That Pro-Russian leader could have been Victor Medvedchuk, who is a close friend of Vladimir Putin. How close can be seen from the fact that after the Ukrainian SBU arrested him, he was handed over to Russia in a prisoner-of-war exchange. — ssu

Yeah, the idea of a puppet regime or regime change is also nonsense. Covered long ago. You’re just reducing yourself to repeating what you’ve heard from the usual propaganda, so I’ll just copy and paste from 4 years ago:

These allegations, however, severely lacked details and, by all accounts, failed to meet basic thresholds of plausibility. Having trickled into the public discourse, the identification of elites purported to be Russia’s next handpicked puppet leader in Kyiv had risen to the level of comedic absurdity among the Ukrainian population. More significantly, the disclosures mimicked amateur and speculative guesswork. In fact, there was no trace or resemblance to a threat assessment that had undergone the traditional intelligence cycle. “Complete nonsense,” said a pro-Russian Ukrainian lawmaker. “A lot of the people who are named as members of this future government aren’t even on speaking terms with each other,” he continued. “It’s a random group of names.” The head of research at a Kyiv-based think tank believed it to be “poorly thought-out” and “absolutely absurd,” saying such a regime “will not be supported by Ukrainian society.”

Instead of busy plotting a coup, Yevhen Murayev, alleged by the U.K. to potentially lead this pro-Russian government, was on vacation with his family on a tropical island. ”At first,” he said, “I thought it was some kind of prank.” Oddly, Murayev was no longer an ally of Russia. Years prior, Moscow sanctioned him after a falling out with another conspirator alleged by the U.S., Viktor Medvedchuk, who since May 2021 had been under house arrest for treason as part of the government’s crackdown on the Russophone opposition. “It isn’t very logical,” said Murayev, “I’m banned from Russia. Not only that but money from my father’s firm there has been confiscated.” Unsurprisingly, his party failed to gain a single seat in parliament in the previous election. Alleged by U.S. officials, another candidate was Oleg Tsaryov—a former parliamentarian who described himself to be the “most hated man in Ukraine after Putin.” Tsaryov left Ukraine and politics altogether in 2015. “This is a pretty funny situation,” he said, “Look at me. I’m not even invited to speak on [Russian] state TV because I’m not important enough. I’m a sanatorium director in Yalta.” Truly, Tsaryov runs three wellness clinics on the Black Sea. A fourth candidate was Ukraine’s former premier, Mykola Azarov, who despite being forced to flee the country in 2014, was now 74 years old, no less. “How can I defend myself against the allegation when nobody has provided any evidence against me?,” he said in frustration, “I can’t even sue the British, because they phrased it very carefully. They haven’t directly accused me of being involved, just that some people may have been thinking of using me.”

The purpose of the U.S. and U.K. allegations, however, was not to reflect reliable intelligence. Otherwise, such publicization would’ve been prohibited to protect sources and methods, especially when lacking inroads into reading Russia’s intentions. Instead, the disclosures and leaks represented a disinformation operation to harden deterrence-by-denial. By preempting a plan’s mere possibility, they believed its implementation would become more complicated and drive up its costs. “Calling it (i.e. regime change) out takes away the element of surprise and also reduces the chances of Russia succeeding if they actually attempt it,” said a Western official in January 2022, speaking on condition of anonymity.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/course-correcting-toward-diplomacy-ukraine-crisis-204171

It makes no sense. The obvious strategic move is to decapitate Ukraine and install a puppet. — RogueAI

It’s definitely obvious — in Western propaganda anyway.

Ramzy Mardini said it best:

Needless to say, Putin started an illegal and unjustified war. Yet, to enable a course correction toward a diplomatic solution, it’s the Western-based narrative about the war that requires a repudiation.

Take, for instance, the purported certainty in the West that Russia’s military sought to conquer a heavily populated and fervently nationalistic country nearly the size of Texas—and initially, intended to do so in a matter of days, no less. This belief is entirely baseless. In fact, even the U.S. military is incapable of pulling off such a feat in that little time. And yet, the falsehood, which formed the West’s perception of Russia’s intentions, remains unabated. So too is Washington’s incessant deflection of holding any responsibility for provoking the invasion, despite its ubiquitous and escalatory involvement in the precipitating crisis.


[…]

As for designs to upend and overturn the Ukrainian government, there’s no credible indication that foreign-imposed regime change was the pursued goal, let alone a political objective considered feasible by Russian leaders. What’s more, from a military perspective, neither the conditions in Ukraine nor Russia’s own capacity to overcome those obstacles supports the conventional wisdom of an intent to conquer it.

For instance, the reported estimates of Russia’s mobilization on the eve of war ranged from 100,000 to 190,000 personnel. Even at its peak deployment, it remains too small of a force to achieve conquest in Ukraine, let alone sustain a military occupation to safeguard a puppet regime in Kyiv. A modern country of 44 million, Ukraine is also the largest landmass after Russia on the European continent. In addition, its military was more recently upgraded—rebuilt, armed, and trained by NATO. With active military personnel at 200,000 and even a larger reserve force to boot, it can inflict tremendous costs, especially when under the belief they are fighting for the country’s survival. In the event of toppling the regime, the potential for a potent Ukrainian insurgency composed of military veterans is certain. Not only is nationalism a powerful political force in Ukraine—and anti-Russian in its ideological orientation—but it also borders multiple NATO states, which could lend support against a Russian occupying power.

To put it mildly, such conditions render a military occupation of Ukraine more arduous and taxing than the U.S. military experience in Iraq. In fact, this gap isn’t even close.

On top of the gargantuan military obstacles, their political counterpart also deems regime change an implausible goal. In fact, there’s no genuine sign Russia was even attempting to organize a political project to install in Ukraine in the first place. Moscow had neither tried to form an alternative government in exile nor was there any semblance of political opposition inside Ukraine ready to take the reins of governance. All the more, no part of the existing security apparatus of Ukraine, or any state institution for that matter, could realistically be co-opted in partnership with a Russian occupation. By itself, this nullifies the model of leadership decapitation alleged by U.S. and UK officials as Russia’s plan to install a puppet government. In Ukraine, any effort to impose regime change would require a purge and recreation of the state in its entirety.

There has to be an defined outcome beneficial to Russia. — ssu

There is: prevent the US from making Ukraine a western bulwark. No NATO explanation into Ukraine, no weapons and drills and military presence on their borders. The rest, in terms of wrecking Ukraine, is pretty obvious: the damage inflicted on Ukraine has been enormous, from their infrastructure and economic stability to general morale.

Mikie, Ukraine was part of Russia. What on earth are you blabbering about? — ssu

Comments like these are cringey, considering it’s you who looks foolish in this conversation, repeating tired and long-refuted propaganda and making ridiculous contradictory statements.

Try reading what was written before making childish remarks. The intention was never to conquer Ukraine— it wasn’t then, it isn’t now. The simple geography of Ukraine shows that — because Putin isn’t a moron. That you’re pretending I don’t understand Russian/Ukrainian history because you’ve misread a paragraph is embarrassing.

What you meant was: I take what Putin says seriously if it corresponds to what I want to believe. That’s not interesting to me.
— Mikie

Your just living in your own estranged echo-chamber. Putin has annexed parts of Ukraine. He wants more territory that isn't in his control. And he has broken peace agreements earlier, remember the Minsk agreements?

But for you those all events that have taken place are "myths". — ssu

So you’re avoiding it again. I’ll just repeat:

1. You said you take what Putin says seriously, and that you don’t have to see into his soul.
2. I quote Putin.
3. You then say what Putin said was not worth taking seriously.

I can quote the whole exchange again if you’d like. But again I ask: do you take what he says seriously or not?

So they planned on invading, taking a chunk of the country, and then how were they going to prevent a resistance movement forming from the remaining chunk of Ukraine funded by Europe and the U.S. ala N. Vietnam infiltrating S. Vietnam? And also what was Russia going to do when that remaining chunk of Ukraine inevitably drifted into NATO's orbit? — RogueAI

I really don’t understand what you’re asking here. Putin was pretty clear about his objectives. I don’t recall claiming anything about them planning for exactly what’s happened. How is that possible? If they could foresee the resistance in Kiev, I’m sure they would have shifted their strategy there, for example. No one has claimed they had a crystal ball.

Who said anything about them planning on losing a million soldiers?

So the plan was to take only part of Ukraine? What were the Russians planning on doing when the non-annexed part of Ukraine violently objected to all that and America and Europe saw a golden opportunity to fund a Ukranian resistance movement? — RogueAI

Since this is exactly what’s happened, I don’t think we need to guess. The Ukrainians have resisted, with considerable (and crucial) support from the US and Europe, and yet Russia has taken parts of Ukraine. That’s how things currently stand.

And as said several times, I believe the goal here was to pretty much sow chaos and wreck Ukraine.

Look at the number of troops used in February of 2022— do you think that was enough to conquer Ukraine?
— Mikie

If Putin attacked, it simply means that he was confident to achieve his goals. That should be obvious even to you. If Ukraine hadn't been able to recover the territory from the Kremlin-backed insurgents in the Donbas, so to Putin likely Ukraine looked like a push over. The US had retreated from Afghanistan in a humiliating way, so no worry of them responding angrily. And Putin had bragged on a phone to a German leader that he would have his tanks in hours in Kyiv. Evidently he had bad intel, which can be seen from the fact that he fired many of the FSB personnel responsible of Ukraine after the attack had gone awry. — ssu

I’m not sure why this is difficult, but conquering Ukraine and attacking Kiev is not the same thing. Kiev was attacked, yes. You take this as evidence that Putin wanted to conquer all of Ukraine, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I told you what I believe the goals were— to create chaos in Ukraine and make a mess of things. So attacking Kiev makes sense— even if it wasn’t a success.

And please just answer this simple question: If Putin wants territory of Ukraine, why are you repeatedly insisting about Putin not wanting Ukraine? — ssu

Because Ukraine isn’t a monolith. The areas Putin wants are culturally and politically different from the others — and conquering Ukraine world entail ALL of them being under Russian control. That isn’t the case now, and wasn’t the case then. It’s simply a myth. One that you’re gradually backing away from even in this conversation. Now you disregard Putin’s words and go from talking about conquering Ukraine to “wanting” some Ukrainian territory.

So he didn't say directly there in that that Russia will conquer Ukraine, that's your argument for Russia not wanting to have Ukraine if Ukraine defenses would have collapsed. — ssu

You’re the one who said you took his words seriously, not me:

Because what Putin himself says and writes obviously seems not to matter to you. Well, what the leader of a state publicly declares does matter for me. — ssu

So clearly that was nonsense. What you meant was: I take what Putin says seriously if it corresponds to what I want to believe. That’s not interesting to me.

So we ignore their words and the military reality, and go with our favorite narrative based on preconceived notions. No thanks.

I agree with not taking what Putin says too seriously. I was responding to someone who claims they do—yet what they’re really doing is cherrypicking.

What I care about is looking at what makes sense to the Russians in terms of power. Bush said lots of stuff about invading Iraq— and some of it was true, but we easily ignored that. The main reason was oil. Putin has said lots of things about Ukraine (but never that he wanted to conquer it, btw) and some of the things he said were true, but we can ignore a lot of it too. What they don’t want is the US on their doorstep. And they, unlike Venezuela or some other country that can be easily bullied and overthrown on a whim by the US, actually have leverage to prevent this from happening. That’s what this is about. Not some stupid story about the evil imperialist who wants to conquer Europe.

In fact if you want to weaken Russia, you should be encouraging the conquering of Ukraine and Eastern Europe. It would be the stupidest thing that could do.

Do these words count, or should they be ignored?
— Mikie
And how much do you know of the history of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic's? — ssu

So you can’t answer that question, got it.

I’ll ask again: do those words count or not? I’m guessing the answer is no, they don’t count. Only the words that fit your narrative counts.

This is absolute nonsense. And Putin's idea that Ukraine should be part of Russia is in his famous text that you can find following this link: Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“ — ssu

Where does he say he wants to conquer Ukraine? Where? In fact, in conclusion he states:

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be
interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will
say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will
be – it is up to its citizens to decide.

More words that don’t count, right?

So far, 0 statements on conquering Ukraine from Putin (whose words you take seriously) and 0 evidence from military actions. Keep trying.

First of all, NATO enlarged because and only because of the Russian conventional attack on Ukraine February 2022. — ssu

Nato expanded greatly from 1992 onward. The fact They wanted to include Ukraine 20 years ago is a large part of this conflict.

So we have (1) Putin’s statements and the statements of officials before and after the invasion, and (2) military action. Neither support conquering Ukraine. You, however, point to (3) motives and intentions, about how “obvious” it all is. But you have no clue what you’re talking about. Think for a second. What happened in Afghanistan? Do you think Putin is unaware of this? Look at the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. Look at the cultural distribution in Ukraine from West to East. Look at the language. Look at the number of troops used in February of 2022— do you think that was enough to conquer Ukraine? Etc.

The goal was never to conquer Ukraine. That’s ridiculous propaganda. The goal, unless a deal is reached, is to destroy most of Ukraine. Make it a complete mess. That’s so far been achieved— albeit with a great price paid. But it’s clear — after years of people like you telling everyone Ukraine was winning or about to win — that Russia has achieved its goals and that Ukraine has continuously lost territory. Given that reality, Russia will not accept anything less than what they’ve demanded for years. Much like Crimea, those eastern territories are now gone.

If the US didn’t continually attempt to turn Ukraine into a western “bulwark,” this wouldn’t have happened. That’s just the fact of the case. If China were running military drills in Mexico, and the US reacted, I’d likewise put most of the blame on China.

It doesn’t make sense to conquer Ukraine. First, they don’t have the military power to do so.
— Mikie
@Mikie, read actually what Putin has said to be the reasons that Ukraine should be part of Russia prior to the attack. And for crying out loud, they attempting to conquer Ukraine. They thought they would have the power, because they thought that Ukraine wouldn't fight back as hard as it has. You simply cannot deny this reality.

It's not a matter of making sense. For you and me it doesn't make sense, but for Putin it makes perfect sense. And this isn't something debatable anymore as Russia has already fought the war for several years and already has annexed parts of Ukraine. So this talking about "it doesn't make sense" is totally irrelevant. — ssu

Annexing parts of Ukraine and conquering Ukraine are different things. The latter makes no sense and hasn’t been attempted. Which is why you can give no evidence for it, verbally or militarily.

That's what they have stated, which you either are ignorant about or willingly put aside. Because what Putin himself says and writes obviously seems not to matter to you. Well, what the leader of a state publicly declares does matter for me. — ssu

Oh, does it? Or just the parts you want to hear and interpret as imperialism?

The same is happening today. They did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help.

In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation.

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force. At the same time, we have been hearing an increasing number of statements coming from the West that there is no need any more to abide by the documents setting forth the outcomes of World War II, as signed by the totalitarian Soviet regime. How can we respond to that?

Do these words count, or should they be ignored?

Since you care so much about what they actually say, this should matter. The fact is that Putin has never claimed he wanted to conquer Ukraine, and thus there has never been a plan to do so, and thus you’ve never seen it done. He’s also made statements that establishing the old order is stupid, although an understandable sentiment.

Look at what has been said and, more importantly, been done (as well as the military reality on the ground) — and your narrative is made up of nothing more than fluff.

This is a good example of media storytelling. It makes sense, it has kernels of truth to it, and it’s comforting — especially if one presupposes Putin is an evil (and foolish) man. But of course it isn’t accurate.

I would have probably believed all that myself 30 years ago, but listening to dissident voices on the subject has been enlightening. I suggest doing so carefully, if you haven’t already. It doesn’t have to be Sachs or Mearsheimer — although they’re very helpful. Compare the facts that they point out to what you’re hearing from other sources. It’ll be interesting. Especially about military and economic numbers.

has already gone over some of this— and it’s true that this has been gone over so many times it’s tiresome to retread.

But the actual words and actions of the Russian seem not to matter here. — ssu

That’s exactly what matters. Notice that they’ve never said they wanted to conquer Ukraine and, unsurprisingly, never tried to.

The only one ignoring that is you. Instead, you cite “true motives and intentions.” But even that fails, because it makes no sense from their point of view. Unless one presupposes the Russians are both evil AND stupid, the idea of conquering Ukraine is absurd.

You should make the case just why "Russians didn't want to conquer Ukraine" — ssu

The Russians have been clear about what they’ve wanted. You disregard that— fine. It’s usually best to ignore official state bullshit. Look at the US in Iraq, etc. But it goes beyond that— the US wanted to control the oil in Iraq, and made up a bunch of nonsense trying to capitalize on the 9/11 wave of public deference. They wanted that oil for years.

Russia has likewise been telegraphing this move in Ukraine for years. I don’t like what they did either— you shouldn't invade another country. But if you take a second to try to put yourself in their shoes, given the geopolitical reality of the world, it makes sense. Putin isn’t a moron.

It doesn’t make sense to conquer Ukraine. First, they don’t have the military power to do so. Second, western Ukraine is different from eastern Ukraine, so annexing those regions would be an even costlier endeavor than what they’ve annexed so far — and that’s been a struggle itself and taken several years now. It would also be a waste when you get exactly the same result by doing what they’ve already done. NATO expansion is now off the table.

The myth of an evil Putin bent on conquering Eastern Europe and reestablishing the USSR is justification to absolve the US of their hand in this, and to continue the enormous amount of cash being thrown at this proxy war. The winners? Mostly the arms industry.

You say “wrong, there isn’t,” then provide 0 evidence.

The Russians didn’t want to conquer Ukraine. That is a myth, and a stupid one, which you seem to swallow whole. This has been gone over many times. It would not only be strategically stupid, and against the stated goals, but also militarily impossible.

But you go with your direct window into Putin’s soul.

Just picture yourself still believing that the 2020 election was stolen (now whittled down to the last hope: maybe something happened in Georgia!). Imagine it. Then have someone thump your head with a stone.

you don't have to repeat all the Kremlin tales in the thread) — jorndoe

Says the guy literally repeating strictly Western talking points.

I think the history is quite clear. Hardly “Kremlin tales.” But believe what you will.

So, you don't think satellites are in the crosshairs? — jorndoe

No, I don’t think so.

Hm? — jorndoe

That’s not the post I was responding to, clearly.

If it would be losing badly, I guess Kharkov ought to have fallen and the battles should be fought on the streets of Kyiv and Odessa. — ssu

If one believes Russia wanted to conquer Ukraine— which it never did. That’s a stupid myth perpetuated by the West, of course.

It’s true that Russia has several demands — consistently stated for years. Why stupidly back down from them when you’re already winning?

When it's the Ukrainians who are doing the fighting, it's up to them to decide when to surrender. — ssu

Which they will do eventually, especially without the gargantuan resources being thrown into this — which has gotten nothing except to prolong this war.

True Romance

Heard about this one for decades. So many good actors and a script by Tarantino.

Yet, it was just okay. Don’t see the big deal. Maybe I just waited too long and had to have been there.

Like watching a chessmaster playing a toddler.

This is the same guy parroting the claim that “millions of illegals vote democrat.” I’d take the trolling comments with a grain of salt. All fluff and posturing.

But regarding what you said: you don’t believe that Russian involvement had any real impact on the election in ‘16, do you?

No:

1) Ukraine is losing and losing badly.
2) Ukraine will continue to lose lives and land the longer this goes on.
3) Better to negotiate a settlement than continue.

I don’t like and Russia did. But it’s not like they weren’t telegraphing what they are going to do for years if the US kept up their strategy to dominate Eastern Europe.

Just to counter the one-sided propaganda: the protesters’ did indeed have a defense, including that the security used excessive force and that video footage went “missing.” Actually perfectly defensible, to anyone who has the slightest clue about law.

The selective outrage is telling. Notice that it’s not directed at genocide, but rather at those trying to stop it. That’s striking. Also embarrassing.

The article says it best:

“Our loved ones dared to poke this beast – and no expense has been spared in policing, prosecuting and imprisoning them without trial. Imagine if the government had put the same amount of money, resources and political will into preventing a genocide.”

Yes, and likewise — if only the righteous indignation and posturing outrage were directed more towards the genocide part. These are the same types that would have vehemently opposed those trying to stop the Holocaust, reserving the harshest language for their unlawfulness and crimes while ignoring or minimizing the actual atrocities. And we know why: they either deny it’s happening or don’t care. Disgusting indeed.

The acquittal should be celebrated. I’m very heartened to hear it.

Good points. Good luck discussing it with Risible. Normally you get nowhere with trolls but maybe this time there’ll be progress. :cheer:

Ah okay! Well that’s certainly true as well.

:pray: Well you’re far more patient than me then.

Same thing over and again with Risible. He really really wants you to think he’s an authority on something— anything. No substance whatsoever, which is why it always devolves into these boring exchanges. Next time just do what everyone else does: ignore.

Definitely the hottest First Lady ever…But I can’t see that being the basis for a whole movie.

Imagine spending all this time (and resources) searching for something so obviously conjured up by a fraud? How stupid does one have to be to believe the election was “stolen”?

see, the Newman effect strikes again! — praxis

More like the posturing ignoramus effect. Knows nothing about the subject, but compulsively has to comment on it anyway— while pretending to be an expert. Truly embarrassing.

Risible.

Speaking of trolls. Weren’t you gonna “dip out”? Anyway— please go on about substantive contributions— like claiming millions of illegals voted for democrats, that Pretti assaulted officials, that Obama was just as bad as Trump, etc. You’re truly cringey. One might even say risible.

Feel free to point it out wherever I do. — Tzeentch

Like coming on a thread after someone was just murdered by the state and placing the emphasis on the protesters’ behavior.

Trump is being fetishized as the personification of pure evil, and by continually bewailing his existence one not only exculpates themselves from America's misdeeds but also puts themselves at the other end; that of pure good. — Tzeentch

:rofl:

We get this elaborate bullshit in lieu of a simple “yeah that guy shouldn’t have been shot.”

Both sides of the political aisle do this — Tzeentch

But definitely not you! Lol

We get a strawman with the complexity of a Star Wars plot to excuse the minimizing of crimes of one’s preferred administration. But yeah we all think you’re still above it all.



Risible.

No-one is protesting deportations. They are protesting the lawless, fascist tactics. — Questioner

Yes. These Trump apologists are simply incapable of just saying “yeah this is wrong.” Gotta be false equivalence and whataboutism. How intellectually lazy— and boring.

I guess someone has to say it: No one gives a shit about what you think. :victory:

Why, why, why??!

Oh wait…Just more whataboutism. :yawn:

Warrantless home entry policies that ignore judicial warrant requirements.

Expanded mandatory detention without bond opportunities.

Allegations of racial profiling and suspicionless stops.

Reduced procedural protections in sensitive community locations.

Lowered internal oversight and accountability. — praxis

The targeting of specific states based upon partisan metrics.

The breakdown of established protocols of cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement.

The effort to establish ICE prisons in all states through private contracts.

The incredible amount of money legislated for the operations. — Paine

:up:

So basically more whataboutism. Put in a more numeric way: it’s wrong that person A lied 10 times; it’s also wrong when person B lies 1000 times. But 10 and 1000 are different, and the 10 doesn’t justify the 1000. False equivalence and whataboutism is truly rampant.

Must all be delusions of the liberal media bubble. Now about those millions of illegals voting for democrats…oh and the election was stolen and vaccines cause autism and …

You’re clearly acting on bad faith. Time for him to dip out in indignant disgust.

Why don’t you stick to commenting on things where you can skate by on fluff. In this case, there are actual facts— so better you stay clear.

Ignoring your emotions and accusations about how bad faith and mean everyone who disagrees with you is, you’ve so far made the mistake of making two factual claims. One about Obama and his deportations, the other about millions of illegal immigrants voting. Both are so stupid it’s embarrassing, particularly the latter.

It’s the same pattern with you apparently: wade into a topic you know nothing about except for some slogans or talking points, posture as an expert and objective observer “above it all,” feel entitled to lecture others about how bias and emotional they are, then when confronted with refutation — “dip out,” or “see your way out.”

Yes, please do, but next time spare everyone the time and simply keep for mouth shut. :up: