Why not both?
Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet empire and the “costs” that the US and world community would impose on Russia after “annexing” Crimea weren’t onerous. (It would appear that Putin chose correctly) (full disclaimer: by saying Putin chose correctly, I am not praising Putin nor his actions, I am only saying that Putin achieved his goal of annexing Crimea with a minimum of costs).
Surely by this logic you must conclude Biden is now projecting strength on the issue, given how much teeth these current sanctions have.
That’s like praising someone for doing a good job of cleaning up a mess they created. I might do that if I’m teaching a 4-year old child who just spilled some milk on the floor. But I don’t do it for the POTUS.
I don’t praise arsonists for calling the fire department after setting a fire.
I don’t celebrate the “leadership” of a president putting back into place policies a short 9 months after he rescinded them.
I don’t praise a cat for covering up their poop in the litter box.
Nope. That’s not leadership. And Biden is reacting to a mess he created. It’s too bad for the citizens of Ukraine.
This mess was created by decades of letting Putin get away with everything because $$$. It’s ludicrous to hang that on Biden.
And I fail to be convinced by this newest strawman.
That’s my feeling. On the one hand, even without seeing that map, I had thought Crimea was mostly Russian. On the other, it seemed like a bad idea at the time to completely ignore its annexation. I’m pretty sure that’s what gave him the idea that no one would care about the rest of Ukraine, either.
Biden created this? He inherited it from the guy who tried to extort Ukraine by withholding military aid.
Those would be bullet points 1 & 3 from my quick list. They’re not a recent addition to the conversation, nor a strawman argument.
Clearly we were talking about the sanctions imposed in the last week, then you try to characterize these sanctions as the one in your bulleted list. You’re not debating in good faith.
There must be some misunderstanding here. I’ve always been talking about the Nord Stream II pipeline sanctions. Those sanctions against the company and Russian oligarch CEO, were put in place by Trump, along with bipartisan support. Biden waived them back in May 2021. Now 9 months later, he’s putting them back into place.
Those were the sanctions in my quick list of 5 points. Those are the sanctions I’ve always been addressing. That type of behavior from Biden doesn’t project strength and leadership. It’s weakness from reacting.
I’ve been clear all along, any new sanctions put in place by Biden are purely reactionary to a situation he created by projecting weakness. His new sanctions, seemingly strong, are kitty litter on top of the cat poop. That doesn’t project leadership. It’s a reactionary manager. Here’s a better solution. Project strength and leadership so Putin doesn’t even imagine invading Ukraine. He knows the cost would be too high. The people in Ukraine would have preferred that.
2 questions:
Again, read my earlier posts, I’ve already responded to this type of question. It’s not just one bullet point of the list. I’m not saying if Biden left the Nord Stream II sanctions in place, Putin wouldn’t be in Ukraine. I’m saying those 5 things in that list are a quick list of some of Biden’s behaviors and decisions which reflect weakness.
So, you are ignoring all of the other recent sanctions, most of which cut the oligarchs much more deeply than the pipeline. And which Biden helped negotiate. Okay.
I personally don’t see dropping sanctions when a country isn’t actively being aggressive, and then reapplying them when it is, to be a sign of weakness. But whatever.
Lets see here:
4 probably isn’t worth talking about. 2 seems to be where Putin is at on this invasion thing. 3 seems to be Ranger’s assessment of Biden, who clearly is too old and senile to ever land a 1.
3 is nuanced with the data available at the time of the initial decision. Maybe it was the right call at first, and events changed, and a decision had to be changed. I think Ranger is not doing a very good job of describing why the call led to a negative outcome, or was even the wrong call based on known information at that point in time. Only A happened, then B, so clearly Biden is weak.
If you give a mouse a cookie…
Elon Musk wants to increase domestic oil and gas production. Wow
is it too cynical to assume he has an obvious personal interest in it somehow?
I don’t think it’s cynical to think money motivates people to say/do things in their favor.
But at this point, I’m unaware of how this stance benefits him financially, but I’m open to ideas and insights.
Musk has a deep personal interest in making people in the internet say “wow”.
That said I don’t think he’s ever been purist about renewables.
