Ukraine

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Pap said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0aLALNmX_Q

This was great. Especially the point about Western governments fueling the fire rather than engaging in diplomacy.

"A long, drawn-out insurgency in Ukraine would be great for the gangster hawks in Washington, it's what they dream of, 'playing the game' as they do, 'with the bravery of being out of range.'" 

Amen to that. 

I'm sorry, this response by Roger is wrong on the facts in several ways.  

1. The western powers are engaging in diplomacy, every day, to end the war.  Israel has been trying to act as an intermediary as has Macron consistently.  Additionally, Ukraine and Russia have discussions every single day to open humanitarian corridors and try to find a way to end the war.  

2. HIs comment that the west should stop arming Ukraine is FUCKING BULLSHIT and pisses me off.  Does he think THAT is going to advance the cause of peace?  Does he think this is a war that is being mutually waged in a place like Flanders between France and Austro-Hungary?  Give me a fucking break.  If the West stops helping Ukraine, Ukraine collapses.  

3. His comment about the Azov and other battalions is totally overblown.  Yes, there are some neo-Nazis in Ukraine and have been just like there are all over Europe (and the US).  But Azov is 2500 soldiers and it's estimated that 10-20% on neos.  As a percentage of the Ukrainian military that's .01%.  As a percentage of the 43MM Ukrainians, that's less than a rounding error.

I like Roger, but as usual, he might have a good, cynical view of the world, but he loses me in the details.  The world isn't as simple as he would like it to be.  

To address the bolded....

1) Apology accepted. 

2) Isn't Russia saying one thing at times, and then doing another? Like breaking cease-fire agreements and putting civilians at risk. Those discussions don't appear very fruitful (but maybe they are).  Also, and I've wanted confirmation on this because I heard it from an unreliable source, but has Zelensky been offered peace in exchange for Ukraine never joining NATO? And if so, why'd he turn that down?

3) I didn't take it has him saying we should stop arming Ukraine altogether, but that he's suggesting that Western powers prefer war to peace. You mentioned the western powers engaging in diplomacy. Well how so? I know we're sending weapons (of course). But what exactly are we doing diplomatically other than the sanctions from weeks ago and the oil boycott? 

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Pap said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0aLALNmX_Q

This was great. Especially the point about Western governments fueling the fire rather than engaging in diplomacy.

"A long, drawn-out insurgency in Ukraine would be great for the gangster hawks in Washington, it's what they dream of, 'playing the game' as they do, 'with the bravery of being out of range.'" 

Amen to that. 

I'm sorry, this response by Roger is wrong on the facts in several ways.  

1. The western powers are engaging in diplomacy, every day, to end the war.  Israel has been trying to act as an intermediary as has Macron consistently.  Additionally, Ukraine and Russia have discussions every single day to open humanitarian corridors and try to find a way to end the war.  

2. HIs comment that the west should stop arming Ukraine is FUCKING BULLSHIT and pisses me off.  Does he think THAT is going to advance the cause of peace?  Does he think this is a war that is being mutually waged in a place like Flanders between France and Austro-Hungary?  Give me a fucking break.  If the West stops helping Ukraine, Ukraine collapses.  

3. His comment about the Azov and other battalions is totally overblown.  Yes, there are some neo-Nazis in Ukraine and have been just like there are all over Europe (and the US).  But Azov is 2500 soldiers and it's estimated that 10-20% on neos.  As a percentage of the Ukrainian military that's .01%.  As a percentage of the 43MM Ukrainians, that's less than a rounding error.

I like Roger, but as usual, he might have a good, cynical view of the world, but he loses me in the details.  The world isn't as simple as he would like it to be.  

To address the bolded....

1) Apology accepted. 

2) Isn't Russia saying one thing at times, and then doing another? Like breaking cease-fire agreements and putting civilians at risk. Those discussions don't appear very fruitful (but maybe they are).  Also, and I've wanted confirmation on this because I heard it from an unreliable source, but has Zelensky been offered peace in exchange for Ukraine never joining NATO? And if so, why'd he turn that down?

3) I didn't take it has him saying we should stop arming Ukraine altogether, but that he's suggesting that Western powers prefer war to peace. You mentioned the western powers engaging in diplomacy. Well how so? I know we're sending weapons (of course). But what exactly are we doing diplomatically other than the sanctions from weeks ago and the oil boycott? 

2. Yes, Russia is saying one thing and doing another.  But Russia is the enemy here. Russia has said peace could be obtained with 1. Ukraine not joining NATO (Ukraine cannot give up their sovereignty like that) 2. They demilitarize (which makes them a sitting duck) and 3. Give us large parts of eastern Ukraine.  These are unserious offers by the Russians, designed to be turned down.  So it's not negotiating in good faith.  None of them should be acceptable to the Ukrainians.  Perhaps they could give up Donbas or something, but no more.  

3. https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-putin-talks-russia-ukraine-diplomacy/  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-is-working-with-israel-turkey-set-up-talks-with-russia-says-negotiator-2022-03-13/

And I think anyone that thinks the Biden admin, Germany, France, the UK prefers that Ukraine and Russia fight a war perpetually rather than have peace is fucking insane.  Are you serious with this?  To me, it's crazy conspiracy talk by Waters and no different than the bullshit that right wing throws out every day.  This is not the US's best interest right now.  And to blame Hillary?  Give me a break.  

well, if he wanted his trump supporting fans back, he just did. lol

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Pap said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0aLALNmX_Q

This was great. Especially the point about Western governments fueling the fire rather than engaging in diplomacy.

"A long, drawn-out insurgency in Ukraine would be great for the gangster hawks in Washington, it's what they dream of, 'playing the game' as they do, 'with the bravery of being out of range.'" 

Amen to that. 

I'm sorry, this response by Roger is wrong on the facts in several ways.  

1. The western powers are engaging in diplomacy, every day, to end the war.  Israel has been trying to act as an intermediary as has Macron consistently.  Additionally, Ukraine and Russia have discussions every single day to open humanitarian corridors and try to find a way to end the war.  

2. HIs comment that the west should stop arming Ukraine is FUCKING BULLSHIT and pisses me off.  Does he think THAT is going to advance the cause of peace?  Does he think this is a war that is being mutually waged in a place like Flanders between France and Austro-Hungary?  Give me a fucking break.  If the West stops helping Ukraine, Ukraine collapses.  

3. His comment about the Azov and other battalions is totally overblown.  Yes, there are some neo-Nazis in Ukraine and have been just like there are all over Europe (and the US).  But Azov is 2500 soldiers and it's estimated that 10-20% on neos.  As a percentage of the Ukrainian military that's .01%.  As a percentage of the 43MM Ukrainians, that's less than a rounding error.

I like Roger, but as usual, he might have a good, cynical view of the world, but he loses me in the details.  The world isn't as simple as he would like it to be.  

To address the bolded....

1) Apology accepted. 

2) Isn't Russia saying one thing at times, and then doing another? Like breaking cease-fire agreements and putting civilians at risk. Those discussions don't appear very fruitful (but maybe they are).  Also, and I've wanted confirmation on this because I heard it from an unreliable source, but has Zelensky been offered peace in exchange for Ukraine never joining NATO? And if so, why'd he turn that down?

3) I didn't take it has him saying we should stop arming Ukraine altogether, but that he's suggesting that Western powers prefer war to peace. You mentioned the western powers engaging in diplomacy. Well how so? I know we're sending weapons (of course). But what exactly are we doing diplomatically other than the sanctions from weeks ago and the oil boycott? 

2. Yes, Russia is saying one thing and doing another.  But Russia is the enemy here. Russia has said peace could be obtained with 1. Ukraine not joining NATO (Ukraine cannot give up their sovereignty like that) 2. They demilitarize (which makes them a sitting duck) and 3. Give us large parts of eastern Ukraine.  These are unserious offers by the Russians, designed to be turned down.  So it's not negotiating in good faith.  None of them should be acceptable to the Ukrainians.  Perhaps they could give up Donbas or something, but no more.  

3. https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-putin-talks-russia-ukraine-diplomacy/  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-is-working-with-israel-turkey-set-up-talks-with-russia-says-negotiator-2022-03-13/

And I think anyone that thinks the Biden admin, Germany, France, the UK prefers that Ukraine and Russia fight a war perpetually rather than have peace is fucking insane.  Are you serious with this?  To me, it's crazy conspiracy talk by Waters and no different than the bullshit that right wing throws out every day.  This is not the US's best interest right now.  And to blame Hillary?  Give me a break.  

It's definitely not out of the realm of possibility. Lord knows those military contractor lobbyists in Washington are powerful. I think it's more insane to rule it out as an impossibility. 

As for NATO, I don't really get how it all works. Are they even able to join NATO right now? Until you answer, I'll proceed as if they can. So they could join NATO and then have the backing of all the NATO countries. Or they could not join NATO (basically just keeping the status quo since they were never a part of it) and the Russians would end their invasion. As for demilitarizing and giving up parts of Eastern Ukraine, couldn't that be negotiated? Like "Okay we won't join NATO but you can't expect us to demilitarize if we do that." If Putin expects them to not join NATO and demilitarize, that's obviously not going to happen. 

And as for those large part of Eastern Ukraine, wasn't that initially all Russia said they were going to try to take?

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Pap said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0aLALNmX_Q

This was great. Especially the point about Western governments fueling the fire rather than engaging in diplomacy.

"A long, drawn-out insurgency in Ukraine would be great for the gangster hawks in Washington, it's what they dream of, 'playing the game' as they do, 'with the bravery of being out of range.'" 

Amen to that. 

I'm sorry, this response by Roger is wrong on the facts in several ways.  

1. The western powers are engaging in diplomacy, every day, to end the war.  Israel has been trying to act as an intermediary as has Macron consistently.  Additionally, Ukraine and Russia have discussions every single day to open humanitarian corridors and try to find a way to end the war.  

2. HIs comment that the west should stop arming Ukraine is FUCKING BULLSHIT and pisses me off.  Does he think THAT is going to advance the cause of peace?  Does he think this is a war that is being mutually waged in a place like Flanders between France and Austro-Hungary?  Give me a fucking break.  If the West stops helping Ukraine, Ukraine collapses.  

3. His comment about the Azov and other battalions is totally overblown.  Yes, there are some neo-Nazis in Ukraine and have been just like there are all over Europe (and the US).  But Azov is 2500 soldiers and it's estimated that 10-20% on neos.  As a percentage of the Ukrainian military that's .01%.  As a percentage of the 43MM Ukrainians, that's less than a rounding error.

I like Roger, but as usual, he might have a good, cynical view of the world, but he loses me in the details.  The world isn't as simple as he would like it to be.  

To address the bolded....

1) Apology accepted. 

2) Isn't Russia saying one thing at times, and then doing another? Like breaking cease-fire agreements and putting civilians at risk. Those discussions don't appear very fruitful (but maybe they are).  Also, and I've wanted confirmation on this because I heard it from an unreliable source, but has Zelensky been offered peace in exchange for Ukraine never joining NATO? And if so, why'd he turn that down?

3) I didn't take it has him saying we should stop arming Ukraine altogether, but that he's suggesting that Western powers prefer war to peace. You mentioned the western powers engaging in diplomacy. Well how so? I know we're sending weapons (of course). But what exactly are we doing diplomatically other than the sanctions from weeks ago and the oil boycott? 

2. Yes, Russia is saying one thing and doing another.  But Russia is the enemy here. Russia has said peace could be obtained with 1. Ukraine not joining NATO (Ukraine cannot give up their sovereignty like that) 2. They demilitarize (which makes them a sitting duck) and 3. Give us large parts of eastern Ukraine.  These are unserious offers by the Russians, designed to be turned down.  So it's not negotiating in good faith.  None of them should be acceptable to the Ukrainians.  Perhaps they could give up Donbas or something, but no more.  

3. https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-putin-talks-russia-ukraine-diplomacy/  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-is-working-with-israel-turkey-set-up-talks-with-russia-says-negotiator-2022-03-13/

And I think anyone that thinks the Biden admin, Germany, France, the UK prefers that Ukraine and Russia fight a war perpetually rather than have peace is fucking insane.  Are you serious with this?  To me, it's crazy conspiracy talk by Waters and no different than the bullshit that right wing throws out every day.  This is not the US's best interest right now.  And to blame Hillary?  Give me a break.  

It's definitely not out of the realm of possibility. Lord knows those military contractor lobbyists in Washington are powerful. I think it's more insane to rule it out as an impossibility. 

As for NATO, I don't really get how it all works. Are they even able to join NATO right now? Until you answer, I'll proceed as if they can. So they could join NATO and then have the backing of all the NATO countries. Or they could not join NATO (basically just keeping the status quo since they were never a part of it) and the Russians would end their invasion. As for demilitarizing and giving up parts of Eastern Ukraine, couldn't that be negotiated? Like "Okay we won't join NATO but you can't expect us to demilitarize if we do that." If Putin expects them to not join NATO and demilitarize, that's obviously not going to happen. 

And as for those large part of Eastern Ukraine, wasn't that initially all Russia said they were going to try to take?

1. Well all actual evidence points to the US not wanting the war to escalate.  So you can say it's not out of the realm of possibility, but Roger is saying that's what is actually happening.  He's wrong.  

2. Joining NATO requires an invitation.  A country must meet certain criteria, and the most important is to root out governmental corruption.  Ukraine is still rooting out the issues from the Yanukovych presidency, who was a crook and aligned with Russia.  But remember he was ousted in Euromaiden, as the country emphatically decided through popular uprising that it wanted to be aligned with teh West, not Russia.  This led immediately to the invasion of Crimea and then Donbas.  But again, why would Ukraine make any sort of promise to Russia that impairs its sovereignty?  I would be very surprised if they think they must do this to end the war.  The can win it.

3.  I don't know what you mean by 'initially part of Russia'.  It was part of the Soviet Union and then when de-Stalinization started after Stalin's death, the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic was formed, with Crimea as a part of it.  And when the USSR broke up in 91, the borders stayed.  It is ethnically Russian, but Miami is ethnically Cuban.  So whether that goes to Russia legally is probably one place where Ukraine could theoretically give. 

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Pap said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0aLALNmX_Q

This was great. Especially the point about Western governments fueling the fire rather than engaging in diplomacy.

"A long, drawn-out insurgency in Ukraine would be great for the gangster hawks in Washington, it's what they dream of, 'playing the game' as they do, 'with the bravery of being out of range.'" 

Amen to that. 

I'm sorry, this response by Roger is wrong on the facts in several ways.  

1. The western powers are engaging in diplomacy, every day, to end the war.  Israel has been trying to act as an intermediary as has Macron consistently.  Additionally, Ukraine and Russia have discussions every single day to open humanitarian corridors and try to find a way to end the war.  

2. HIs comment that the west should stop arming Ukraine is FUCKING BULLSHIT and pisses me off.  Does he think THAT is going to advance the cause of peace?  Does he think this is a war that is being mutually waged in a place like Flanders between France and Austro-Hungary?  Give me a fucking break.  If the West stops helping Ukraine, Ukraine collapses.  

3. His comment about the Azov and other battalions is totally overblown.  Yes, there are some neo-Nazis in Ukraine and have been just like there are all over Europe (and the US).  But Azov is 2500 soldiers and it's estimated that 10-20% on neos.  As a percentage of the Ukrainian military that's .01%.  As a percentage of the 43MM Ukrainians, that's less than a rounding error.

I like Roger, but as usual, he might have a good, cynical view of the world, but he loses me in the details.  The world isn't as simple as he would like it to be.  

To address the bolded....

1) Apology accepted. 

2) Isn't Russia saying one thing at times, and then doing another? Like breaking cease-fire agreements and putting civilians at risk. Those discussions don't appear very fruitful (but maybe they are).  Also, and I've wanted confirmation on this because I heard it from an unreliable source, but has Zelensky been offered peace in exchange for Ukraine never joining NATO? And if so, why'd he turn that down?

3) I didn't take it has him saying we should stop arming Ukraine altogether, but that he's suggesting that Western powers prefer war to peace. You mentioned the western powers engaging in diplomacy. Well how so? I know we're sending weapons (of course). But what exactly are we doing diplomatically other than the sanctions from weeks ago and the oil boycott? 

2. Yes, Russia is saying one thing and doing another.  But Russia is the enemy here. Russia has said peace could be obtained with 1. Ukraine not joining NATO (Ukraine cannot give up their sovereignty like that) 2. They demilitarize (which makes them a sitting duck) and 3. Give us large parts of eastern Ukraine.  These are unserious offers by the Russians, designed to be turned down.  So it's not negotiating in good faith.  None of them should be acceptable to the Ukrainians.  Perhaps they could give up Donbas or something, but no more.  

3. https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-putin-talks-russia-ukraine-diplomacy/  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-is-working-with-israel-turkey-set-up-talks-with-russia-says-negotiator-2022-03-13/

And I think anyone that thinks the Biden admin, Germany, France, the UK prefers that Ukraine and Russia fight a war perpetually rather than have peace is fucking insane.  Are you serious with this?  To me, it's crazy conspiracy talk by Waters and no different than the bullshit that right wing throws out every day.  This is not the US's best interest right now.  And to blame Hillary?  Give me a break.  

It's definitely not out of the realm of possibility. Lord knows those military contractor lobbyists in Washington are powerful. I think it's more insane to rule it out as an impossibility. 

As for NATO, I don't really get how it all works. Are they even able to join NATO right now? Until you answer, I'll proceed as if they can. So they could join NATO and then have the backing of all the NATO countries. Or they could not join NATO (basically just keeping the status quo since they were never a part of it) and the Russians would end their invasion. As for demilitarizing and giving up parts of Eastern Ukraine, couldn't that be negotiated? Like "Okay we won't join NATO but you can't expect us to demilitarize if we do that." If Putin expects them to not join NATO and demilitarize, that's obviously not going to happen. 

And as for those large part of Eastern Ukraine, wasn't that initially all Russia said they were going to try to take?

1. Well all actual evidence points to the US not wanting the war to escalate.  So you can say it's not out of the realm of possibility, but Roger is saying that's what is actually happening.  He's wrong.  

2. Joining NATO requires an invitation.  A country must meet certain criteria, and the most important is to root out governmental corruption.  Ukraine is still rooting out the issues from the Yanukovych presidency, who was a crook and aligned with Russia.  But remember he was ousted in Euromaiden, as the country emphatically decided through popular uprising that it wanted to be aligned with teh West, not Russia.  This led immediately to the invasion of Crimea and then Donbas.  But again, why would Ukraine make any sort of promise to Russia that impairs its sovereignty?  I would be very surprised if they think they must do this to end the war.  The can win it.

3.  I don't know what you mean by 'initially part of Russia'.  It was part of the Soviet Union and then when de-Stalinization started after Stalin's death, the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic was formed, with Crimea as a part of it.  And when the USSR broke up in 91, the borders stayed.  It is ethnically Russian, but Miami is ethnically Cuban.  So whether that goes to Russia legally is probably one place where Ukraine could theoretically give. 

I didn't say the bolded. I said in regards to those portions of Eastern Ukraine, "wasn't that (the land in Eastern Ukraine) initially all Russia said they were going to try to take?" And isn't that true? When everyone was talking about the impending invasion, all I was hearing is that Russia was going to try an take back some former USSR territory just over the border, but that's it. Obviously that's not how it went down though. 

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

And if the US was pleased with war, why do we continue to refuse to impose a no fly zone?  Why did we refuse to allow the Polish migs to enter war space from a US base?  We have had plenty of chances to escalate and haven't.

Because those actions would basically be a declaration of war from us. I'm not saying our leaders want us in the war. But as far as providing the weapons for a foreign war, there's nothing more American than that. 

Edit: Also, that politico link you posted doesn't work. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-putin-talks-russia-ukraine-diplomacy/

Okay this link works. But you posted it in response to me asking "What exactly are we doing diplomatically other than the sanctions from weeks ago and the oil boycott?" This article details France's diplomatic efforts, but what about the U.S.?

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

And if the US was pleased with war, why do we continue to refuse to impose a no fly zone?  Why did we refuse to allow the Polish migs to enter war space from a US base?  We have had plenty of chances to escalate and haven't.

Because those actions would basically be a declaration of war from us. I'm not saying our leaders want us in the war. But as far as providing the weapons for a foreign war, there's nothing more American than that. 

Edit: Also, that politico link you posted doesn't work. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-putin-talks-russia-ukraine-diplomacy/

Okay this link works. But you posted it in response to me asking "What exactly are we doing diplomatically other than the sanctions from weeks ago and the oil boycott?" This article details France's diplomatic efforts, but what about the U.S.?

Roger's criticism was of the West not engaging in diplomatic efforts, correct?  We are not a neutral arbiter.  It would not make sense for the US to try to broker a deal. 

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

And if the US was pleased with war, why do we continue to refuse to impose a no fly zone?  Why did we refuse to allow the Polish migs to enter war space from a US base?  We have had plenty of chances to escalate and haven't.

Because those actions would basically be a declaration of war from us. I'm not saying our leaders want us in the war. But as far as providing the weapons for a foreign war, there's nothing more American than that. 

Edit: Also, that politico link you posted doesn't work. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-putin-talks-russia-ukraine-diplomacy/

Okay this link works. But you posted it in response to me asking "What exactly are we doing diplomatically other than the sanctions from weeks ago and the oil boycott?" This article details France's diplomatic efforts, but what about the U.S.?

Roger's criticism was of the West not engaging in diplomatic efforts, correct?  We are not a neutral arbiter.  It would not make sense for the US to try to broker a deal. 

I'm not asking you about the West in general. I'm asking about the United States in particular. What are we doing diplomatically...if anything?

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mrussel1 said:

And if the US was pleased with war, why do we continue to refuse to impose a no fly zone?  Why did we refuse to allow the Polish migs to enter war space from a US base?  We have had plenty of chances to escalate and haven't.

Because those actions would basically be a declaration of war from us. I'm not saying our leaders want us in the war. But as far as providing the weapons for a foreign war, there's nothing more American than that. 

Edit: Also, that politico link you posted doesn't work. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-putin-talks-russia-ukraine-diplomacy/

Okay this link works. But you posted it in response to me asking "What exactly are we doing diplomatically other than the sanctions from weeks ago and the oil boycott?" This article details France's diplomatic efforts, but what about the U.S.?

Roger's criticism was of the West not engaging in diplomatic efforts, correct?  We are not a neutral arbiter.  It would not make sense for the US to try to broker a deal. 

I'm not asking you about the West in general. I'm asking about the United States in particular. What are we doing diplomatically...if anything?

My whole rant was against Roger's message, which I view as wrong on the merits.  I'm not saying that US is negotiating nor should they be. We aren't anywhere close to neutral.  Russia doesn't trust us and we have no faith in them.  We blame them for 2016 and Putin blames Hillary for Euromaiden.

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Buying into the narrative of Russia taking anything back makes me seriously question what sources someone is consuming. Ukraine - and its culture - was around before Russia and Moscow. Borders have always changed in that area. Regardless, somehow some justification that Russia is giving to take something back makes it ok? Say what now?

I said that in the weeks leading up to the invasion, all I saw from news sources is that Russia's intent was to take back that land and nothing else. I didn't say it was justified or that Russia justifying it makes it okay. I'm just saying that's what was reported by U.S. news outlets like MSNBC and Fox News, and obviously, it has not played out like that. 

I don't know how anyone could reasonably come to that conclusion (meaning media outlets) considering the troops in Belarus.  

That's a good point considering the Belarus borders from the north. Maybe the reports I'm referencing were before they actually began amassing troops there. Because otherwise, yeah, that makes no sense.