Comments by "Sean Cidy" (@seancidy6008) on "CNN" channel.

  1. It may have been illegal and brutal but it was not unprovoked. Russia warned they would not stand for Ukraine getting close to the American led anti Russian military alliance known as Nato, and the top US diplomat in Moscow (now head of the CIA) told the White House that Russia was serious. The US and Ukraine knowingly provoked a response from the Kremlin, which set out to show that Russia was not a country that could be treated like that.
    4
  2. 4:48 The aid to Ukraine is not increasing the likelihood of Russia and America coming into direct conflict, but actually decreasing it? Well, we ought to give Ukraine unlimited aid then!
    3
  3. His Texan model ex Maya Henry was in the news writing books about him and yesterday suing him. So he took revenge. Top that Maya!
    2
  4. The US will ceaselessly react to tip the balance in Ukraine's favour, but that will always produce a counter reaction from Russia. It is going to cancel out and not be decisive. Anyone who thinks that when Trump fails to win (how can he with his money and time tied up), V.Putin will quit the war in Ukraine is living in a fantasy world. So there is going to be no end to this until both sides accept that in a fair fight of good against evil the result will be a draw.
    1
  5.  @colbyharris1985  Being provoked (even walking on on your wife with another man) is not a legal defence and Russia acted illegally, but not unpredictably; there is the 'unwritten law' in respect to adultery and the international system has unwritten laws too'. The Code Of the Streets is if you are 'dissed' you must put a stop to that right away. Ukraine was being insolent. So they were an innocent victim in terms of explicit international law, yet they were certainly provoking Russia and understood they were doing so.
    1
  6. General Hodges is perhaps forgetting that all Putin's actions indicate that he considers Ukraine an existential threat to Russia, so he will stop at nothing to avoid losing. If Russia began using nuclear weapons on the battlefields of Ukraine it would be because Russia was about to lose the conventional war in Ukraine. You cannot fight conventionally against nuclear weapons, and is America going take the first steps in a nuclear war over Ukraine? It seems America's aim is to totally defeat Russia in Ukraine, yet Hodges and other Americans presume Putin would meekly accept what he has denied he will; would not do what he threatened to do at the begining of the invasion, and go full thermonuclear. I note that Putin's threat to invade Ukraine was not a bluff, though everyone thought it was.
    1
  7. The general says Putin is bluffing about using a nuke. Hmm, is that 'bluffing' like he was bluffing about the invasion, eh?
    1
  8. The superannuated supreme commander seems to think if we show we mean it then Putin will just give up, not reciprocate by showing he means it even more than we do, as the Kremlin has been reacting since 2008. Wake up Clark!
    1
  9. Re 4:50 which is a scenario of a American conventional attack on Russian forces in Ukraine in retaliation for Putin's battlefield thermonuclear weapon use, Russia would have already crossed the Rubicon of theatre thermonuclear weapons in anger when conventionally bested. We are being led to believe that Putin using more tac nukes on the Americans (while the US is directly attacking the Russian army and killing tens of thousands of its soldiers) would be out of the question for him. Well why wouldn't he?
    1
  10.  @kristycampbell5986  It will not happen . because Putin is about to more than double his force, and because it is part of Russia now he can use conscripts in the occupied territory and the parts of Donbass and Kherson that have never been occupied, maybe triple it, That was the real reason behind the annexing. Let us put how the war is actually going for Russia to one side. Now, assuming a hypothetical looming defeat for Russia, what might their reaction be; to think they are obliged to accept that they are a third rate country?; because that is what being defeated without daring to clearly threaten to use and then if ignored actually use some of the smallest types in their enormously expensive collection of various nuclear weapons against the conventionally armed medium sized country of Ukraine would amount to for Russia. To be clear Russia in this scenario would not be able to get Ukraine to surrender the land currently unoccupied by Russia; no, the most that would happen I think is Ukraine has to be satisfied with it being a somewhat smaller county.
    1
  11. Sullivan says withdraw from Ukraine, but Crimea has been occupied by Russia since 2014. Ukraine is going to refuse to stop fighting unless it gets Crimea back obviously. Is open ended backing for that the West's 'job'?
    1
  12.  Lawn Chair  Sullivan says it is up to the Ukrainians. But Ukraine is not getting the weapons it has asked for. So, is the US serious about what Sullivan says.
    1
  13. American surveillance is setting up these killings of generals and they know it. The Black Sea Fleet HQ is hardly occupied territory. Ukraine is deliberately and imperceptibly inveigling the US into being complicit is progressive escalations.
    1
  14. The time to fight for Crimea was in 2014, but the Ukrainians didn't. They knew it was really Russian all along. Aided by the presenter, Hodges is determined to turn a blind eye to Russia's enormously expensive nuclear weapons. Are they secretly fake and is that why wouldn't the Russians wouldn't actually use them General? Nothing we understand about the Kremlin mindset would lead one to be as un/outspokenly confident as these two about Russia giving up after a conventional defeat.
    1
  15. 2:20 Putin asked if Russia could join Nato, rebuffed he knew it was a anti Russian alliance. 3:50 So Ukraine, a country led by a PR genius who is not so hot at fateful diplomacy, is going to be given a blank check.
    1
  16. We will just have to see if it is bluff, eh? But why would it be not a real option for Putin, and why would he not actually do it it. Unless the West is willing to accepts what may actually be a pre taken decision in the Kremlin and likelihood of getting into nuclear , it for tat, Putin's forces could not be conventionally attacked by the West in retaliation for a tactical nuclear weapon use against the Ukrainian army .No one explains why in the final analysis Putin may be assumed to prefer swallowing a humiliating defeat than using a small specimen of his weapons of last resort as a hard either/ or reality therapy for the West. You cannot fight nuclear weapons conventionally. We have a handle on what Putin will or will not dare do in the events of Feb 2022 have made clear that the current leadership in the Kremlin is very far from being risk averse when things begin to go against them.
    1
  17. He is in for a fun time unless he quickly learns to be compliant and silent.
    1
  18. More expulsions than evacuation. They'll do the North of Gaza and then repeat the process on the South of Gaza. Too big an operation to justify if it might have to be repeated . The Palestinians are going to be pushed out of all Gaza and will not be allowed to return.
    1