Obama vs. Putin - Ukraine a Modern Day Guan Du?

[WeiWenDi]

Also relevant:

I've not been shown enough proof that the refugees needed protecting ,or even needed to be refugees, before their countrymen took up arms.

Because you're not looking, it seems.

After the Crimea referendum, there were massive grassroots protests against the Maidan in the East - Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkiv - and these were largely peaceful, with people waving flags and defending public monuments with their bodies. These were largely dispersed by the Ukrainian secret police, who also brought in neo-Nazi thugs from the West to beat them up. The escalation happened first on the side of the new Ukrainian government - everywhere an anti-Maidan protest happened, it wasn't long before Right Sector goons arrived on the scene with brickbats and Molotovs and pistols.

Taking a queue from the Maidan protests themselves, it seems, protesters in the Donetsk Basin began occupying government offices and winning local officials over to their cause. They wanted to hold a local referendum modelled on that in Crimea, to leave Ukraine and join Russia. The 6 April protests were not violent; there was some property damage, however, when the local administration buildings were occupied. This was met with threats of military force from Kiev as part of an 'anti-terror' operation, and violent action against the protesters by the local SBU special police. It is only after this story broke that independent reports of armed separatists began surfacing - a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the Ukrainian government.

[Shikanosuke]

I'm not sure I've stated they are devoted, but they do seem to be devoting a fair amount of resources, and risking international intervention, to stabilizing their inevitable annexation of part of Ukraine if its just a whim.

Let's unpack this. According to you:

- Russia's actions in Ukraine are either 'a whim', or 'devoted to creating chaos'. No middle ground there.
- The annexation of Novorossiya is 'inevitable' and 'stabilising'.
- Russia is 'devoting a fair amount of resources' to this annexation.

I didn't say there wasn't middle ground, so I'm not sure you assumed this. I implied that Russia is in fact devoting a fair amount of resources to indicate this being something other than this just being a 'whim'. My Previous statement about not making a statement about 'devoted to creating chaos' would indicate I didn't favor this interpretation either. If anything my statements would indicate that I was in the middle ground.

Secondly, yes. At this point the conclusion to this situation would seem to have two likely scenarios. Either Ukraine takes back the territory, or it allows the regions to do as they wish (i.e. annex to Russia). I would assume Russian rule would mean stabilization of an otherwise lawless and chaotic environment. If there are more likely scenarios I'm more than happy to entertain them.

So again, for you, there's no middle ground between 'ignoring' your huge armed neighbour on the one hand; and expanding your provenly aggressive and colonialist military alliance of European powers with a penchant for genocidal total-war violence, up to its doorstep in violation of agreements to the contrary in the '70's, on the other.

You really enjoy this one, don't you?

I don't. I'm just not operating on the presumption you seem to think I am. And sure, theres middle ground. I don't think I debated that point. Ukraine could remain not in NATO and not part of Russia. It could be just Ukraine. What I said was it makes sense for NATO to want Ukraine, and for Ukraine to want NATO. That assumption is based on their porported fears of Russia, whether they be reasonable or not.

It's really interesting that James is bashing me by asserting there is no truth in Ukraine, only what's true for individuals, and then you asserting that the truth has to be either on one extreme or the other.

WWD, I find it more interesting that you think James is bashing you or that I'm asserting such a thing. I don't know if its your obsession with things Russian, or what, but you're either engaging with the issue with more hostility (from my perspective anyway) than usual or seeming to want to string anyone up who doesn't agree with you.

'Independent pro-Western government' is an oxymoron.

Ok. If Ukraine isn't/wasn't threatening Russia militarily, why does it care that a smaller and pro-Western government sits on its borders?

But you're doing it anyway 'coz you're stylish like that? Is that what you're trying to say?

Do you think that is what I'm trying to say? If so, ok. If not, then you're wasting both of our times here with unnecessary sarcasm.

But thanks anyway for proving my point that an 'independent pro-Western government' is an oxymoron. The West is after strategic and economic control at all costs. NATO is imperial.

Russia is after the same thing. This isn't irrational in the slightest for either power. At all costs? I think we're fairly short of 'at all costs'.

Because only Waco-style nutjobs would think that open calls for genocide on US-financed television stations are anything more than a friendly way to show camaraderie and affection, of course. And the government only calls you subhuman because they think you're a swell human. You know, like a submarine. A yellow one. Yeah, that's it.

This didn't really address my point. You don't have to convince me of the dubious nature of the folks in the new Ukrainian government, or whether we should actually be in bed with them. You don't have to convince me that folks may reason to fear the powers that be. But that doesn't erase the sequence of actions.

I'd move first too if the government I was staring down had people like this in it:

Well, that is fine. But when you 'move first' and fire on government armies don't cry foul when they respond. Don't cry you're the only victim in the situation when you fire first.

Because you're not looking, it seems.

After the Crimea referendum, there were massive grassroots protests against the Maidan in the East - Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkiv - and these were largely peaceful, with people waving flags and defending public monuments with their bodies. These were largely dispersed by the Ukrainian secret police, who also brought in neo-Nazi thugs from the West to beat them up. The escalation happened first on the side of the new Ukrainian government - everywhere an anti-Maidan protest happened, it wasn't long before Right Sector goons arrived on the scene with brickbats and Molotovs and pistols.

Taking a queue from the Maidan protests themselves, it seems, protesters in the Donetsk Basin began occupying government offices and winning local officials over to their cause. They wanted to hold a local referendum modelled on that in Crimea, to leave Ukraine and join Russia. The 6 April protests were not violent; there was some property damage, however, when the local administration buildings were occupied. This was met with threats of military force from Kiev as part of an 'anti-terror' operation, and violent action against the protesters by the local SBU special police. It is only after this story broke that independent reports of armed separatists began surfacing - a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the Ukrainian government.

I'm not not paying attention, I just don't find dispersing peaceful protests (though I certainly find such things wrong) or even threats of military force, are grounds or taking up arms and essentially starting a war with your respective government.

[WeiWenDi]

Secondly, yes. At this point the conclusion to this situation would seem to have two likely scenarios. Either Ukraine takes back the territory, or it allows the regions to do as they wish (i.e. annex to Russia). I would assume Russian rule would mean stabilization of an otherwise lawless and chaotic environment. If there are more likely scenarios I'm more than happy to entertain them.

Okay, how about this one for starters? Maybe not a 'likely' scenario at this point, but perhaps one worth pushing on.

It does Ukraine no favors to encourage it to persist in an armed conflict that it will lose one way or another. The U.S. and its allies would be much wiser to support a political compromise and to use whatever influence they have to persuade Ukraine’s government to accept it. Lieven outlines what such a compromise might look like:

This allows the possibility of a political solution, which can only consist of a special autonomous status for the Donbass region within Ukraine.

The West should take advantage of any cease-fire efforts to craft and strongly advocate this solution, and should then negotiate the precise terms with Kiev and Moscow. Legally and morally, there can be no Western objection to this — it is after all the solution that the West has put forward to end conflicts in many parts of the world. In another former Soviet territory, Nagorno-Karabakh, the West went further and proposed the loosest form of confederation with Azerbaijan. This solution corresponds to history and local reality; for the Donbass is in fact a region with its own culture and traditions.

To separate the Donbass in this way while preserving the principle of Ukrainian territorial integrity would allow the West to help in developing and consolidating the rest of Ukraine without constant disturbances in the East.

It's probably not a stable solution in the medium- to long-term, but as a short-term solution I think such a scenario would provide a suitable way to stop the violence that doesn't result in genocide.

What I said was it makes sense for NATO to want Ukraine, and for Ukraine to want NATO. That assumption is based on their porported fears of Russia, whether they be reasonable or not.

If you'd added that last bit it would have come across as less of a false dichotomy. But I would still take issue with it. Even if it makes sense from a Ukrainian perspective to want allied help against Russia, it's a completely insane move for NATO, since it just creates further political complications. NATO knows full well that its current strength is enough to stop any aggressive action by Russia even if it isn't up to a long-term full-scale land war with them. Adding the Ukraine is adding feet to the snake, to borrow the Chinese idiom.

WWD, I find it more interesting that you think James is bashing you or that I'm asserting such a thing.

If you don't want to be seen as making stupid false dichotomies, you shouldn't make stupid false dichotomies. Or at least should be more careful with your language.

As for James, this entire attitude of 'you're a biased Russia-propagandist and your arguments are worthless for reasons which I'm not going to elaborate on or bother defending because it's beneath me and not worth my time' is really starting to wear. Maybe you don't see it as bashing.

Ok. If Ukraine isn't/wasn't threatening Russia militarily, why does it care that a smaller and pro-Western government sits on its borders?

Let's use an analogy. Maybe that might make this point slightly easier for you to understand.

Mexico - not a military threat to US.

Mexico signs an economic-military association agreement with China and begins persecuting and arresting pro-American elements amongst its populace - perhaps reason for the US to be worried.

Russia is after the same thing.

They weren't to begin with. They demonstrated themselves willing to allow Ukraine significant economic leeway in exchange for political alignment or at least neutrality. (And just so we're clear - Yanukovych was not opposed to the EU Accession Agreement at first. He did one thing that might have signalled a pro-Russia shift and the West lost its shit.) Maybe do some catch-up reading?

This didn't really address my point.

Which was... that the pro-Russian rebels are comparable to a polygamous anti-government religious cult in Texas? What was your point anyway?

But when you 'move first' and fire on government armies don't cry foul when they respond. Don't cry you're the only victim in the situation when you fire first.

If the army were a little better at aiming at, you know, armed targets, that might be one thing. But they have killed 2,152 civilians, out of 2,593 overall deaths. And have been notoriously unsuccessful at hitting rebel targets.

Enough to make you wonder if they weren't doing it on purpose. Particularly when all these rebels can be easily identified by all this modern equipment you and James seem to think they have. And the accents!

But Nazis wouldn't deliberately hurt civilians or anything like that, would they?

I just don't find dispersing peaceful protests (though I certainly find such things wrong) or even threats of military force, are grounds or taking up arms and essentially starting a war with your respective government.

Oh, that is high-larious. Real knee-slapper. Go on and tell us another one.

[Shikanosuke]

It's probably not a stable solution in the medium- to long-term, but as a short-term solution I think such a scenario would provide a suitable way to stop the violence that doesn't result in genocide.

It is certainly a start, though I fear its still going to lead to absorption by Russia. But hey, I've already noted that I don't want a war so its better than nothing to me.

If you'd added that last bit it would have come across as less of a false dichotomy. But I would still take issue with it. Even if it makes sense from a Ukrainian perspective to want allied help against Russia, it's a completely insane move for NATO, since it just creates further political complications. NATO knows full well that its current strength is enough to stop any aggressive action by Russia even if it isn't up to a long-term full-scale land war with them. Adding the Ukraine is adding feet to the snake, to borrow the Chinese idiom.

Well, I guess I just don't see the addition of Ukraine to NATO as ruining the satisfactory work. That said, as someone who obviously supports NATO, I also don't care if we do get Ukraine. I'm actually with you, if this is your position, of Ukraine being a buffer state.

If you don't want to be seen as making stupid false dichotomies, you shouldn't make stupid false dichotomies. Or at least should be more careful with your language.

When I start making them, instead of them being assumed, I'll start actively monitoring I assure you. Again, youre on the hunt for Red-haters and I'm not sure whats going on.

As for James, this entire attitude of 'you're a biased Russia-propagandist and your arguments are worthless for reasons which I'm not going to elaborate on or bother defending because it's beneath me and not worth my time' is really starting to wear. Maybe you don't see it as bashing.

I don't get to tell you what to feel about the way people respond to you obviously. But I haven't seen the dialogue between you and James as bashing. I dont' see his asking for better sources on some of the things youve posted, be they in regards to Ukraine or Ferguson, to be fairly reasonable. If anything, considering our experiences here with Jame and his neutral character, I just don't get the jump to 'bashing'. If thats what you get, its your prerogative and I reckon between two of yall and I'll stay out.

Let's use an analogy. Maybe that might make this point slightly easier for you to understand.

Aww shucks. Thanks, pal! Maybe next time we can just avoid the debate and you can just draw a picture for me telling me who are the the bad guys?

Mexico - not a military threat to US.

Mexico signs an economic-military association agreement with China and begins persecuting and arresting pro-American elements amongst its populace - perhaps reason for the US to be worried.

Fair enough. I can see why Russia may be worried in that scenario. I'm not sure we'd be in the right funneling US personnel across the border, but yea I see that Russia could be worried.

Which was... that the pro-Russian rebels are comparable to a polygamous anti-government religious cult in Texas? What was your point anyway?

Only in the sense that individuals do not get to take up arms against a government and expect to be considered innocent bystanders in the ensuing conflict. The rebels make an active choice to engage in active military operations. They knew this would involve their civilian population centers. They knew the Ukranian military would come, and the ensuing civilian deaths would likely occur. As the proactive actors here, they don't get to be surprised or act as valiant defenders of someone uninjured. At least with me.

If the army were a little better at aiming at, you know, armed targets, that might be one thing. But they have killed 2,152 civilians, out of 2,593 overall deaths. And have been notoriously unsuccessful at hitting rebel targets.

Enough to make you wonder if they weren't doing it on purpose. Particularly when all these rebels can be easily identified by all this modern equipment you and James seem to think they have. And the accents!

I can't speak to the competency of the Ukranian military, though what little I've heard hasn't really spoken well of them as being much of a professional force. As for being easily identifiable, I'm not sure they are. While some of the troops (of which I'm not sure are always Ukranian rebels) involve military-esque outfits, alot of the folks armed with AKs and other Soviet-made weaponry.

But Nazis wouldn't deliberately hurt civilians or anything like that, would they?

Of course they would. Are they? And is the entire military Nazis and acting as Nazis? I don't know. You seem to though.

Oh, that is high-larious. Real knee-slapper. Go on and tell us another one.

[/quote]

Yes. The two situations are entirely analogous. I'm sure the constitutional/economic claims involved with the two issues are identical. Let me know when you'd like to come down off the sarcasm wagon and foster some conversation.

[WeiWenDi]

It is certainly a start, though I fear its still going to lead to absorption by Russia. But hey, I've already noted that I don't want a war so its better than nothing to me.

The thing is, this strategy has worked elsewhere in Russia's near abroad. I think the author mentioned Nagorno-Karabakh?

Well, I guess I just don't see the addition of Ukraine to NATO as ruining the satisfactory work.

Which satisfactory work is this, if I may ask?

I see little difference in his asking for better sources on some of the things youve posted, be they in regards to Ukraine or Ferguson, to be fairly reasonable. If anything, considering our experiences here with Jame and his neutral character, I just don't get the jump to 'bashing'.

Difference is, I actually do post links. He wants better-sourced ones, I provide those too.

And in exchange, I get a whole lot of condescension and grudging, backhanded admissions that some anonymous people somewhere might agree partially with me.

Maybe next time we can just avoid the debate and you can just draw a picture for me telling me who are the the bad guys?

This exact thought experiment was in the TAC link I posted.

Maybe next time you could skim them so I don't have to give you the SparksNotes version three posts down?

Fair enough. I can see why Russia may be worried in that scenario. I'm not sure we'd be in the right funneling US personnel across the border, but yea I see that Russia could be worried.

Whether or not we'd be in the right, damn straight we would be. I'm under no illusions there.

Only in the sense that individuals do not get to take up arms against a government and expect to be considered innocent bystanders in the ensuing conflict. The rebels make an active choice to engage in active military operations. They knew this would involve their civilian population centers. They knew the Ukranian military would come, and the ensuing civilian deaths would likely occur. As the proactive actors here, they don't get to be surprised or act as valiant defenders of someone uninjured. At least with me.

Mm-kay. I'll just mark you down here as supporting Sherman's March to the Sea, then.

And is the entire military Nazis and acting as Nazis? I don't know. You seem to though.

That's because certain battalions are Nazis, which have been fighting on the Donetsk front. And I never said anything about 'the entire military'.

Yes. The two situations are entirely analogous. I'm sure the constitutional/economic claims involved with the two issues are identical. Let me know when you'd like to come down off the sarcasm wagon and foster some conversation.

Hey, you're the one who made a blanket statement about protests not making armed rebellions ever justifiable. In spite of having a history of justifying an armed rebellion against the British government when it put down tax protests.

And tell me, did you feel the same way about the Maidan coup against Yanukovych being unjustifiable? Or is it just Russians who aren't allowed to defend themselves in your book?

[Shikanosuke]

The thing is, this strategy has worked elsewhere in Russia's near abroad. I think the author mentioned Nagorno-Karabakh?

It did. And thats good. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, and I'm for things such as this if they can decomplicate matter.

Which satisfactory work is this, if I may ask?

Ensuring a collective defense. I assume not provoking attacks would be a part of that.

Difference is, I actually do post links. He wants better-sourced ones, I provide those too.

And in exchange, I get a whole lot of condescension and grudging, backhanded admissions that some anonymous people somewhere might agree partially with me.

I apologize if I insinuated you didn't post follow-up links from more reputable sources, wasn't my intention but rather stating what I originally saw. As for the rest I haven't read too deeply into yalls facebooks back and forth. When I cursorily read some of the dialogue it at least began with requests for more reputable sources, which I think is not too unreasonable, but I don't what occurred further. I'll not comment on that and leave it between yall. Not trying to validate or villify here.

Whether or not we'd be in the right, damn straight we would be. I'm under no illusions there.

I suppose so.

Mm-kay. I'll just mark you down here as supporting Sherman's March to the Sea, then.

That'd make sense if the situations were analogous.

That's because certain battalions are Nazis, which have been fighting on the Donetsk front. And I never said anything about 'the entire military'.

No you didn't. But unless you specify nazi battalions, when you say 'nazi's would do this huh?' it implies anyone involved in the fighting are nazis would it not?

Hey, you're the one who made a blanket statement about protests not making armed rebellions ever justifiable. In spite of having a history of justifying an armed rebellion against the British government when it put down tax protests.

I don't really the situation as actually having been analogous. Also I don't think the British putting down the protests were the justification for the rebellion but rather the underlying representational issues we all know about. Were they identical to the reasons those in Ukraine attempted to be annexed by a larger power (whose forces surrounded the city?)

And tell me, did you feel the same way about the Maidan coup against Yanukovych being unjustifiable? Or is it just Russians who aren't allowed to defend themselves in your book?

I sympathized with the Ukrainians protesting as I knew they're government was corrupt. I'm not sure I was ever for an open rebellion.

And WWD get real man. Russians are ever allowed to defend themselves. Don't you know anything? Duh. Its obvious everyone on this thread, save you, being Westerners, hate Russia and Russians. We have an ingrained mistrust of them and indoctrinated to believe they are the KGB boogeymen in the night secretly plotting to unleash communism all over the surrounding areas. It is incomprehensible that we will be fair with Russians, give them the benefit of the doubt, or treat with anything but disdain as a either human beings or a sovereign nation. I'm glad we had you to remind us that we're all akin to 1970's Red Scare folks who hate Russians.

(/s)

[WeiWenDi]

It did. And thats good. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, and I'm for things such as this if they can decomplicate matter.

Admittedly, it is a remote possibility at this point, now that the situation has escalated to this extent. Still worth a try.

Ensuring a collective defense. I assume not provoking attacks would be a part of that.

That's NATO's job description? Given its recent history, I could have sworn it was destabilising and overthrowing nearby regimes which didn't toe the line of American banking interests.

That'd make sense if the situations were analogous.

So, you're saying Confederate soldiers and guerrillas weren't firing at Union troops, therefore we should not have expected the Union troops to retaliate? How is the situation different here, other than the fact that Union troops caused proportionally far fewer civilian deaths?

No you didn't. But unless you specify nazi battalions, when you say 'nazi's would do this huh?' it implies anyone involved in the fighting are nazis would it not?

Azov Batallion still takes orders from the Maidanists in Kiev. And Kiev still recognises them as an acceptable armed force. They are lent legitimacy by the government. And they are fighting in this area. The salient fact is not how many Ukrainian troops are Nazis, the salient fact is that the Nazis are there and that they have the blessing of the 'government'. I am asking, is it believable that civilians would be left alone by troops like these?

Or that it is the rebels' fault that the Nazis would attack civilians?

Did you blame the French resistance for the crimes committed by the original Nazis?

Also I don't think the British putting down the protests were the justification for the rebellion but rather the underlying representational issues we all know about.

Once again, you apply a higher standard to these rebels than you do to any other group - Confederates or colonial rebels. You want history to understand and sympathise with the underlying causes for violent action of groups you like and identify with. But you ignore the underlying causes for violent action of groups you hate.

There are massive underlying economic and cultural reasons here, which you and James just piss away. Most of these rebels are locals, who speak Russian and do business in Russian, and whose livelihoods are likely to be frittered away by the instruments of global finance - the ECB and the IMF. They work in industries which the current band of pro-Western right-wingers and quislings are eager to sell off to Germany and France. Many of their families live and work in Russia, a situation which may be made prohibitively difficult by the manoeuvres of the current junta.

The situation is not perfectly analogous to the colonial revolt, but then again I don't think the colonial revolt was justified. Here I think these rebels actually have a better case, given these underlying causes, given that the violence originated on the Maidanist side, and given that the Maidanists have openly declared on the official government website that they consider the rebels 'subhuman', and live on TV that they want to kill off one and a half million people in the region.

I sympathized with the Ukrainians protesting as I knew they're government was corrupt. I'm not sure I was ever for an open rebellion.

Nonetheless, an open rebellion was what happened. I didn't see you demanding that they be condemned, the same way you and James are demanding these rebels be condemned.

And WWD get real man. Russians are ever allowed to defend themselves. Don't you know anything? Duh. Its obvious everyone on this thread, save you, being Westerners, hate Russia and Russians. We have an ingrained mistrust of them and indoctrinated to believe they are the KGB boogeymen in the night secretly plotting to unleash communism all over the surrounding areas. It is incomprehensible that we will be fair with Russians, give them the benefit of the doubt, or treat with anything but disdain as a either human beings or a sovereign nation. I'm glad we had you to remind us that we're all akin to 1970's Red Scare folks who hate Russians.

It would be funny if you hadn't been projecting and showing your double standards all this time.

Don't quit your day job, if you've got one.

[Shikanosuke]

It would be funny if you hadn't been projecting and showing your double standards all this time.

Don't quit your day job, if you've got one.

Perhaps it's the internet's inability to convey tone properly but this, added in conjunction with other comments, has convinced me we've passed actual substantive conversation and moved firmly and solely into griping and sniping. I'll return when the hunt has been concluded.

[WeiWenDi]

Perhaps it's the internet's inability to convey tone properly but this, added in conjunction with other comments, has convinced me we've passed actual substantive conversation and moved firmly and solely into griping and sniping. I'll return when the hunt has been concluded.

If I've gone over into sniping territory, it's because those provoking it don't actually have any arguments.

For example, you first make a sweeping categorical statement about peaceful protests turning violent not being justified. I call out the fact that you have supported violent protests in the past and continue to assert the justification and indeed justice of said violent protests. You then engage in handwaving about how the situations are different without offering any qualification to your original argument, which is intellectually dishonest. How do you expect me to react?

Besides, there's plenty to snipe about here.

And this attitude in the media might help to explain partially this common attitude I'm seeing of 'Nazis? Meh. But fuzzy photos of something that might be Russian tanks? EVIL! CONDEMN! DO SOMETHING!'

[Shikanosuke]

If I've gone over into sniping territory, it's because those provoking it don't actually have any arguments.

As I doubt this is a vague reference to the world, I think you simply mean James and I. I don't believe either one of us really been very (relative) aggressive in this particular thread. As for your latter statement, I disagree.

For example, you first make a sweeping categorical statement about peaceful protests turning violent not being justified. I call out the fact that you have supported violent protests in the past and continue to assert the justification and indeed justice of said violent protests. You then engage in handwaving about how the situations are different without offering any qualification to your original argument, which is intellectually dishonest. How do you expect me to react?

Not being justification for subsequent events, not being 'not justified'. I typically am able to admit when I'm wrong, hypocritical, or applying a double-standard. But I'm also not going to agree that situations are identical either. How do I expect you to react? Not like we're out hunting communists and you're in the line of fire.

Besides, there's plenty to snipe about here.

And this attitude in the media might help to explain partially this common attitude I'm seeing of 'Nazis? Meh. But fuzzy photos of something that might be Russian tanks? EVIL! CONDEMN! DO SOMETHING!'

I can't speak for all of the West and I have little control over Western media. I don't think I've been ambivalent about calling out Nazis in the new Ukrainian government. I don't think I've been ambivalent about my concern over them. I don't think I've been ambivalent about not wanting to go to war over this. I also think since the discussion began I've even agreed I'd rather see Ukraine serve as a (united) buffer state, part of neither Russia nor NATO.

That said, I think one can be all these things and still have concerns over Russia's actions and intentions. I think one can have those concerns and not be considering Russia is about to blitzkrieg across Europe, that they're evil, or that we need immediate lethal action?