White House “Squelched” The Idea Of Peace Talks Between Ukraine And Russia
I shouldn’t have to do this, but I’m going to preface this article by reminding you that many things can be true at once, including all of the following: Putin is a bad and dangerous guy; Ukraine is an unbelievably corrupt nation; the American taxpayer “aid” going to Ukraine has all the hallmarks of being a money laundering scheme; war is bad for everyone.
After a year of conflict and 113 billion taxpayer dollars sent to a corrupt foreign nation for a proxy war against an extremely volatile global threat, people are starting to wonder what’s going on with the peace talks that should certainly be taking place. But peace isn’t as lucrative as war, nor does it afford anyone very much power, and the political elites really only care about money and power. They don’t want the war to end because that is not in their best interest. I’m not exaggerating. They literally don’t want to end the conflict and they are actively working against that end.
The New York Times recently explained that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, suggested facilitating peace talks to avoid senseless fighting that accomplishes nothing, but that “the White House quickly squelched such talk.” And by “such talk,” they mean talk of facilitating peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. The American taxpayers, the Ukrainian civilians, and global peace be damned. The political elites want a war, so war it is!
Keep Reading
Jerry Seinfeld Out-Heckles Pro-Palestine Protester
Kimberly Guilfoyle Is OUT! See Why:
Ilhan Omar Is In BIG TROUBLE!
Gunman Opens Fire On News Station
Ilhan Omar’s Explosive Wealth Scandal Exposed
Join the Conversation
Share your perspective and reply to other readers.
Create your account
Create your free Chicks on the Right account without leaving this article.
Welcome back
Log in and continue the conversation on this page.
5 Comments
“Come on Wall Street, don’t be slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go
There’s plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of its trade”
(Country Joe and the Fish – 1967)
Dope smoking hippies had this figured out half a century ago: big business and politicians sacrificing soldiers and civilians to line their pockets with taxpayer’s money.
Putin is a bad and dangerous guy
So is anyone when you back them into a corner and they can’t find any way to resolve their problems other than violence. Putin isn’t the good guy of this story but he’s clearly not the bad guy.
If Putin isn’t the bad guy here, then moral declarations such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have no meaning at all. For someone who started a soft war in 2014 (through the annexation of Crimea), escalated it to a hot war 2022, bombs civilians infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, and residential blocks, forcibly relocates civilians to areas deep within Russia, and sends tens of thousands of his own people to their (needless) deaths, I struggle with the idea that Putin “isn’t the bad guy here”.
How dare he act for what he believes are the best interest of his people and his country.
The article to which we are responding is very much about the US’s involvement in needlessly extending this war, which was going on as far back as gasp 2014.
The Ukrainians were regularly hiding military resources in civilian structures therefore they were no longer civilian in nature.
How exactly is removing civilians from a war zone a bad thing?
There is a concept known as the anti-hero. He’s generally the guy who does bad things for good reasons. You can view what he’s doing as bad, and war by nature is not good, but you are very clearly filtering it through loads of anti Russian propaganda and thus making it far worse than it is.
Putin has never, ever acted in the best interest of his people, only for him and his ideals (which, again, do not involve the best interest of his people).
Unless you have evidence that every single civilian structure that has been hit so far has held military equipment/supplies, your claims fall flat. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60675599 According to this (and plenty of other sources), a maternity ward bombings killed three people. Do people count as military resources?
How exactly is removing civilians from a warzone a bad thing? Well, when Putin and Zelenskyy organized a civilian evacuation corridor, the Russian military struck it with artillery. That seems to me to be a really bad, not good thing. Second, the practice of forced assimilation (removing the children from a conflict zone and relocating them deeper within the territory of the opposing force), is one of the hallmarks of genocide. Thirdly, nothing the Russians have done during this conflict has ever been out of care or concern for noncombatants. If the Russians actually cared, Bucha would never have become a cesspool of death (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre )
This war, started by the Russians, has never, ever been about protecting Russia. And for anyone from the U.S. to believe the garbage that comes from Putin and the Russian government is astounding. They fought us and blocked us every step of the way from 1945 to 1992, every single second was consumed with one overarching thought of how to defeat, how to best the United States. Now the Soviet Union has been gone for 31 years and the Russians are suddenly the good guys? By starting a war… just because?