Tucker Carlson interviews Tim Scott, and their discussion revolves around Ukraine and foreign policy. Tucker questions Tim Scott's hawkish stance on Ukraine and asks if he has considered attempting to force a peace agreement. Tim Scott responds, stating that Ukraine is heavily dependent on the support of the United States, with the country's stability reliant on the aid they receive. Tucker presses further, inquiring how to end the war, but Tim Scott seems uncertain about achieving a peaceful resolution. In fact, Tim is so clueless that he has to ask Tucker how to end the war. Tim Scott doesn't explain why weakening Russia's military and economy while also expanding NATO and encroaching on Russia's border brings us further from nuclear Armageddon rather than closer. WW2 was a direct result of weakening the German military and economy while also encroaching on their country. WW1 devastated Europe due to an explosion of defense pacts such as NATO's article 5. We have learned nothing from history except how to start world wars. Step 1, make global defense pacts with nations that have their own national interests. Step 2, decimate a country's military and finances while encroaching on their borders. Step 3, act surprised when people rise up in desperation. Tim Scott also does not explain why indirectly creating powerful alliances against America such as the recent India, China, and Russia alliance formed in retaliation for America's anti-Asian policies helps to secure Domestic American sovereignty.
Tucker exposes GOP hopefuls as mindless warhawks.
Posts
Total:
49
but Tim Scott seems uncertain about achieving a peaceful resolution.
A peaceful resolution to an ongoing war? That makes no sense genius
Tim Scott doesn't explain why weakening Russia's military and economy while also expanding NATO and encroaching on Russia's border brings us further from nuclear Armageddon rather than closer.
Spoken like a true libertarian
WW2 was a direct result of weakening the German military and economy while also encroaching on their country
That is unbelievable spin from a libertarian. WWII was the result of Germany invading Poland
WW1 devastated Europe due to an explosion of defense pacts such as NATO's article 5.
What? NATO was formed in 1949. You don’t know what you are talking about, as usual
-->
@Greyparrot
We should just let russia invade sovereign countries
-->
@Vegasgiants
Like we do with Syria? We just plopped a USA military base on their sovereign soil just to control an oilfeild. Russia is just doing what USA does, only better.
-->
@Greyparrot
Any Syrian who doesn't like it is free to file a complaint
We just plopped a USA military base on their sovereign soil just to control an oilfeild.
No doubt you have your facts wrong as usual. The dummy Trump would say what you said, but he’s a dummy and like you has no idea what he’s talking about.
Like we do with Syria?
200 troops is not an invasion and we are not destroying the country like Russia is destroying Ukraine.
Everything you say is wrong, wrong, wrong.
And you might remember that Tucker was fired from FOX News because he was exposed as a liar.
-->
@Vegasgiants
We should just let russia invade sovereign countries
Its a special military operation. Its not an invasion.
-->
@Best.Korea
I'm sure that is a great comfort to the invaded
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
WW1 devastated Europe due to an explosion of defense pacts such as NATO's article 5.What? NATO was formed in 1949. You don’t know what you are talking about, as usual
He is partially right. In the lead up to WW1, the great powers made a series of alliances that would pull each other into a conflict with the others. And Russia had such an alliance with Serbia since they saw themselves as the protector of slavic peoples. So when Austria-Hungry attacked serbia, Germany was "forced" (due to the schlieffen plan) to declare war on russia and france. Then britain declared on germany to protect their ally france. Then japan joined the war due to their alliance with Britain. Etc. This is how a regional conflict in the balkans turned into a world war.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with modern events. There is no complicated web of Alliances like in the early 1900's. There is 1 alliance that makes up a vast, insurmountable military block. Russia absolutely cannot win such a conflict, and they know it. So bringing up WW 1 is still stupid.
-->
@Greyparrot
Tucker questions Tim Scott's hawkish stance on Ukraine and asks if he has considered attempting to force a peace agreement.
what exactly would this be? Russia has invaded Ukraine twice in 8 years. They have made it clear that they see Ukraine as part of Russia and will not tolerate them being an independent country. As long as russia continue to hold this view, there cannot be actual peace. Anything negotiated now would be a cease fire so russia can get ready for invasion number 3.
Tucker presses further, inquiring how to end the war, but Tim Scott seems uncertain about achieving a peaceful resolution.
that's easy. Russia is forced out of Ukraine. Or takes so much damage that they agree to leave Ukraine. It is the only way this war can end.
Tim Scott doesn't explain why weakening Russia's military and economy while also expanding NATO and encroaching on Russia's border brings us further from nuclear Armageddon rather than closer.
oh I can explain that to you. Russia sees itself as an empire. They see themselves as a "special" people who have the right to empire. And they are working on reconquering lost territory. Their wars in Chechnia, Georgia, Ukraine (the 1st time), Ukraine (the 2nd time) have all been toward this end. The modern world order is based on the idea that you cannot redraw nations borders with war. Russia has been pushing further and further against this idea. To the point that they are now looking to annex vast stretches of territory based on nothing more than "might makes right". If they succeed, the next war is inevitable. Russia will try this again. If russia loses, we might be able to curb their desire for empire and actually get peace. Thus bringing us further from nuclear Armageddon.
WW2 was a direct result of weakening the German military and economy while also encroaching on their country.
no, no it wasn't. WW2 was caused by Germany invading it's neighbors. czechoslovakia, austria and Poland. The war didn't start because germany was protecting itself. It started because Germany saw itself as a "special" nation with the right to an empire. And when they tried to claim that empire by force, a war started. Just like russia is doing now. The only question is, do we keep appeasing them by letting them annex a little more territory? Maybe that will make them happy and they will stop? Or do we stand up to them before they invade poland?
Step 2, decimate a country's military and finances while encroaching on their borders.
I'm sorry, when did that happen? No one ever "encroached on their borders". Independent countries who were afraid of them asked for protection from them. If they are unhappy that this happened, they should look at themselves to see why their neighbors wanted to be protected from them. The real reason they hate their neighbors joining nato is because they want to invade them, and now they can't.
Also, Russia was doing very well financially before they invaded Ukraine. The sanctions are a direct result of their war mongering.
Tim Scott also does not explain why indirectly creating powerful alliances against America such as the recent India, China, and Russia alliance formed in retaliation for America's anti-Asian policies helps to secure Domestic American sovereignty.
lol, there is no such alliance. India's biggest enemy is china (well, maybe 2nd biggest). There is increased trade relations, but there is absolutely no military co-operation between india and china. And china has stayed very quiet about russia. They have made no military agreements with them.
-->
@HistoryBuff
But this has absolutely nothing to do with modern events.
I don't know, Poland makes me hella nervous about its intentions.
Nobody is going to care who actually pulls the trigger (like the assassination)when the continent is devastated by a decade of death.
-->
@HistoryBuff
WW2 was caused by Germany invading it's neighbors. czechoslovakia, austria and Poland.
The Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed on Germany after World War I, played a major role in weakening the country both economically and politically. The treaty, which was signed in 1919, imposed harsh conditions on Germany, seeking to punish it for its role in the war. The treaty was meant to ensure peace and prevent future conflicts, but its punitive measures and economic burdens had unintended consequences that contributed greatly to the outbreak of World War II. It was also one of the reasons for the Marshall plan after WW2
- Economic Burden: The Treaty of Versailles demanded that Germany pay massive reparations to the Allied powers for the damages caused during the war. These reparations were crippling for Germany's economy and led to hyperinflation, unemployment, and economic instability. The severe economic downturn fueled discontent and political instability within the country.
- Loss of Territory: Germany was forced to cede territories to neighboring countries, resulting in a significant reduction of its pre-war land and resources. The loss of territory, especially the rich industrial regions like the Saar Basin and Upper Silesia, further weakened Germany's economic and industrial capacities.
- War Guilt Clause: The treaty included a war guilt clause that held Germany solely responsible for the war. This clause fueled resentment and a sense of injustice among the German population, leading to nationalist sentiments and a desire for revenge.
- Political Instability: The harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles contributed to political unrest in Germany. Extremist political parties, such as the Nazis led by Adolf Hitler, capitalized on the public's discontent, promising to overturn the treaty's terms and restore Germany's former glory.
While the German people turned to Adolph Hitler for relief, the situation in Russia is monumentally worse as the emergency measure for the Russian People is nukes. This is why we should not be pursuing a reckless path towards escalation of a war with unrealistic victory conditions. We should have learned in Vietnam and Afghanistan when it is time to walk away BEFORE all the devastation, but we still have yet to learn it seems.
You know that America destroyed the 2014 peace in Ukraine. And you also said earlier you would be willing to settle for a peace that reverted it back to the status of 2014 before USA launched a civil war. There's nothing unreasonable about such an outcome. 2014 was a situation where there were no winners or losers. Ukraine didn't have the Donbas, sure, but neither did Russia. America should be fighting for the Donbas if they want peace like there was in 2014, not Kiev, but you and I both know this war isn't about principles. USA has a long history of waging wars for profit, and there is no profit in peace.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Its not an invasion.
Any Ukrainian who doesn't like it is free to file a complaint.
-->
@HistoryBuff
There is increased trade relations, but there is absolutely no military co-operation between India and china.
You should be concerned a LOT more about the economic alliance between India and Russia. Thanks to India, Russia's GDP contracted a whopping 2 percent, essentially enabling the funding of Russia's military in perpetuity. You may say there is no military alliance, but De Facto, India is supplying Russia the means to perpetuate the war. If India is willing to do this, it's not a stretch to say India would not escalate its alliance should NATO escalate theirs.
-->
@Best.Korea
They are.
They're using bullets to do it too. Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
Thats what terrorists do. Ukrainians are terrorists attacking the Russian military that did not invade them at all.
-->
@Best.Korea
If someone invades your home you are not a terrorist for fighting back
Russian troops are on Ukraine soil
Deny that
Ending the war in Ukraine is in the U.S.'s interest. The U.S. is giving Ukraine billions of dollars in military aid. The chances of this war turning into World War III are becoming more likely every day. Many civilians are dying and being displaced.
A reasonable and likely agreement would be Russia being allowed to keep the part of Ukraine it currently controls and agreeing to a cease fire and in exchange Ukraine with its newly drawn border would be given EU and NATO membership.
-->
@Vegasgiants
If someone invades your home you are not a terrorist for fighting back.
Russia didnt invade Ukraine in the same way US didnt invade Iraq.
Russian troops are on Ukraine soil
That doesnt make it an invasion.
US troops were in Iraq.
USA did not invade Iraq.
In the same way, Russia didnt invade Ukraine.
The people who shot at US soldiers in Iraq were terrorists who were defending their country.
Same people, people who shoot at Russian troops in Ukraine are terrorists who defend their country.
In conclusion, Ukrainians are terrorists.
-->
@Best.Korea
Well we did invade Iraq. Everyone agrees on that. We called it an invasion. We were the terrorists
Ukraine did nothing to get invaded. Russia is the terrorists
-->
@Vegasgiants
Well we did invade Iraq. Everyone agrees on that. We called it an invasion. We were the terrorists
So if Russia must be sanctioned for Ukraine, then USA must be sanctioned for Iraq, Syria, Libya.
Do you approve of entire world implementing sanctions on USA? No?
Then I dont care about what you think about Russia.
-->
@Best.Korea
Fine. Sanction us. By whom? Russia? Who cares. The rest of the world agrees with us Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
Oh I understand.
Its because Ukraine is white.
Iraqi are sand people. Nobody cares if sand people die.
The entire world agrees that sand people should get invaded. They are the lowest in race rank.
-->
@Best.Korea
Yep nobody cares. The world just does not agree with you....except Russia
-->
@Vegasgiants
The world just does not agree with you....except Russia
and China, Syria, India, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Brazil, Pakistan, Turkey and multiple African nations.
This isn't just about Putin anymore.
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't know, Poland makes me hella nervous about its intentions.
Their intention is not to get invaded. Large chunks of Poland have been owned by Russia. All of poland was controlled by the soviet union. They know that if Ukraine falls, they move one higher on russia's list of conquests.
The Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed on Germany after World War I, played a major role in weakening the country both economically and politically.
this is true. The treaty was designed to completely cripple germany so it could never be a threat again. No one has done or suggested anything even remotely similar against russia. No one is suggesting indemnity payments that are completely unpayable. No one is suggesting that Russia be banned from having a military. so the treaty of Versailles is completely irrelevant in this is discussion.
This is why we should not be pursuing a reckless path towards escalation of a war with unrealistic victory conditions.
no one is doing that. The victory conditions are obvious. Russia is forced to leave Ukraine. Russia is already losing ground, so the trends just need to continue. Comparing this to Vietnam or Afghanistan is just delusional. Doubly so because America isn't even fighting in the war.
You know that America destroyed the 2014 peace in Ukraine.
No, I know the exact opposite of that. I know the Ukrainian people got fed up with their government doing the opposite of what they wanted and so they ejected their kremlin loving government. As a result, Russia started arming terrorists and then invaded and stole the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine.
And you also said earlier you would be willing to settle for a peace that reverted it back to the status of 2014
no, I said that's a good starting point. It might be that that is the best that we can get, but we should absolutely be shooting for all ukranian land to be returned.
2014 was a situation where there were no winners or losers. Ukraine didn't have the Donbas, sure, but neither did Russia.
by 2014, I mean Ukraine regaining it's borders. The entire world recognized the donbass as part of Ukraine in 2014 (they still do by the way). Any peace deal requires this land to be under Ukranian control again.
America should be fighting for the Donbas if they want peace like there was in 2014, not Kiev, but you and I both know this war isn't about principles.
I have no ide what this means. Are you suggesting donbass is some kind independent entity? They absolutely are not. They are a puppet state funded and armed by russia. They are not and never have been independent of Russian control.
You should be concerned a LOT more about the economic alliance between India and Russia.
why? No one actually wants russia to stop selling it's raw materials. That would cause a global recession. They want to reduce russia's ability to profit from this. And they have been pretty successful at that.
Thanks to India, Russia's GDP contracted a whopping 2 percent, essentially enabling the funding of Russia's military in perpetuity.
those are the official russian government statistics. Russia has banned publication of many, many statistics in an effort to hide the economic damage of the war. They only release the stats they want the world to see, IE the ones that make them look strong and/or have been messed with. So if russia says it's 2%, you can pretty much guarantee it is worse than that. They want everyone to believe that sanctions don't work to undermine support for them.
Russia is hemorrhaging money. They absolutely cannot keep this up indefinitely.
If India is willing to do this, it's not a stretch to say India would not escalate its alliance should NATO escalate theirs.
this doesn't even make sense. India and russia do not have an alliance. They never have. India is taking advantage of russian weakness and profiting off of it. They can buy up russian resources on the cheap, then resell them for more. This benefits India. Signing some kind of military agreement with russia absolutely does not benefit them.
Russia supplies a large percentage of India's weapons. But that percentage has been shrinking for years. And with Russia needing all of it's weapons at home, they are not going to be in a position to supply India in the next few years. So they will need to lean more on their other sources of weapons, France, The US, Israel, South Korea, Germany etc. So getting closer to Russia would be dangerous for them.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not like they can stop us. More like having a annoying gnat around
-->
@HistoryBuff
The Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed on Germany after World War I, played a major role in weakening the country both economically and politically.this is true.
Of course it's true, it's cribbed from the chatgpt bot or some other AI search engine, that whole enumerated list.
Russia is already losing ground, so the trends just need to continue.
Do you really know what's going on right now? Russia presently has an overwhelming advantage tactically on the ground mostly because of the attrition of trained Ukrainian solders. The "advances" are so miniscule that some have cynically suggested the war could be over in 120 years if the goal is to reclaim every inch of Donbas soil. Ukraine has almost no artillery ammo left while Russia has massive ammunition plants churning 24/7 in the Ural mountain regions where no missiles from Ukraine can reach.
None of the Donbas is projected to be retaken anytime soon. This not helping America or Ukraine at all. The people getting bled dry from this war isn't the Russian people. This is just another Vietnam where we have absolutely no business in, but the war must be maintained for profits to continue as planned. And by Vietnam, I include the 1950's period of military and economic aid before we sent boots on the ground, which it seems we are inching closer to doing as Ukraine loses the ability to perpetuate the war.