Best Of

Liz Cheney
@Liz_Cheney
Here is some truth: Putin invaded Ukraine. NATO is the most successful military alliance in history. Since 1945, American leadership has ensured freedom and security for ourselves and millions of others around the world. Together with our allies, we defeated the Soviet Union—an empire so evil it had to build gulags and walls to keep its own people in. Destroying America’s alliances and abandoning the cause of freedom is morally and strategically indefensible. Putin will pocket Trump’s naive concessions and demand much more. Appeasement makes a wider war more likely, not less.

@realDonaldTrump
,
@JDVance
, and
@elonmusk
have made clear who they are. Only fools—or Kremlin tools—would abandon NATO, side with Russia, and demand Ukraine surrender in the face of Putin’s brutal aggression.

https://x.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1896287164075323775

I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.

Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.

We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)

Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US.
The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.

Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order.
No skin in the game, no say.

All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.

I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.

The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.

Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.

What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia?
I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.

Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?

Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.

Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.

Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.

Eventually, yes.

And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.

Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring
peace, it enables genocide.

I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?

Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade

Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.

Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.

In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9

In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.

So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from
now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.

I can well believe that they plan to do all
those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.

May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a
Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?

Maybe you could actually READ you daft fuckwit - I was asking for John Lilburne's explanation of his supposition that hundreds of thousands would be killed if Ukraine surrendered. Genocide wasn't mentioned.

It was in the other post line to which you originally replied on. But of course truth doesn’t matter to you. Just your master’s bidding.

This conversation is showing you up to be a complete loon. I questioned a claim that Putin would slaughter hundreds of thousands post-"surrender". Now I am apparently twisting the meaning of genocide by using the frames of reference given in the original post?

As for 'my master's bidding' - I don't have a master, and that allows me to speak as I find. Perhaps you should think about who has benefitted you, and how that has informed your own viewpoint, because your above post reads like classic projection to me.

The original post that I replied to - and where you responded to me - talked about genocide and you responded with a straw man on 200,000+ deaths

I know that you have consistently parroted Russian propaganda lines from MH17 onward. But I forget you are a truth seeker who treats all statements by western governments with scepticism. And yet, somehow, you always end up sharing the same position as the Russians.

But you’re right. I’ve no evidence that you are paid by the Russians. May be you are just a fool instead.

Dear God, This was the post I replied to:

Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring
peace, it enables genocide.

200,000+ is the minimum number that that comment could have been referring to. So it wasn't any kind of 'straw man' - it was a conservative summation of the statement I took issue with.

Quite. The fact that Putin started a war that has killed well over 200,000 people shouldn't prejudice us against his peaceful intentions.

That wins the "comment of the month" award.

So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.

(PS: there will be a deal.)

A good deal is ideal, but no deal is better than a bad deal.

And the only way to get a good deal is to be prepared to accept walking away with no deal.

You should have learnt that lesson five years ago.

It's great fun playing with the lives of thousands of people you don't know, isn't it.

He's not playing with anything, this same argument was made 3 years ago for crying out loud. For one thing advising Ukraine to concede its territory is also playing with the lives of thousands by submitting them to Russian rule forever. But more fundamentally it's deferring to whether Ukraine and its people feel the cost of continuing is worth it and supporting them if they do.

Reasonable people may differ about that position, but the 'playing with lives' argument is as silly as the other one from 3 years ago 'hurr hurr, I don't see you going on the front line'.

There is no plan anywhere to do what the PB Ukraine ultras want and are advocating.

Despite the constant whining on here, all that is being talked about is more of the same of the last three years.

Now, it has long been my position that Ukraine should stop fighting when Ukraine wants to stop fighting. But the very controlled aid it has been getting is about to become further restricted. So Zelensky must navigate within those constraints and I have no doubt that he will and a deal will be done.

More of the same is the right thing to do.

The UK alone is richer than Russia.

The UK and Europe and other assorted allies are considerably wealthier than Russia. We can continue more of the same with or without America.

So what do we think Starmer's plan will be. Invasion of Russia or ceasefire somewhere along today's positions.

I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.

Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.

We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)

Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US.
The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.

Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order.
No skin in the game, no say.

All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.

I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.

The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.

Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.

What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia?
I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.

Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?

Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.

Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.

Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.

Eventually, yes.

And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.

Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring
peace, it enables genocide.

I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?

Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade

Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.

Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.

In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9

In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.

So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from
now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.

I can well believe that they plan to do all
those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.

May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a
Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?

Maybe you could actually READ you daft fuckwit - I was asking for John Lilburne's explanation of his supposition that hundreds of thousands would be killed if Ukraine surrendered. Genocide wasn't mentioned.

It was in the other post line to which you originally replied on. But of course truth doesn’t matter to you. Just your master’s bidding.

This conversation is showing you up to be a complete loon. I questioned a claim that Putin would slaughter hundreds of thousands post-"surrender". Now I am apparently twisting the meaning of genocide by using the frames of reference given in the original post?

As for 'my master's bidding' - I don't have a master, and that allows me to speak as I find. Perhaps you should think about who has benefitted you, and how that has informed your own viewpoint, because your above post reads like classic projection to me.

The original post that I replied to - and where you responded to me - talked about genocide and you responded with a straw man on 200,000+ deaths

I know that you have consistently parroted Russian propaganda lines from MH17 onward. But I forget you are a truth seeker who treats all statements by western governments with scepticism. And yet, somehow, you always end up sharing the same position as the Russians.

But you’re right. I’ve no evidence that you are paid by the Russians. May be you are just a fool instead.

Dear God, This was the post I replied to:

Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring
peace, it enables genocide.

200,000+ is the minimum number that that comment could have been referring to. So it wasn't any kind of 'straw man' - it was a conservative summation of the statement I took issue with.

Did you read the Wikipedia article I posted? Or do you regard it as anti-Russian propaganda?

No, sorry, I was too busy defending myself from accusations of redefining genocide and making straw men for numbers that you had put forward. I can't see it in the thread, so if you wish to repost it, I'll read it.

Russians. It's what they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes. Along with a prediction that what the Russians will do to Ukrainian intelligentsia if they win will look rather like Katyń

Sure. The streak of brutality that runs through Russian culture predates the Soviets - it even predates Peter the Great. I know that. I am not actually defending the invasion (I never have) or suggesting that Putin has "peaceful intentions". I took took issue with your statement because I see Russia killing 200,000 as a consequence of a ceasefire (or Ukrainian surrender as you put it) as extremely unlikely.

Russia can already (and does) kill people within the Ukrainian territory it holds. I see peace as making such killings less likely, due to such events not being camouflaged by the fog of war. I can certainly see opponents of Russia being targeted, but I would also imagine that they would be allowed to depart Russian-held territory as part of the peace deal (in exchange for those loyal to Russia being permitted to leave Ukrainian-held territory). So all in all, I see less Ukrainian people dying at the hands of Russia as a result of a peace deal, rather than more.

I can't share your optimism.

I think it's a fairly dispassionate analysis.

Indeed. Just wrong. The Russians will commit even more genocide in whatever part of Ukraine they occupy after peace is declared

"Even more genocide". Are there degrees in it now. You see what Hamas had done to you. Using their talking points you are now using the word as they want you to use it, as a variable phenomenon, rather than an absolute state.

The Russian military committed large scale war crimes as part of their invasion. They will undoubtedly commit more if they advance further.

They have committed such war crimes in Chechnya, Syria and Ukraine. It’s what they do.

What has that got to do with Hamas?

We are not facing the USSR.

We are facing Russia; a smaller, less-powerful country, with a much smaller economy. And no Ukrainians...

Too many people seem to think we are still facing the USSR; the giant that spanned Asia and half of Europe. Tens of millions of those European 'Soviets' are now on our side, and fearful of Russian aims.

The only way Putin can beat us is politically; and we risk letting him do that.

still has a bloody great nuclear arsenal though. We are also dealing with the fact our army is about 20% of what it was even 30 years ago.

A nuclear arsenal it cannot practically use.

What a pathetic defeatist view you have.

well you can alway go and fight yourself - or do you want others to do that?

There are already others willing to do it - the Ukrainians.

We just need to send them the materiel and support they need to finish the job.

oh come on there has been a stalemate for over a year (look at the maps ) - prolonging this is not going to lead to victory its just going to lead to more deaths - Stop being so deluded - I think we in the west hve go so used to gaining victory over the years that we think its our right - sometimes real situations occur where victory is not possible

Whether or not too many Ukrainian sons have died is not a decision for us, or the West. It’s a decision for them. They are literally fighting for the survival of their country. I really hope that should Britain find itself in such a position, our allies are not making the same pathetic arguments as yours. Your arguments are straight out of the Putin propaganda book.

I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.

Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.

We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)

Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US.
The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.

Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order.
No skin in the game, no say.

All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.

I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.

The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.

Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.

What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia?
I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.

Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?

Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.

Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.

Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.

Eventually, yes.

And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.

Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring
peace, it enables genocide.

I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?

Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade

Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.

Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.

In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9

In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.

So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from
now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.

I can well believe that they plan to do all
those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.

May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a
Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?

Maybe you could actually READ you daft fuckwit - I was asking for John Lilburne's explanation of his supposition that hundreds of thousands would be killed if Ukraine surrendered. Genocide wasn't mentioned.

It was in the other post line to which you originally replied on. But of course truth doesn’t matter to you. Just your master’s bidding.

This conversation is showing you up to be a complete loon. I questioned a claim that Putin would slaughter hundreds of thousands post-"surrender". Now I am apparently twisting the meaning of genocide by using the frames of reference given in the original post?

As for 'my master's bidding' - I don't have a master, and that allows me to speak as I find. Perhaps you should think about who has benefitted you, and how that has informed your own viewpoint, because your above post reads like classic projection to me.

The original post that I replied to - and where you responded to me - talked about genocide and you responded with a straw man on 200,000+ deaths

I know that you have consistently parroted Russian propaganda lines from MH17 onward. But I forget you are a truth seeker who treats all statements by western governments with scepticism. And yet, somehow, you always end up sharing the same position as the Russians.

But you’re right. I’ve no evidence that you are paid by the Russians. May be you are just a fool instead.

Dear God, This was the post I replied to:

Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring
peace, it enables genocide.

200,000+ is the minimum number that that comment could have been referring to. So it wasn't any kind of 'straw man' - it was a conservative summation of the statement I took issue with.

Did you read the Wikipedia article I posted? Or do you regard it as anti-Russian propaganda?

No, sorry, I was too busy defending myself from accusations of redefining genocide and making straw men for numbers that you had put forward. I can't see it in the thread, so if you wish to repost it, I'll read it.

Russians. It's what they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes. Along with a prediction that what the Russians will do to Ukrainian intelligentsia if they win will look rather like Katyń

Sure. The streak of brutality that runs through Russian culture predates the Soviets - it even predates Peter the Great. I know that. I am not actually defending the invasion (I never have) or suggesting that Putin has "peaceful intentions". I took took issue with your statement because I see Russia killing 200,000 as a consequence of a ceasefire (or Ukrainian surrender as you put it) as extremely unlikely.

Russia can already (and does) kill people within the Ukrainian territory it holds. I see peace as making such killings less likely, due to such events not being camouflaged by the fog of war. I can certainly see opponents of Russia being targeted, but I would also imagine that they would be allowed to depart Russian-held territory as part of the peace deal (in exchange for those loyal to Russia being permitted to leave Ukrainian-held territory). So all in all, I see less Ukrainian people dying at the hands of Russia as a result of a peace deal, rather than more.

Hundreds of thousands is 100k+ not 200k plus. Even if you wanted to be pedantic about the plural, it begins at 100,001 and not 200,000.

And 100k or 200k+ dying as a result of a Russian victory is entirely plausible given what we've seen and the mass graves that have followed Russian occupation elsewhere.

It’s a ghastly subject but I think I’d say if it’s hundreds of thousands then it must be more than one hundred thousands, so I think it is 200,000+. Otherwise it would be more than a 100,000.
I guess the question is what would happen if the war ended with Ukraine surrendering. The deaths to now were under condition of war, and frankly even the best armies commit atrocities. Yes, even the glorious American, Canadian, Australian and British in WW2, fighting the very essence of evil, sometimes went too far, or executed prisoners etc. If Russia won by just grinding forward then you can imagine many, many more ancillary deaths. Bu5 if it’s a surrender? I’m not so sure.

If Ukraine surrenders, Russia will seek to turn them into compliant Russians. Anyone who objects, refuses to learn Russian, is a politician, intellectual or soldier, will be killed. Once the war is over the resources of the Russian state can be prioritised on genocide, the end of the war will increase deaths, not decrease them

So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.

(PS: there will be a deal.)

Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces

Idiot

You're an idiot if you think it is in the Ukrainians' interest to agree a ceasefire when 30% of their country is still occupied and the enemy are resorting to donkeys to supply the front line, allowing them to regroup and rearm. You fight wars to win. The correct thing to do is to continue grinding Russia into the dirt.