Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Ex-UN Ambassador: Why Ukraine May Only Be the Beginning | Nikki Haley | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

"Doing the devil's work" is just a phrase. It's something that you say when you believe that someone is doing wrong. You don't have to be religious to appreciate the meaning of it. Ukraine is a democracy. Zelensky was elected as the president of Ukraine. That's a democracy. They do have serious corruption problems. There's no doubt of that. Don't dismiss the entire message because but certain phrases don't sit well with you. If you're waiting for the perfect message, you'll be waiting forever.
23
So, invading another country is GOOD??? Threatening to use nukes isn't a bad thing to do??? Attacking Chernobyl is to be applauded??? Hundreds of thousands of war refugees is to be shrugged off??? I'm not getting your argument at all. I'm getting the impression that you're more vested into American internal politics than you are the reality of a war that should not be happening.
7
You don't have to like her but why not find fault with what she's saying in this video instead of a dismissal due to a personal bias.
5
@NikolaMeduric Super logic there. "NATO is going to invade us so I have to destroy the non-NATO nation of Ukraine" That's like saying Bob is going to beat me up so I'd better punch George. Paranoia can be a dangerous affliction.
2
@NikolaMeduric Russia only became bad when THEY were the ones that started killing people. How many Russian civilians are now refugees, trying to flee Russia, because Ukraine is invading Russia? I'd say that it's Ukraine....100,000 refugees or more. Russia.....0 refugees. A rather lopsided count. This war didn't start because NATO attacked Russia. It started because Russia attacked Ukraine. Only 5 nations are supporting the Russians. Look at the nations supporting Russia. North Korea....Wow, the most brutal regime on the planet Myanmar.....Another country with horrific human rights record. Syria.....A country that has had Russian support in their civil war. Venezuela....Another country with an horrific human rights record against its own citizens. Cuba....see Venezuela Belarus.....Russia's closest ally, mostly because they don't want to end up like Ukraine. That's it. 193 nations and only a handful have voiced support. Even China has abstained and that's only because they'd love to invade Taiwan and are sitting in the weeds. You don't invade other countries. I hated it when the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, when Iraq invaded Iran, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. NATO hadn't taken a shot at Russia. It was Russia that decided to attack Ukraine. Putin paranoia isn't a good reason to wage a war.
2
@pindrop. Do you really think that if Russia wins that they will retreat? You can't be that naive, can you. The Baltic countries are now a part of NATO and they're right on the border of Russia. Poland, Romania and Turkey aren't that far away. To compare that to the Cuban missile crisis of 60 years ago, against a different Soviet Regime is ludicrous. If there's a nuclear exchange of even a full scale invasion of Russia from NATO, Russia is screwed, with or without the help of Ukraine. So, lets get back to planet earth. Russia's invasion of Ukraine does nothing but expand it's borders and scares the hell out of Europe's NATO nations. That will only consolidate opposition to Russia. Russia started the fighting. You can spin the rest all you want, but NATO still hasn't fired a shot. If NATO was so aggressive, this would have been the perfect excuse to declare war and invade Russia. It hasn't happened yet. NATO is just the boogeyman that Putin is using for his own agenda.
2
@pindrop. What strawman? NATO hasn't fired on Russia. Russia has fired on Ukraine. Perceived threats mean nothing other than a person can perceive anything that they choose to perceive. So the invasion of Ukraine is a "nice" invasion as opposed to one that would "flatten" them. Now that's some convoluted rationalisation for you. Do you really think that adding Ukraine to NATO would change things that much if NATO wanted to invade Russia. All it would do is prolong the war and that only by a short time. NATO is on the border already. Once you consider the capabilities of modern high tech military equipment, it hardly means a thing. NATO would walk right through Belarus in days and their bombers would be over Moscow within hours. In fact, Belarus is more a strategic site than Ukraine. Russia would be better advised to tighten military capabilities on their borders if they're so afraid of NATO invasion. Now Russia is the aggressor. Europe will seek oil imports elsewhere and all Russia's economic possibilities will slowly dry up. They might start selling more to China but would would they really want to do that. Putin would have been better off with things as they are, use oil sale money to strengthen its defences and become the victim if NATO ever did attack. Now Russia is the aggressor and most of the nations in the world see it that way.
2
@pindrop. I will add the Russia does have a point about their concerns. They're not all evil. However, they lost the plot with that invasion. They started the violence and ended the posturing. He who throws the first punch starts the fight.
2
@lilbarry1212 What you don't get is that those weapons have been within reach of Russia for decades. France and Britain have them. Germany, Italy and Turkey have American nukes installed in case of war. Turkey is only about 500 miles from Russia. How long do you think it would take to put nukes in Latvia or Estonia, NATO nations that are right on the border of Russia. It would be nothing for a nuclear armed sub to leave a German or Turkish port and approach Russia. Besides, who said that they wanted to put nukes in Ukraine, anyway? Where did you get that? Ukraine isn't even a part of NATO yet and you're already putting nukes there. You're getting way ahead of yourself. Weird that you don't think all of Europe isn't upset that Russia has nukes that could be pointed at them. That's where NATO is. Russia should be terrified but the European NATO nations aren't allowed to be? Kind of a double standard isn't it. This nuclear rhetoric is just a rationalisation to justify the carnage in Ukraine. No one is putting nukes in Ukraine. Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world after they were independent. They destroyed them. That was only 30 years ago. They did this after a 90% affirmative vote for independence. I wonder how much that loss sticks in the craw of Putin, a one time communist and KGB agent. Putin, at 69 years of age, spent more time as a Soviet citizen than he has a Russian. That has to influence his attitude and his paranoia. So, who should be more afraid of the other. Ukraine, the smaller country with NO nukes or Russia, a MUCH larger country with all kinds of nukes and a leader who was a part of the very aggressively expansive USSR. Remember Putin was in his thirties when Russia was trying to hold onto Afghanistan. Old habits die hard.
2
@lilbarry1212 I'm pretty well with you on everything that you just said, especially your last sentence. It does stink.
2
Years ago, I read a book written by a guy who was a pacifist during the nineteen thirties. He had some idea that if you didn't fight back, there would be no more wars, that the aggressor wouldn't be able to fight and that they'd just go home. A big supporter of Neville Chamberlain. We all know how that ended. Russia just invaded another country. Russia wasn't in any danger and everyone knows it. The idea that NATO was a military threat to Russia is just hyperbolic rationalisation, just like the rhetoric that Hitler used when invading Poland. It's just more of that old Russian expansionism that has been a part of their political worldview since the days of Peter the Great.
2
@ZachBrimhall All of it? Some of it? The more important points? Exactly what sticks out in your mind and why does that bother you and why do you think it's wrong? Honestly, you've really haven't said a lot except "I don't like it". My 7 year old grand daughter could do that.
1
@petermohlman Another one who has nothing to say but to call people names. Why won't people, like you, tell us exactly what the lie is? All you can do is spew invectives that say absolutely nothing. Tell us what the lie is. Not liking someone because of a vibe doesn't mean that they're lying. EVIDENCE....ever heard of it. Back up your statement instead of relying on childish emotions. Then I'll take you seriously.
1
@racewaysignsgraphics4603 I might have a beef with my neighbour and we could be in an argument over the placing of a fence. However, a fight (war) doesn't start until I punch him in the face or attempt to shoot him. Before the violence, we're in a dispute. As soon as the violence starts, there has been a declaration of war. Putin started the violence and the war because he was frustrated with how the dispute was going. So he started shooting. That escalated the dispute into war and he started that escalation.
1
@racewaysignsgraphics4603 From what I've been able to gather is that there has been unrest there for years. Pro-Russian forces and separatist forces made attacks against Ukrainian sites, in the region, back in 2014, around the same time that Russia annexed Crimea. The attack on Ukraine government buildings by local Russians were supported by Russia. Ukraine countered by trying to force out the Russian backed separatists. However, that was 8 years ago.
1