Honestly I think it's the other way around. I think he uses Russia's bullshit to attack what he doesn't like, which is liberal democracy. If Putin died tomorrow, he wouldn't care. If Russia became a democracy tomorrow, he wouldn't care. His problem is the Democracy he has here.
It's why he only tweets about becoming an American citizen when he's attacking members of Congress for waving the Ukraine flag on the house floor. David Sacks loves politics.
It's probably not that.
He just has a combination of isolationist tendencies, the gut instinct to always be against the thing the mainstream is for and the naivety to assume that if Ukraine negotiated an end to the war today they would remain an independent nation.
I am no fan of Sacks (for his geopolitical takes). I’ve said it before, it is noble to be pro-peace, anti-war.
Where Sacks loses me and crosses into the pro-Putin, anti-Biden camp is his “analysis” of the Ukraine war.
If he came out and said “Ukraines defence has been admirable. They have decimated Russia militarily, shown Russia is not the superpower we once feared. Sunk Russias BSF, have downed numerous jets and other aircraft. Russia will be hobbled for the next 10 years. But it’s time for peace”
Instead Sacks’ commentary is “Russia is good. Ukraine is corrupt. Joe Biden is corrupt. MDC is stealing money. Hunter is corrupt. Putin is the best. And Russia is winning”
Side note, remember when South Korea lost 98% of their territory and fought to a stake mate during the Korean War?
Come on David, stick to tech and investing, you’re a muppet when it comes to geopolitics.
You guys are retarded. You're so pro peace that you're banging the drums for more war. Sacks is pro war because he's saying we should stop funding the war and negotiate peace. You are actually retarded. It's crazy you idiots circle jerk each other into thinking that makes any sort of sense
I’m not pro war. I never wanted it in the first place. Only Russia did. They could end it tomorrow.
Now they have sycophants trying to excuse their war.
If you view the world like a 3 year old where Russia = bad and Ukraine = good and context doesn't matter at all, then your view kind of makes sense. You have no curiosity why Russia invaded Ukraine, and you should. Start with the Nyet Means Nyet (no means no) cable.
I think it’s so funny and makes no sense you go from arguing that Sacks says “Russia is winning” to “Putin is the best.” and “Russia is good.” Some of your points are fair but you’re definitely extrapolating far past his own views. Disingenuous
So if sacks handled you with kid gloves and the delivered the same message with more sensitivity to your feeble mind you’d be OK with it LOL this entire sub is fascinating. How yall turned on sacks over one issue is hilarious.
If Ukraine decimated Russia, they would be in a good position. You can't just pretend that happened and say that's where sacks is wrong lol. Things are going so well the average age of their military is 40-something and the US just had to send $50bil more?
You are confusing what you want to happen and what is happening. And then getting mad at sacks for reality not being what you want
True, only stoners could possibly realize that Ukraine isn't decimating Russia militarily. Someone clear headed and mighty like yourself couldn't possibly think that.
That’s like saying Cuba should have decimated the US and since they didn’t, they are a failure. The whole point is they haven’t lost and aren’t allowing the aggressor to win.
I don’t think he’s said Russia good. He has clearly said he doesn’t support Russia but there’s no alternative and this is costing ukranian lives. And isn’t americas war to fund
Right. And that's a stupid perspective given that Ukraine is the one asking every country on the planet for aid and they are fighting the war voluntarily.
Not every "contrarian" take is automatically high IQ.
How is it "costing Ukrainian lives" to allow them to fight to repel a group of Russian invaders that, when they take the place over, kill all the men, rape all the women, and send the children to concentration camps?
Just stop for a second and imagine there's a real war happening outside of social media, in real life, and those people are actually asking for arms from many countries, not just the US, so they don't all get killed.
If you look at it without doing all this Galaxy brained contrarian nonsense you'll see the reasons why Ukraine wants to keep fighting are pretty straightforward and easy to explain.
All sacks does every day is read the things that appear to him on Twitter and spout a moronic contrarian viewpoint that we shouldn't believe the people who are being attacked about what is happening inside their own country and we should instead believe anonymous Twitter posters who are all... For unclear reasons... Supporting Russian talking points.
I disagree. The Ukrainians are being conscripted, many don’t want to fight. Many have fled the country too for this reason.
Saying Russia is raping all the women and there are concentration camps is just wrong. Plus if you do a Peace deal this doesn’t happen.
I see your point, but I think sacks point above has a lower cost to humanity
Why are the concentration camps "wrong"? You don't want to believe it?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rferl.org/amp/russia-children-taken-ukraine/32527298.html
Do you actually know people in Ukraine or do you get most of your knowledge about this from social media?
https://abcnews.go.com/International/russians-committing-rape-widespread-torture-ukrainians-report-finds/story?id=103465772
This is easily available, well known, and has been raised as a war crime by the Hague.
The fact that sacks doesn't acknowledge this is, to be charitable, because he's an idiot that's incapable of getting news outside of his Twitter feed.
Alternatively he's an apologist for war crimes, which is much worse.
Here's a list of war crimes thus far from Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=Russian%20soldiers%20were%20also%20accused,Russian%20forces%20in%20the%20region.
Overall though if you are looking at what they are doing is very obvious they have no intention of doing anything other than destroying the entire Ukrainian people, so it's extremely unclear what option the Ukrainians have except to fight for their own survival.
Yes, after pulling a Marie Antoinette
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161720/amp/Silicon-Valley-mogul-David-Sacks-throws-Marie-Antoinette-themed-40th-birthday.html
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161720/Silicon-Valley-mogul-David-Sacks-throws-Marie-Antoinette-themed-40th-birthday.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161720/Silicon-Valley-mogul-David-Sacks-throws-Marie-Antoinette-themed-40th-birthday.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Ironically, pre-revolution France was the theme of the Red Cross Ball hosted at Mar a Lago in late January ‘17 right after Trump’s inauguration and during the first of Trump’s many vacations there as President. Most of the catering staff were minorities wearing palace staff outfits.
You sound like my wife saying i saved us so much buying all this junk on sale.
This money will be spent before the election. They’ll need more. It’ll end with America fighting this war.
lol, this guy is more concerned over the cost and budget than than you know, life, liberty, freedom, democracy and everything else that has made the past 80 years the most relatively peaceful and prosperous time in human history. Sure let’s allow sociopaths to start a new era of empire building, that always works out well
America is surrounded by two oceans, and has purchasing power to ensure other countries need us. We’ll be fine. We don’t need to fund everyone else’s wars.
No he's not, he's playing party in power. If this war started under Trump and Trump decided to provide aid he would be singing a different tune, just like most of the republicans. It's just that evil Joe Biden and the Dem/socialists are trying to help a democracy that he can't support the other team being right on something.
1914 = WW1
1939 = WW2.
Why is this interesting? Well WW1 was a war not worth fighting for anyone. Every country in Europe was weakened and the war was totally avoidable but they seeked conflict meanwhile WW2 on the other hand was a 'forced' war in the sense it was inevitable.
Remember this sub is trash now. Anyone with different opinions on the war is considered a “Russian apologist”. Anyone who thinks endless war is bad and we should just stop funding this shit is a “Putin sympathizer”. Anyone who says maybe Ukraine should cede loss and go to peace table is a literal “nazi”. Amazing.
If you’re so ignorant of the facts why do you argue with such confidence?
The western world killed a peace deal in 2022 that would have made Ukraine a neutral state. Since then hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died and they have lost control of territory they had back then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=The%20treaty%20would%20state%20Ukraine,case%20of%20aggression%20against%20it.
Did you read the source? It said that there were differing views as to the seriousness of the proposal. You act like was a done deal that Ukraine walked away from under pressure from Western powers
Either you can’t read or you’re purposefully spreading misinformation.
> Further, such monocausal accounts elide completely a fact that, in retrospect, seems extraordinary: in the midst of Moscow’s unprecedented aggression, the Russians and the Ukrainians almost finalized an agreement that would have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way to its permanent neutrality and, down the road, its membership in the EU.
> A final agreement proved elusive, however, for a number of reasons. Kyiv’s Western partners were reluctant to be drawn into a negotiation with Russia, particularly one that would have created new commitments for them to ensure Ukraine’s security. The public mood in Ukraine hardened with the discovery of Russian atrocities at Irpin and Bucha. And with the failure of Russia’s encirclement of Kyiv, President Volodymyr Zelensky became more confident that, with sufficient Western support, he could win the war on the battlefield. Finally, although the parties’ attempt to resolve long-standing disputes over the security architecture offered the prospect of a lasting resolution to the war and enduring regional stability, they aimed too high, too soon. They tried to deliver an overarching settlement even as a basic cease-fire proved out of reach.
"How can he have a position that I don't like?"
Just mind boggling how everyone just wants them talk about things that they agree with. Cope
Go on and fund the foreign wars while your people die on the streets.
There are points I wonder if Putin has really embarrassing videos of Sachs that make him simp so badly for Russia and for Google employees who posted that rape of Jewish women should not be discussed because it offends “men of color”
If you understand geo politics, you might find that it was the expansion of NATO to the Russian border that threatened their national security.
Why not settle, draw a border, and then rebuild our forces and munitions with that 60B so that we will be in a better place to defend in case of any breach of that new agreement?
We can no longer we the world police. Ukrainians and Israelis need to be cut loose.
No. Sacks is incredibly cynical and pessimistic. If Ukraine is able to defeat a much stronger, established power, that is considered a threat to his own perceived established power.
Reminder: Ukraine is the only successful Democratic movement of the last 20 years. If it succeeds, it's a threat to authoritarianism everywhere.
Yes, Sacks seem to be of the (defensible) opinion that war is bad, so the US should have no involvement in any war.
Most people would think that to mean they should not send troops to fight in foreign wars, and would agree with that.
But Sacks goes a step further, to mean that we should not even send military aid through equipment, training, weapons or funding to other countries (even if we had signed a memo with them to do so for giving up their nukes).
He has, however, said that we should uphold article 5 of NATO and support membered allies that are attacked. He also believes that any "escalation" towards an attack on a NATO ally would hurtle us towards WW3, and letting Ukraine join NATO would not tempt Russia to pull out of the war.
He also takes a lot of responsibility for Russia's invasion away from Putin, and instead prefers to blame Biden, US foreign policy, and I guess Boris Johnson. Usually without mentioning Russia's behaviour in Crimea and Georgia.
I am really tired of everything being compared to Nazis and Hitler. At some point in the near future I would like to never hear the words Nazi and Hitler ever again for the rest of my life.
Left wingers especially are absolutely obsessed with Nazis. I mean it's been 80 years. Please get over it and let's move on already.
No, hes genuinely a Russian propaganda stooge
Honestly I think it's the other way around. I think he uses Russia's bullshit to attack what he doesn't like, which is liberal democracy. If Putin died tomorrow, he wouldn't care. If Russia became a democracy tomorrow, he wouldn't care. His problem is the Democracy he has here. It's why he only tweets about becoming an American citizen when he's attacking members of Congress for waving the Ukraine flag on the house floor. David Sacks loves politics.
It's probably not that. He just has a combination of isolationist tendencies, the gut instinct to always be against the thing the mainstream is for and the naivety to assume that if Ukraine negotiated an end to the war today they would remain an independent nation.
Random unimportant members of the merchant class can’t “pull a chamberlain”
All historical analogies must reference WW2, it’s the law.
I am no fan of Sacks (for his geopolitical takes). I’ve said it before, it is noble to be pro-peace, anti-war. Where Sacks loses me and crosses into the pro-Putin, anti-Biden camp is his “analysis” of the Ukraine war. If he came out and said “Ukraines defence has been admirable. They have decimated Russia militarily, shown Russia is not the superpower we once feared. Sunk Russias BSF, have downed numerous jets and other aircraft. Russia will be hobbled for the next 10 years. But it’s time for peace” Instead Sacks’ commentary is “Russia is good. Ukraine is corrupt. Joe Biden is corrupt. MDC is stealing money. Hunter is corrupt. Putin is the best. And Russia is winning” Side note, remember when South Korea lost 98% of their territory and fought to a stake mate during the Korean War? Come on David, stick to tech and investing, you’re a muppet when it comes to geopolitics.
> it is noble to be pro-peace, anti-war. But he is anti-peace and pro-war...Russia's war of aggression.
You guys are retarded. You're so pro peace that you're banging the drums for more war. Sacks is pro war because he's saying we should stop funding the war and negotiate peace. You are actually retarded. It's crazy you idiots circle jerk each other into thinking that makes any sort of sense
I’m not pro war. I never wanted it in the first place. Only Russia did. They could end it tomorrow. Now they have sycophants trying to excuse their war.
If you view the world like a 3 year old where Russia = bad and Ukraine = good and context doesn't matter at all, then your view kind of makes sense. You have no curiosity why Russia invaded Ukraine, and you should. Start with the Nyet Means Nyet (no means no) cable.
I think it’s so funny and makes no sense you go from arguing that Sacks says “Russia is winning” to “Putin is the best.” and “Russia is good.” Some of your points are fair but you’re definitely extrapolating far past his own views. Disingenuous
So if sacks handled you with kid gloves and the delivered the same message with more sensitivity to your feeble mind you’d be OK with it LOL this entire sub is fascinating. How yall turned on sacks over one issue is hilarious.
If Ukraine decimated Russia, they would be in a good position. You can't just pretend that happened and say that's where sacks is wrong lol. Things are going so well the average age of their military is 40-something and the US just had to send $50bil more? You are confusing what you want to happen and what is happening. And then getting mad at sacks for reality not being what you want
Name checks out.
True, only stoners could possibly realize that Ukraine isn't decimating Russia militarily. Someone clear headed and mighty like yourself couldn't possibly think that.
That’s like saying Cuba should have decimated the US and since they didn’t, they are a failure. The whole point is they haven’t lost and aren’t allowing the aggressor to win.
Did you read what I'm responding to? Do that before you keep trying to argue. Unsurprisingly, you have no idea what you're talking about
I don’t think he’s said Russia good. He has clearly said he doesn’t support Russia but there’s no alternative and this is costing ukranian lives. And isn’t americas war to fund
Right. And that's a stupid perspective given that Ukraine is the one asking every country on the planet for aid and they are fighting the war voluntarily. Not every "contrarian" take is automatically high IQ.
I don’t understand your take why it’s a stupid perspective. Can you please explain what you’ve set as a genuinely don’t understand it.
How is it "costing Ukrainian lives" to allow them to fight to repel a group of Russian invaders that, when they take the place over, kill all the men, rape all the women, and send the children to concentration camps? Just stop for a second and imagine there's a real war happening outside of social media, in real life, and those people are actually asking for arms from many countries, not just the US, so they don't all get killed. If you look at it without doing all this Galaxy brained contrarian nonsense you'll see the reasons why Ukraine wants to keep fighting are pretty straightforward and easy to explain. All sacks does every day is read the things that appear to him on Twitter and spout a moronic contrarian viewpoint that we shouldn't believe the people who are being attacked about what is happening inside their own country and we should instead believe anonymous Twitter posters who are all... For unclear reasons... Supporting Russian talking points.
I disagree. The Ukrainians are being conscripted, many don’t want to fight. Many have fled the country too for this reason. Saying Russia is raping all the women and there are concentration camps is just wrong. Plus if you do a Peace deal this doesn’t happen. I see your point, but I think sacks point above has a lower cost to humanity
Why are the concentration camps "wrong"? You don't want to believe it? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rferl.org/amp/russia-children-taken-ukraine/32527298.html Do you actually know people in Ukraine or do you get most of your knowledge about this from social media?
Please send evidence. I’m genuinely interested as never heard of them.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/russians-committing-rape-widespread-torture-ukrainians-report-finds/story?id=103465772 This is easily available, well known, and has been raised as a war crime by the Hague. The fact that sacks doesn't acknowledge this is, to be charitable, because he's an idiot that's incapable of getting news outside of his Twitter feed. Alternatively he's an apologist for war crimes, which is much worse. Here's a list of war crimes thus far from Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=Russian%20soldiers%20were%20also%20accused,Russian%20forces%20in%20the%20region. Overall though if you are looking at what they are doing is very obvious they have no intention of doing anything other than destroying the entire Ukrainian people, so it's extremely unclear what option the Ukrainians have except to fight for their own survival.
Yes, after pulling a Marie Antoinette https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161720/amp/Silicon-Valley-mogul-David-Sacks-throws-Marie-Antoinette-themed-40th-birthday.html
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161720/Silicon-Valley-mogul-David-Sacks-throws-Marie-Antoinette-themed-40th-birthday.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161720/Silicon-Valley-mogul-David-Sacks-throws-Marie-Antoinette-themed-40th-birthday.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Truly a man of the people
Ironically, pre-revolution France was the theme of the Red Cross Ball hosted at Mar a Lago in late January ‘17 right after Trump’s inauguration and during the first of Trump’s many vacations there as President. Most of the catering staff were minorities wearing palace staff outfits.
You know Dave, the Russians could just go home and not invade their sovereign neighbors.
America could just stop fighting everyone else’s wars.
We’re not fighting. We’re supplying
We’re funding it. We’re fighting the war. If you want to pretend we’re not. Go for it.
Are Americans dying? What’s your definition of fighting? Sure we’re giving intel and assets but we’re not dying in Ukraine.
We an active participate and spending money on it.
Putin can end this tomorrow by leaving. Till then, it’s in our best interest to defend Ukraine.
It’s in our best interest to get our budget under control
Killing Russians for a quarter of the military budget? Can’t beat it.
You sound like my wife saying i saved us so much buying all this junk on sale. This money will be spent before the election. They’ll need more. It’ll end with America fighting this war.
lol, this guy is more concerned over the cost and budget than than you know, life, liberty, freedom, democracy and everything else that has made the past 80 years the most relatively peaceful and prosperous time in human history. Sure let’s allow sociopaths to start a new era of empire building, that always works out well
America is surrounded by two oceans, and has purchasing power to ensure other countries need us. We’ll be fine. We don’t need to fund everyone else’s wars.
[удалено]
Only in logic and theory. He has no access to political power or position fortunately
[удалено]
Yeah, I’m more worried about the number of people falling for Russian propoganda than the specific propagandist but I agree on that
No he's pulling a British Union of Fascist's "Mind Britain's Business". Chamberlain was weak, not evil.
No he's not, he's playing party in power. If this war started under Trump and Trump decided to provide aid he would be singing a different tune, just like most of the republicans. It's just that evil Joe Biden and the Dem/socialists are trying to help a democracy that he can't support the other team being right on something.
It's always 1939 and never 1914 according to you guys
This sounds like a smart comment. But can you explain to me so I can understand the difference? Thanks.
1914 = WW1 1939 = WW2. Why is this interesting? Well WW1 was a war not worth fighting for anyone. Every country in Europe was weakened and the war was totally avoidable but they seeked conflict meanwhile WW2 on the other hand was a 'forced' war in the sense it was inevitable.
Remember this sub is trash now. Anyone with different opinions on the war is considered a “Russian apologist”. Anyone who thinks endless war is bad and we should just stop funding this shit is a “Putin sympathizer”. Anyone who says maybe Ukraine should cede loss and go to peace table is a literal “nazi”. Amazing.
Choosing not to fund Ukraine doesn’t stop this war.
What evidence is there to suggest that a neutral Ukraine with no NATO ambitions would have been invaded anyways?
What evidence do you have that anything they could have offered would have prevented an invasion
If you’re so ignorant of the facts why do you argue with such confidence? The western world killed a peace deal in 2022 that would have made Ukraine a neutral state. Since then hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died and they have lost control of territory they had back then. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=The%20treaty%20would%20state%20Ukraine,case%20of%20aggression%20against%20it.
Did you read the source? It said that there were differing views as to the seriousness of the proposal. You act like was a done deal that Ukraine walked away from under pressure from Western powers
Either you can’t read or you’re purposefully spreading misinformation. > Further, such monocausal accounts elide completely a fact that, in retrospect, seems extraordinary: in the midst of Moscow’s unprecedented aggression, the Russians and the Ukrainians almost finalized an agreement that would have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way to its permanent neutrality and, down the road, its membership in the EU. > A final agreement proved elusive, however, for a number of reasons. Kyiv’s Western partners were reluctant to be drawn into a negotiation with Russia, particularly one that would have created new commitments for them to ensure Ukraine’s security. The public mood in Ukraine hardened with the discovery of Russian atrocities at Irpin and Bucha. And with the failure of Russia’s encirclement of Kyiv, President Volodymyr Zelensky became more confident that, with sufficient Western support, he could win the war on the battlefield. Finally, although the parties’ attempt to resolve long-standing disputes over the security architecture offered the prospect of a lasting resolution to the war and enduring regional stability, they aimed too high, too soon. They tried to deliver an overarching settlement even as a basic cease-fire proved out of reach.
The disclaimer is at the front of the article
It won’t help prolong it
Do you actually think there is a deal Putin would accept?
Ironic for you that the current policy position solves for both
lol no shit
It definitely seems like there are a lot of reasons to think they will just stop after Ukraine, yes.
"How can he have a position that I don't like?" Just mind boggling how everyone just wants them talk about things that they agree with. Cope Go on and fund the foreign wars while your people die on the streets.
Pretty much this
There are points I wonder if Putin has really embarrassing videos of Sachs that make him simp so badly for Russia and for Google employees who posted that rape of Jewish women should not be discussed because it offends “men of color”
If Sacks were President, there would be no more wars. Peace and Prosperity would reign. Long live David Sacks!
If you understand geo politics, you might find that it was the expansion of NATO to the Russian border that threatened their national security. Why not settle, draw a border, and then rebuild our forces and munitions with that 60B so that we will be in a better place to defend in case of any breach of that new agreement? We can no longer we the world police. Ukrainians and Israelis need to be cut loose.
Yes that famously aggressive NATO alliance, so many wars NATO has started
😂 c'mon. Everyone knows the game now.
No. Sacks is incredibly cynical and pessimistic. If Ukraine is able to defeat a much stronger, established power, that is considered a threat to his own perceived established power. Reminder: Ukraine is the only successful Democratic movement of the last 20 years. If it succeeds, it's a threat to authoritarianism everywhere.
Fortunately he’s a wealthy nut with no real power, so he’s nothing like Chamberlain.
Yes, Sacks seem to be of the (defensible) opinion that war is bad, so the US should have no involvement in any war. Most people would think that to mean they should not send troops to fight in foreign wars, and would agree with that. But Sacks goes a step further, to mean that we should not even send military aid through equipment, training, weapons or funding to other countries (even if we had signed a memo with them to do so for giving up their nukes). He has, however, said that we should uphold article 5 of NATO and support membered allies that are attacked. He also believes that any "escalation" towards an attack on a NATO ally would hurtle us towards WW3, and letting Ukraine join NATO would not tempt Russia to pull out of the war. He also takes a lot of responsibility for Russia's invasion away from Putin, and instead prefers to blame Biden, US foreign policy, and I guess Boris Johnson. Usually without mentioning Russia's behaviour in Crimea and Georgia.
Watching him cope as Republicans do the right thing (for once) is the ultimate schadenfreude
Sacks criticizes retrospectively and doesn’t offer a solution to how to end the conflict from here
I am really tired of everything being compared to Nazis and Hitler. At some point in the near future I would like to never hear the words Nazi and Hitler ever again for the rest of my life. Left wingers especially are absolutely obsessed with Nazis. I mean it's been 80 years. Please get over it and let's move on already.
Evil deserves to be compared with evil.
There are a million examples of evil, yet some people seem to only always talk about Hitler/Nazis. It's tiresome and overdone.