candide

The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-finds-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-us-election

Why is it OK to invade Ukraine because the U.S. has invaded (so to say) other countries? That's incoherent.

Didn't he say he dis not want to invade Ukraine?

Russian interference to help Trump has been acknowledged and exposed also by the GOP led Committee.

Trump did not choose to become Republican for no reason. He knew there were more opportunities for him, i.e. to have voters believe his B.S. Trump would not have been chosen as Presidential candidate by Dem voters.

I think the bipartisan bill would have been a notable improvement.

I have no hero. Biden has been useful at beating Trump, implementing rational and efficient policies. It could be anyone else, I don't care (except the Kennedy nutter). Could there be a better choice for 2024? Maybe. But for the time being It's Biden vs Trump.

I don't desagree with you on this point. Putin may not have invaded Ukraine if it were a resource-poor country (although population itself is enough of a resource for Russia).

I don't have heroes. To reply more precisely, a Republican interviewed by CNN or a Dem interviewed by Fox News would not fall into the same category as Putin interviewed by Carlson.

Which heroes?

As I replied in another pist, it shows that leaving Russia's orbit is beneficial. China was not a subject of the Soviet Union. But as you mention it, what do you think of the comparison between China's teconomic development and Russia's development? It also shows Putin failures to develop his country.

Agree. The condition for the interview was that it would make Putin look good

Ukraine was knowingly excluded as it is not part of the EU. I thought anyone would have understood my point, which is that countries which have left Soviet and Russia's orbit are doing much better than Russia. This is an obvious proof of Putin's failure (on top of it, the majority of Russia's GDP is natural resources and oil). In particular, it explains why Putin is enraged at Baltic States.

We agree that the objective was to have Putin look good! Edit There's nothing in what Putin said that hasn't been studied already by historians. There are plenty of true historians, you know the kind of historians who follow a vigorous methodology and who publish in peer-reviewed academic journals.

What are the independent Russian journalists saying (they had to leave Russia to avoid being jailed)?

One only needs to have a look at a few countries' GDP per capita to understand what Putin's real problem is. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/RUS/LVA/LTU/POL/CZE/EST/SVK

It's impressive how you can accumulate several inaccuracies in the same list. - it's Bush and Cheney who pressured the intelligence services to provide "evidence". There were disagreement between the different services about it, which have been ignored by the administration, - this point can be discussed, I.e. disinformation about Covid is not protected free-speech - no intelligence service told America that the laptop was Russian disinformation.

That was not an official promise, and the interlocutor at that time, the Soviet Union, collapsed since Russia declared its independence. About the so-called peace plan, same quote: "You can’t negotiate with a bear while it’s eating your leg,"

A quote from Boris (one of the few occasions I agree with him). "You can’t negotiate with a bear while it’s eating your leg" The rest of your post is State-controlled Russian propaganda.

I am not sure that capitulate is the right expression as Russia was not attacked. The best way to fight a decline is not necessarily a war. But that would have required another leader for Russia. Imagine there had been a competent leader after Boris. The Russian economy would have been flourishing, there would be a trade deal with the EU. Thanks to its natural and human resources Russia could be like California, and Ukraine would possibly be quite happy to be closely associated with Russia....

I don't disagree with that. My point is that, in the past, there were plenty of capable people who did not have access to education for different reasons, often financial. Because of their talent and hard work, they were able to succeed despite their lack of education. Nowadays the equivalent people nearly all have access to education if they have enough intellectual capabilities (and even sometimes if they don't). So there aren't much capable self-made men left. The context has also changed as business has become more technological and sophisticated, in particular in the fast growing markets.

As usual, you are using ridiculous conspiracy theories and imaginary situations....😃

There's a difference between induced to, or led to, and forced to. There may be a series of events which induced Putin to invade Ukraine, along other reasons such as his failure to develop his country. It doesn't mean Russia was "forced" to do it. NATO countries did not cause the decline of Russia and it's lack of attractivity for neighbouring countries. I do not agree with your claim about the war in Iraq. Only the U.S. and UK government supported the narrative. Most other European countries (and people) which are supporting Ukraine now were also against the war in Iraq (in particular France). And I would not be surprised if our senior MAGA members used to fully support the invasion of Iraq.(I know you are part of them.

I did not show any ignorance. All what I posted was factual.So we agree on that point: no expansion of NATO nukes presence at Russia's doorstep. So how are missiles without nukes a fundamental threat to Russia? In particular as the ones put "at the doorstep" after the collapse of the Soviet Union (caused by Russia leaving it, BTW) were antimissile missiles? And Romania is not at the doorstep. Are you ignorant about those facts? On top of it, how could NATO be considered as an increased threat as the US had reduced its military presence in Europe, and European members had reduced the % of GDP allocated to their army?

Statistically, most smart people have a degree. Of course, it doesn't mean only people with a degree are smart. But statistically, it works. It should also be noted that the current situation is different as more people are educated. Someone who would have been a self made man in the 60s would likely be a graduate nowadays. https://www.statista.com/statistics/184260/educational-attainment-in-the-us/