so economically entwined that it’s hard to unravel.

 

[95coug]

I don’t think the spirit of DEI is to find the least qualified person of color imaginable for the job.

No…that was affirmative action.

 

[dgibbons]

I don’t think the spirit of DEI is to find the least qualified person of color imaginable for the job.

Kamala.

 

[dgibbons]

There’s no doubt in my mind that if we give Ukraine to Putin, he’ll keep going. Appeasement doesn’t work. If he restricts himself to the former Soviet states, maybe the rest of the world lets him do it…but giving up Ukraine could embolden him and convince him that Poland or something the west cares about is fair game. If he does push farther, I can see Europe trying to stop him once he starts pushing Germany….but they won’t be able to before he re-establishes East Germany. And, they’ll need us to provide material support just like they did in 1940. Problem Russia will have is that they continue to have their military led by obedient personalities, not by competent soldiers. Same thing brought down the Axis in WWII. Hard to say whether Europe has any competent soldiers, since they haven’t really fought anything significant in a couple generations. At this point, it’s hard to say whether we do either, now that our leadership is also being replaced by puppets.

As for China….reality is that at most points in the past 70 years and any point in the last 20, they could have taken Taiwan before we could do anything about it. If they move on it, we don’t really have a choice but to let it go. As for taking the Philippines and Vietnam, I don’t know that any of those gain China anything that’s worth the effort. Not that logic necessarily matters in geopolitics.

It does seem like - in some ways - we’ve regressed back to the late 19th century, where everyone’s turned expansionist and wants to grow their empire. There’s really only 3 countries that can do that, and 2 (us and China) are so economically entwined that it’s hard to unravel.

Putin is 72. Hitler was 49 in 1938. There’s been a lot of speculation about his health, and he seemed genuinely paranoid about Covid. Vlad doesn’t have that much time left before he kicks the bucket or someone inside Russia challenges him.

You’re not incorrect about China having been able to take Taiwan earlier, especially 1958 (second Taiwan Strait crisis) to the early 2000s. Taiwan was able to buy more advanced weapons. China’s sealift capability, naval power and rocket forces haven’t been close up to about now, and they’ve been taking leaps forward in technology. It wouldn’t be just us against China. It would be Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, Singapore, the UK and probably South Korea. India would be a wildcard.

 

[BSpike76]

Acceptable to me? Coug90 and Putin have a shirtless arm wrestling contest. Best of five. Between rounds Putin gets oiled up by CougEd, and Coug90 gets oiled up by Trump. BYOBO, bring your own baby oil.

What’s “acceptable to me” is meaningless of course. So, I'll do my best to outline what I think are terms that need to be addressed, and what I think are reasonable ways of compromising.

1. Assuming that a DMZ is feasible, the frontline is about 600 miles, Ukraine gives up Kursk, and the DMZ extends eastward (so toward the Russian side).
2. The EU is holding about $300 billion in frozen Russian assets. Those are used for fences, trenches, or whatever is needed along the DMZ. If anything is left, it goes back to Russia over 50 years, backloaded so more is at the end. Ukraine gets the interest on the fund in the meantime. Russia gets the benefit of that money being used for security.
3.a. A peacekeeping force is a difficulty. I haven't heard anything about a UN peacekeeping force, and I'd say this is beyond what the UN could handle anyway. One thing working against this is a dearth of neutral countries that could provide a peacekeeping force. If Sweden and Finland were still neutral, maybe them along with Switzerland and Austria could have put 10,000ish troops along the DMZ, but not now. Maybe some combination of Arab states along with India could do it. Not sure how that gets funded. However, this does not appear to be part of the discussion.
3.b. Rather than a peacekeeping force in 3.a., this seems to be where the mineral rights are coming in, with the idea being that the US would have an economic interest and protect that interest (we have troops in Syria to protect the Conoco oil fields), and that would deter Russia. Trump said something about a security guaranty today. I assume that means Ukraine will be buying US weapons and equipment and some kind of mutual defense treaty. I would very much like the US to stop ****ing around in Ukraine. We haven't exactly wrapped ourselves in glory in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. But, like I said, what is acceptable to me is meaningless.

What do you think would get a deal done?

Yours sounds pretty good.

 

[95coug]

Yours sounds pretty good.

I see a bit of an opportunity in this. Let’s tell Zelenskyy that the US will handle the security force, in exchange for a share of Ukrainian rare earth deposits. That reduces our reliance on China for the same. But…let’s make sure that Putin understand that in order to have a security force for Ukraine, we’re going to need to have a US military base in Ukraine.

If he didn’t want Ukraine in NATO because he was afraid that was a threat….let’s see how he feels about a US base within spitting distance of his border instead. See how fast he starts bargaining to avoid that.

In fact, we’re going to use that $300B to fund building and supplying the base…and then the rest is going to rebuild Ukraine.

 

[Stretch 74]

I don’t think the spirit of DEI is to find the least qualified person of color imaginable for the job.

Joe Biden disagrees vehemently with you. But it isn't limited to people of color.

 

[CougEd]

History says Russia was at one time friendly to the US during the 1700s and 1800s. And was also an ally in WWII.

Or have we forgotten we fought the British at one time? A couple times, in fact. Japan was our ally, then they weren't, now they are again.

Current events change allies.

Why stop at 80 years of history?

When they stop threatening us with nukes ... maybe then ....

 

[CougEd]

Joe Biden disagrees vehemently with you. But it isn't limited to people of color.

When are white men gonna catch a break. Jackson and Harris are less qualified than who?

 

[CougEd]

Kamala.

Harris is less qualified than JD Vance ?

 

[Observer11]

When they stop threatening us with nukes ... maybe then ....

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9580kgp09o

OK

 

[Observer11]

Harris is less qualified than JD Vance ?

yes

 

[CougEd]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9580kgp09o

OK

Putin takes his nuclear threats to a new level, but Ukraine's allies say they aren't rattled

World leaders and analysts expressed doubts that the change to Russia's nuclear doctrine amounted to much more than a new and more intense effort to deter the West.

www.nbcnews.com

When does he disarm his nukes? If he doesn't intend to strike why does he bring it up? But I get your point. They are like a guy owning Ferrari but doesn't want to drive it.

 

[Stretch 74]

Harris is less qualified than JD Vance ?

Absolutely, 100% positively. Vance can actually speak coherently and intelligently on any number of important and complex subjects. Harris the the master of incoherent and stupid word salads that do not provide a single bit of useful information. Vance had amazing success in the business world by pulling himself up from abject poverty, and Harris was unable to complete even a single assignment she was given as VP.

 

[CougEd]

yes

Not even close....But there was a better role for her in the administration. She should have been the AG...Trump would have been convicted and still probably elected. Just like John Gotti...a lot of smoke but Rudy was just picking on Gotti.

 

[CougEd]

Absolutely, 100% positively. Vance can actually speak coherently and intelligently on any number of important and complex subjects. Harris the the master of incoherent and stupid word salads that do not provide a single bit of useful information. Vance had amazing success in the business world by pulling himself up from abject poverty, and Harris was unable to complete even a single assignment she was given as VP.

Yep watch her grill AG Barr... and she made him look like a dumbass....and a liar.

Most DEI appts are Hegseth, Gabbert and Noem...with RFK in there as well...

 

[Stretch 74]

When are white men gonna catch a break. Jackson and Harris are less qualified than who?

Jackson? Well, I cannot rattle off names more qualified than her right off the top of my head, but I am positive there are people out there more qualified then her for the position that can tell us what a woman is, that do NOT think that pregnancy outcomes for black women (whatever a woman is, now Gov Evers wants to call them "inseminated person") are TWICE AS GOOD if they have a black doctor, and are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to realize that semi-automatic rifles cannot shoot 600-800 rounds PER SECOND!

 

[Stretch 74]

Yep watch her grill AG Barr... and she made him look like a dumbass....and a liar.

Most DEI appts are Hegseth, Gabbert and Noem...with RFK in there as well...

Oh, in a Senate hearing? Go ahead and ask her who wrote the script that she was reading from, because no way was it her.

It looks as if you haven't yet grasped the actual concept of what DEI is all about.

 

[dgibbons]

Harris is less qualified than JD Vance ?

Yeah. And dumber.

 

[dgibbons]

Putin takes his nuclear threats to a new level, but Ukraine's allies say they aren't rattled

World leaders and analysts expressed doubts that the change to Russia's nuclear doctrine amounted to much more than a new and more intense effort to deter the West.

www.nbcnews.com

When does he disarm his nukes? If he doesn't intend to strike why does he bring it up? But I get your point. They are like a guy owning Ferrari but doesn't want to drive it.

Soviet Union and now Russia have different doctrine than the US. We’ve got plenty of nukes pointed at Russia. Russia has plenty pointed at us.

 

[Observer11]

Putin takes his nuclear threats to a new level, but Ukraine's allies say they aren't rattled

World leaders and analysts expressed doubts that the change to Russia's nuclear doctrine amounted to much more than a new and more intense effort to deter the West.

www.nbcnews.com

When does he disarm his nukes? If he doesn't intend to strike why does he bring it up? But I get your point. They are like a guy owning Ferrari but doesn't want to drive it.

When your neighbor is revving his engine and wants to race, the Ferrari gets taken out of the garage.

 

[95coug]

Jackson? Well, I cannot rattle off names more qualified than her right off the top of my head, but I am positive there are people out there more qualified then her for the position that can tell us what a woman is, that do NOT think that pregnancy outcomes for black women (whatever a woman is, now Gov Evers wants to call them "inseminated person") are TWICE AS GOOD if they have a black doctor, and are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to realize that semi-automatic rifles cannot shoot 600-800 rounds PER SECOND!

I think it’s completely believable that black women’s outcomes are better when they have a black doctor. Because I think they’re more likely to actually see a black doctor. I’d bet that no-shows are far more common between different race doctor/patient pairs than they are between same race pairs. Most people who are looking for someone to get clinically familiar with their genitals are going to automatically feel more comfortable finding someone who looks more like they look themselves. It’s that simple.

So, the statistic really needs to be fleshed out more. If you compare black women with a black doctor compared to all black women (including those who don’t have a doctor at all) then their outcomes may be 2x as good. But I seriously doubt that their outcomes are significantly better than those for a black woman with a white doctor. And, I’d bet that the opposite holds also - white women with a white doctor probably fare better than the general white population…but white women with a white doctor probably don’t do a lot better than white women with a black doctor.

 

[COUGinNCW]

Yeah. And dumber.

Dumb and dumber?

 

[dgibbons]

Dumb and dumber?

The Biden-Harris ticket.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

There’s no doubt in my mind that if we give Ukraine to Putin, he’ll keep going. Appeasement doesn’t work. If he restricts himself to the former Soviet states, maybe the rest of the world lets him do it…but giving up Ukraine could embolden him and convince him that Poland or something the west cares about is fair game. If he does push farther, I can see Europe trying to stop him once he starts pushing Germany….but they won’t be able to before he re-establishes East Germany. And, they’ll need us to provide material support just like they did in 1940. Problem Russia will have is that they continue to have their military led by obedient personalities, not by competent soldiers. Same thing brought down the Axis in WWII. Hard to say whether Europe has any competent soldiers, since they haven’t really fought anything significant in a couple generations. At this point, it’s hard to say whether we do either, now that our leadership is also being replaced by puppets.

As for China….reality is that at most points in the past 70 years and any point in the last 20, they could have taken Taiwan before we could do anything about it. If they move on it, we don’t really have a choice but to let it go. As for taking the Philippines and Vietnam, I don’t know that any of those gain China anything that’s worth the effort. Not that logic necessarily matters in geopolitics.

It does seem like - in some ways - we’ve regressed back to the late 19th century, where everyone’s turned expansionist and wants to grow their empire. There’s really only 3 countries that can do that, and 2 (us and China) are so economically entwined that it’s hard to unravel.

Agree completely with your second P.

However, I gotta believe if the war in Ukraine (started by Russia- contrary to our current prez) ends then Russia would take maybe up to a decade to reconstitute its abilities to do anything else militarily vs Poland or anyone else.

That's all I have to say about that

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

I see a bit of an opportunity in this. Let’s tell Zelenskyy that the US will handle the security force, in exchange for a share of Ukrainian rare earth deposits. That reduces our reliance on China for the same. But…let’s make sure that Putin understand that in order to have a security force for Ukraine, we’re going to need to have a US military base in Ukraine.

If he didn’t want Ukraine in NATO because he was afraid that was a threat….let’s see how he feels about a US base within spitting distance of his border instead. See how fast he starts bargaining to avoid that.

In fact, we’re going to use that $300B to fund building and supplying the base…and then the rest is going to rebuild Ukraine.

Under a normal president...stationing US forces in Ukraine would seem likely. This one? Nah...not with tulsi licking his ear. Taihtsat

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Oh, in a Senate hearing? Go ahead and ask her who wrote the script that she was reading from, because no way was it her.

It looks as if you haven't yet grasped the actual concept of what DEI is all about.

Oh ffs, she's not unintelligent. She was a lawyer, a prosecutor and DA and then was elected to the senate and served as VP. Her selection as VP was def strategic and WORKED. She's totally "qualified" and not remotely a DEI. Do you have DEIDS?

 

[Stretch 74]

I think it’s completely believable that black women’s outcomes are better when they have a black doctor. Because I think they’re more likely to actually see a black doctor. I’d bet that no-shows are far more common between different race doctor/patient pairs than they are between same race pairs. Most people who are looking for someone to get clinically familiar with their genitals are going to automatically feel more comfortable finding someone who looks more like they look themselves. It’s that simple.

So, the statistic really needs to be fleshed out more. If you compare black women with a black doctor compared to all black women (including those who don’t have a doctor at all) then their outcomes may be 2x as good. But I seriously doubt that their outcomes are significantly better than those for a black woman with a white doctor. And, I’d bet that the opposite holds also - white women with a white doctor probably fare better than the general white population…but white women with a white doctor probably don’t do a lot better than white women with a black doctor.

So, you are throwing a lot of stuff out there that was not relevant to what she said. Apparently you never saw anything about it previously. I assumed that folks here would have been aware of it or I might have defined it better. There was no reference to not seeing a doctor at all, or white women seeing black doctors. Her comment was that black women had twice as high a chance of having a positive outcome if they were seeing a black doctor instead of seeing a white doctor. In order for that to be true, black women seeing black doctors would have had 100% positive outcomes and the black women seeing white doctors would have to have had only 50% positive outcomes. Or 80/40. Or 60/30. You get the concept. But what was stated at the time was positive outcomes for black/black was like 99.7% and for black/white was like 99.5%.

What she said was stupid. I remember being told in grade school when doing math, especially when doing story problems, that you should always understand the situation given in the problem and then look at your answer to see if it "made sense". Her inability to understand what is rational and makes sense in these situations is extremely lacking from what I would expect in a Supreme Court justice.

 

[Stretch 74]

Agree completely with your second P.

However, I gotta believe if the war in Ukraine (started by Russia- contrary to our current prez) ends then Russia would take maybe up to a decade to reconstitute its abilities to do anything else militarily vs Poland or anyone else.

That's all I have to say about that

Are you claiming that Trump says Ukraine started the war and Russia did not? Does he think that Ukraine massed troops and invaded Russia? Because I think that would be big news if so, and this is the first mention I have heard of that.

 

[95coug]

So, you are throwing a lot of stuff out there that was not relevant to what she said. Apparently you never saw anything about it previously. I assumed that folks here would have been aware of it or I might have defined it better. There was no reference to not seeing a doctor at all, or white women seeing black doctors. Her comment was that black women had twice as high a chance of having a positive outcome if they were seeing a black doctor instead of seeing a white doctor. In order for that to be true, black women seeing black doctors would have had 100% positive outcomes and the black women seeing white doctors would have to have had only 50% positive outcomes. Or 80/40. Or 60/30. You get the concept. But what was stated at the time was positive outcomes for black/black was like 99.7% and for black/white was like 99.5%.

What she said was stupid. I remember being told in grade school when doing math, especially when doing story problems, that you should always understand the situation given in the problem and then look at your answer to see if it "made sense". Her inability to understand what is rational and makes sense in these situations is extremely lacking from what I would expect in a Supreme Court justice.

I vaguely recall the statement, but not the details. It didn’t matter to me, I knew in 2018 that I wasn’t voting for her

 

[CougEd]

When your neighbor is revving his engine and wants to race, the Ferrari gets taken out of the garage.

Yep....Ukraine was sword rattling their nukes....

 

[CougEd]

Are you claiming that Trump says Ukraine started the war and Russia did not? Does he think that Ukraine massed troops and invaded Russia? Because I think that would be big news if so, and this is the first mention I have heard of that.

Stretch you need to change the channel. Yes he said Ukraine ans their dictator started it .