I know his health isn't under his control, and it isn't cool to judge someone because of it...but, as humans, we do, and for someone whose job is to clearly communicate his ideas and inspire with words...he seems to fall short here.
Despite his voice issues, his message seems to be resonating amongst Democrats, Independents and even Republicans. He is the only candidate who seems to be gaining support across the political spectrum.
I think his message of peace and diplomacy over endless interventionist wars and healing the divide are gaining traction.
Let's just hope the powers that be don't decide to give him lead poisoning like they did his uncle and his father.
It's the right message at the wrong time. It sure sounds noble, "peace". But as an ally to a defending party, it essentially means leaving Ukraine to fend for themselves against Russia's invasion - which would actually be expanding the war. I've made many attempts at following these arguments that Russia is somehow a reluctant party here, and they just never add up. They're always full of assertions hyperlinked to supporting posts that don't actually check out as being true. (But if you don't dig, I can see how they would be persuasive)
And just for reference, I was against the Iraq War even before the invasion. I routinely call the US an "empire". I've been generally against the casual US meddling in various foreign countries that is now characterized as the "forever war". But I also understand that it's fallacious to focus on the US as the only possible aggressor, and this situation seems like a straightforward case of Ukraine wanting to avoid being re-subjugated by the Russian empire by choosing to align with the looser business empire of the West. If anything, all of these narratives against helping Ukraine by echoing criticisms of the Iraq War just feel like more terrible consequences of that misadventure.
I am all for peace and ending the war in Ukraine. But this is not an American political issue, but rather a Russian one.
I respect your position but I firmly disagree. This war was never about saving Ukraine. It is and has always been a proxy war between two super-powers - primarily focused on weakening Russia and seeking regime change. [0]
The US and NATO provide arms and funding while the young men of Ukraine are being killed at a rate of 7-1 vs Russia, with nothing to show for it but 300k dead Ukrainian young men.
"I am all for peace and ending the war in Ukraine. But this is not an American political issue, but rather a Russian one."
I am also for peace and ending the war in Ukraine - and I don't excuse the inexcusable actions of Putin.
However, we need to get past the comic book depictions of US/NATO = Good, Russia = evil, and look at the world from the perspective of our opponent if we are ever to end the vicious cycle of endless wars.
Russia repeatedly made it clear that bringing Ukraine into NATO was a red-line. Putting nuclear-capable US stinger missiles on Russia's border, 400 miles from Moscow able to decapitate their leadership in minutes was always a non-starter. It doesn't excuse Putin's invasion, but it does explain it somewhat. Imagine if Russia had nuclear capable missiles on the US border, say in Canada or Mexico. We would invade in a second.
There are no good guys in war, only lies and propaganda from both sides. I want to see an end to the bloodshed and that requires us to seek peace over escalation. The only winners in war are those who make the guns and bombs.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/18/...
Without the US instigating the war, heavy support (including intelligence sharing anyone with half a clue knew was going on) still does not constitute a proxy war. Like many narratives, "proxy war" falls apart under scrutiny. But it does sound edgy and contrarian if you don't examine it too closely.
I do agree that there are some terrible realpolitik incentives here. The US isn't doing this solely for freedom and democracy, just like it wasn't in Iraq, regardless of the advertising for both. But that doesn't mean that Ukraine itself cannot be benefiting. Based on experiences of people who fled the previous Russian ("Soviet") empire, I can certainly see why they would choose this despite the cost.
> seek peace over escalation
This is the complete wrong framing for the defensive side of a war. Deescalating defense means that Russia will escalate attacks. I too had been lured by the hope that military might was becoming less relevant. But now Russia's actions have demonstrated that the peace we had (and still have, for the most part) is a product of military might.
I don't expect to convince you that you may have been mislead about the origins of this war, but I will nonetheless try.
The war didn't start in 2019, or even 2014, but in 2014 the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, was recorded plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected leadership of Ukraine and deciding who would replace him as was reported by the BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, NPR and NBC. [0][1][2][3]
Before you respond with a counter-claim that Russia did something bad first thus justifiying the coup, I will concede that they may very well have done so, but this only proves my point that this is nothing more than an ongoing proxy war between these super-powers that has now gone from covert to kinetic.
I fail to see how anyone can claim this is anything but a proxy war.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-a...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-pu...
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/video/audio-of-leaked-nuland-convers...
Russia themselves talks about unifying Russia and how "1991" was a tragedy (1991 being when Ukraine got its independence) in their victory article that they mistakenly posted shortly after the war started.
They don't mention a coup, or NATO or anything else.
But don't take my word for it, take theres.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20...
>> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Yes, at a high price, yes, through the tragic events of the virtual civil war, because now brothers separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine will no longer be anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness by gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, allowed temporary division to gain a foothold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land.
The Russians also went to the UN in 2022 with evidence claiming the US was funding multiple bioweapons labs across Ukraine - a claim that the west laughed off at the time but the US later begrudgingly admitted to having funded 46 such labs in Ukraine, over fears they would fall into Russian hands - calling them simply biolabs. RFK Jr actually alluded to this on video in the exchange that led to the NY Post and NY Times articles mentioned up thread. [0][1][2][3][4][5]
Again, the first casualty in war is the truth - applies to both sides
While Russia may have justified the invasion as restoring its unity, particularly regarding Russian-speaking Donbass and Crimea regions. It is clear that they also felt threatened by the prospect of hostile forces equipped with nuclear capable armaments and potential bio-weapons on their border only 450kms (280 miles) from their capital.
The simplistic US=100% Good, Russia=100% Evil rhetoric must stop. It is leading us towards WWIII. A negotiated peace and de-escalation plan is the only sane path forward for humanity. We need to stop feeding the war machine and start genuinely seeking diplomatic solutions.
[0] https://twitter.com/ANTlWEF/status/1680476815993741312?s=20
[1] https://twitter.com/i_Beth1/status/1671394045996974080?s=20
[2] https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202304/14/WS6438b13ea3105...
[3] https://www.globalvillagespace.com/moscow-provides-more-evid...
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsZ9iv7VKIs
[5] https://twitter.com/DavidKnestrick/status/168137344186410600...
Id stop mentioning RFK Jr he actually legitimately reduces the credibility of what you're trying to asert.
> While Russia may have justified the invasion as restoring its unity, particularly regarding Russian-speaking Donbass and Crimea regions. It is clear that they also felt threatened by the prospect of hostile forces equipped with nuclear capable armaments and potential bio-weapons on their border only 450kms (280 miles) from their capital.
So why is this never mentioned in their victory article? they only never mention the way worse justification or absorbing Ukraine into Russia as part of it.
> The simplistic US=100% Good, Russia=100% Evil rhetoric must stop. It is leading us towards WWIII. A negotiated peace and de-escalation plan is the only sane path forward for humanity. We need to stop feeding the war machine and start genuinely seeking diplomatic solutions.
A negotiated peace is possible and quite easy, Russia leaves all of Ukraine and retreats to its 1991 border and never comes back.
Here's the problem, Russia doesn't want peace they want to claim parts of Ukraine and conquer the country as whole.
"Id stop mentioning RFK Jr he actually legitimately reduces the credibility of what you're trying to asert."
If it wasn't already clear, I support RFK Jr and hold his foreign policy in high regard. I also deeply respect his principled approach to telling American voters the truth. Uncomfortable truths are often unpopular at first, but being genuine is an important part of healing the divide. I hold those who are willing to speak uncomfortable truths in high regard and I suspect many others do as well.
"So why is this never mentioned in their victory article? they only never mention the way worse justification or absorbing Ukraine into Russia as part of it."
I can't speak for Russian leadership as I don't claim to know their motives or intent. Might it be possible, as is verifiably true in the case of the US funded bio-labs as well as the nuclear-capable Stinger missiles, that they did raise these issues, but our captured western media failed to report it? Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media?
Notably, all Russian media was banned in the west at the start of this war. What we call Russian propaganda, they call news - and vice versa.
"A negotiated peace is possible and quite easy, Russia leaves all of Ukraine and retreats to its 1991 border and never comes back."
I notice that you didn't mention any concessions from either the Ukraine or NATO.
I don't see how Russia agreeing to the unilateral terms you outlined would satisfy their concerns over the potential of a NATO aligned state on their border so close to their capital. How do you see this negotiating strategy playing out? Why would Russia concede? Are they running out of ammunition? According to Biden, we certainly are or else we wouldn't be sending cluster munitions as a last resort.
"Here's the problem, Russia doesn't want peace they want to claim parts of Ukraine and conquer the country as whole."
It seems you believe you know their motivations better than I do. However, the best way to find out would be to call for a cease-fire and to get both sides back to the negotiating table so we can find a way forward via diplomacy instead of an endless unwinnable war.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that when you run out of effective arguments you simply resort to ad-hominem attacks against RFK Jr and now me.
I'll have to agree to disagree with your assessment of us, as eloquent as it was.
Regarding the Stinger Missile Defense System the US provided Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger, it is capable of carrying nuclear warheads that could hit Moscow in single digit minutes from the Ukrainian border. Tell me you would be ok with that if you were in Russia's shoes.
"Have you read anything that isn't just straight Russian propaganda?."
I don't speak Russian and I get my news almost exclusively from western sources. The difference between you and I is that I understand that everyone lies when it comes to war, even the "Good Guys(TM)" - so I dig deeper, question the official narrative (on both sides) and try to discern the truth as best I can through the fog of war.
"Why should Ukraine cede anything? they are slowing winning the war."
I'm sorry, you don't seem to grasp the reality that Ukraine is quickly running out of men willing to fight and die in this senseless trench war or the fact that per Biden's own admission, the US and NATO are out of ammunition which is why they are sending cluster bombs as a weapon of last resort.
Also, even the mainstream western media narrative is beginning to recognize that "Ukraine and the West are facing a devastating defeat" [0]
"Why do you reply in a way that makes it impossible to follow the conversation thread?."
I'm sorry. I try to be as clear and articulate as possible. Could it be that in a concerted effort not to try and understand my arguments which may conflict with your existing worldview, your reading comprehension and cognitive skills have been negatively impacted?
[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/18/ukraine-and-the-...
I see from your link that Stinger is a light shoulder-fired weapon that has a warhead of 3 kg and range of 8 km. How should that carry a nuclear warhead to Moscow?
Ukraine does now have French SCALP cruise missiles that are nuclear capable, with a stated range of 160 miles (250kms) - not enough to decapitate Moscow, but close enough to be pretty threatening. [0]
[0] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-05/ukraine-admits-missi...
You can go ahead and support a raving lunatic if you want but it doesn't stop him being a raving lunatic and a non credible source.
He doesn't speak uncomfortable truths he is an idiot.
> I can't speak for Russian leadership as I don't claim to know their motives or intent. Might it be possible, as is verifiably true in the case of the US funded bio-labs as well as the nuclear-capable Stinger missiles, that they did raise these issues, but our captured western media failed to report it? Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media?
I can't tell if you're purposely saying stuff that literally makes no sense or if you are trying to use it as a propaganda tactic.
What in christ is a nuclear stinger missile?.
> Have you read any Russian media accounts, or only what comes filtered through western media?
Have you read anything that isn't just straight Russian propaganda?.
> Notably, all Russian media was banned in the west at the start of this war. What we call Russian propaganda, they call news - and vice versa.
What we call propaganda is literally Russian propaganda never forget these "news" outlets are the same places that gave you following real headlines
"Why Russia won't invade Ukraine"
"Ukrainian black magic battalions"
"Ukrainian super soldier"
> I notice that you didn't mention any concessions from either the Ukraine or NATO. I don't see how Russia agreeing to the unilateral terms you outlined would satisfy their concerns over the potential of a NATO aligned state on their border so close to their capital. How do you see this negotiating strategy playing out? Why would Russia concede? Are they running out of ammunition? According to Biden, we certainly are or else we wouldn't be sending cluster munitions as a last resort.
Maybe they would negotiate stop things exploding in Russia and Crimea so often?, to stop losing soldiers?.
> It seems you believe you know their motivations better than I do. However, the best way to find out would be to call for a cease-fire and to get both sides back to the negotiating table so we can find a way forward via diplomacy instead of an endless unwinnable war.
Russia benefits from a cease-fire allowing them to rearm.
Russia has already agreed multiple times to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and to withdraw their troops back to their own border, they never did.
The only negotiations that should take place are when Russia is back in Russia.
Why should Ukraine cede anything? they are slowing winning the war.
Why do you reply in a way that makes it impossible to follow the conversation thread?.
"The young men of Ukraine are being killed at a rate of 7-1 vs Russia, with nothing to show for it but 300k dead Ukrainian young men."
"You have this information from where, exactly?"
The 7 to 1 casualty rate came from the classified US military documents that were leaked in April 2023 [1] These documents were leaked to a Discord channel and have now been scrubbed from the internet.
The 300k casualty estimate was attributed to Scott Ritter, a former United Nations Special Commission weapons inspector for the US [1]
It should come as no surprise that these statistics are not being widely shared in the media but rather they have gone to great lengths to suppress this information. If more people knew what a meat-grinder this war is for Ukrainian solders, it might lead many to conclude that continuing to escalate the conflict is a misguided idea.
[0] https://apnews.com/article/leaked-documents-classified-russi...
You are unfortunately quoting a fake numbered that originated from a poorly photoshopped version of the legitimate documents. The real numbers are as follows.
Russia 35.4k - 43.5k KIA
Ukraine 16.0k - 17.5k KIA
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1644226867623280641
> The 300k casualty estimate was attributed to Scott Ritter, a former United Nations Special Commission weapons inspector for the US [1]
Scott Ritter is also a twice convicted pedophile and a pro Russian propagandist.
> [1] https://tass.com/world/1601683
A yes it makes sense now your source is literally just Russian Propaganda.
"You are unfortunately quoting a fake numbered that originated from a poorly photoshopped version of the legitimate documents."
I have no doubt that spokespeople from the US may have made this unsubstantiated claim, but unless they share the legitimate documents publicly how can we confirm they are telling the truth? If the truth were as they claim, it would add significantly to their credibility to share this with the media.
However, the fact that none of the media who did see the leaks ever shared the details of those leaks, and actively dissuaded anyone from looking for themselves, lends me to believe there were inconvenient facts in those leaks that the US did not want to be shared with the public.
"Scott Ritter is also a twice convicted pedophile and a pro Russian propagandist."
I don't know if the claim that he is a twice convicted pedophile is true or not - but I'll tell you about another convicted pedophile who definitely didn't kill himself. His name was Jeffrey Epstein and he was also convicted of trafficking underage girls to a bunch of anonymous rich dudes who have never been charged, but I'm sure they will be any day now because our legal system is honest and true and they would never lie to you
"A yes it makes sense now your source is literally just Russian Propaganda."
In war it's all propaganda, on both sides. Just for the record, the US is better at propaganda than the Russians. We have Hollywood which convinced us all that the CIA never does wrong, never spies on Americans (except that Snowden thing) and never overthrows democratically elected leaders (only dictators like Saddam Hussein - who we funded and armed to fight Iran, whose democratically elected government we also overthrew. See also, most of Latin America)
You keep repeating this buts its meaningless, you won't even accept you got duped by Russian propaganda.
I literally posted a link to the obviously photoshopped number and the original side by side.
The only person trying to make the truth a causality is you.
> I have no doubt that spokespeople from the US may have made this unsubstantiated claim, but unless they share the legitimate documents publicly how can we confirm they are telling the truth? If the truth were as they claim, it would add significantly to their credibility to share this with the media.
You seemed to be very certain about the authenticity of your claim, which in reality only exists in a poorly photoshopped low resolution copy of the original document.
if you look at both those images side by side and seriously believe the Russian propaganda document is the original then I you don't exist in reality.
Its so obvious a toddler could spot it.
> However, the fact that none of the media who did see the leaks ever shared the details of those leaks, and actively dissuaded anyone from looking for themselves, lends me to believe there were inconvenient facts in those leaks that the US did not want to be shared with the public.
What are you on about?, Ive seen many articles and references to the documents all over the place.
You're now trying to deflect after your complete rubbish 7:1 claim was proven to just be straight up Russian propaganda (funny how lots of your views mirror the Kremlins).
The inconvenient truth is that Ukraine has lost a lot of people and vehicles but the Russians have lost a lot more.
It never was taken down from the internet, now you either intentionally lied or were not capable of finding a copy of course which took me less then five minutes.
> I don't know if the claim that he is a twice convicted pedophile is true or not.
It is.
Well that's a blatant False Dichotomy
It's not one or the other, it can be, and in fact almost certainly is, Both.
You have this information from where, exactly?
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1644226867623280641
He claims its been wiped from the net but thats not anywhere near true, it very much exists and is very obviously photoshop.
Did you know the term "conspiracy theory" was literally invented by the CIA to smear anyone who dared to question the official narrative about the JFK assassination?
There is ample evidence in recently released documents on the JFK assassination that Lee Harvey Oswald was working with the CIA before the assassination. [1][2]
Does anyone honestly believe that Oswald acted alone? Do you still believe that we invaded Iraq because they had WMD?
[1] https://theintercept.com/2022/12/19/lee-harvey-oswald-cia-ls...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/16/us/politics/biden-jfk-ass...
Those damn CIA time travelers.
It is possible it was used in the 1860s and fell out of use and was popularized by the CIA at the time of JFKs assassination
Here is the 1967 CIA dispatch on the Warren Commission with details:
https://steemit.com/history/@thelastheretik/cia-coined-and-w...
That distinction hamstrings hundreds of otherwise valid conversations on the topic.