Biden mental state is just escalating the war in Ukraine - read OP before posting

Sounds like crybullying to me. Putin acts as a bully, Biden stands up to him, and suddenly the act of standing up is seen as aggressive and the bully starts crying because they're the victim and Biden has a "questionable mental state".

Whereas the act of labeling a peaceful neighbouring state as being full of Nazis and using it as an excuse for an unprovoked invasion, targeting hospitals full of kids and threatening the use of nueclear weapons against anyone who tries to help them out, while then not even allowing your own people to call it a "war" is perfectly sane...?

Ok, then...

I think it's best to close it as the original thread claim was proven to be false and the OP hasn't provided evidence for it.

Of course he does. Trump got rid of most or all of the sanctions imposed after Crimea.

If Trump was still in power, he'd never had gone along with sanctions and Ukraine would probably already have fallen by now.

This many years on and you still just accept what the Kremlin says at face value? Just, wow.

It just doesn't make sense. Look at US post WW2, we installed all manner of regimes in all manner of countries. We didn't then go make it purposefully harder for those regimes to remain in power after we did so. It would have been counterproductive. That's the story currently unfolding, anyway, according to former WH cabinet level persons: that Russia had a POTUS of its own support in the WH, and that POTUS constantly went on about giving up on the UN and giving up on NATO. It would have made entirely no sense for Russia to invade a country like Ukraine at that time, at a time the US was entertaining the possibility of dissolving NATO and such? You'd have to be mad. Invading Ukraine would have forced the hand of the west, even the hand of the US, to respond to Russia. It would have completely undone the progress being chipped away at to disband those alliances. You don't invade when your enemies are already making mistakes for themselves. You invade when you are pressed, in this case, pressed by a re-strengthening western alliance under the new US leadership. Similarly, the 2008 invasion of Georgia was instigated because the US under GWB had pressed NATO for a Membership Action Plan for both Georgia and Ukraine. Georgia was attacked very swiftly after that. Crimea was annexed when Russia lost popular political control inside Ukraine.

Here you go ^ old bean. Your previous post I quoted was also just a heap of Kremlin pulp that they've been mirroring through Tucker Carlson:

vs. what you said

They're the same feathered bird.

I addressed the words you wrote. You, are trying to attack my character with sophomoric generalizations - deflections to argue what you say are deflections. Take it up with the Russian media, who uses the exact same hymn sheet that you are singing from, to justify and sympathize with its war of choice against Ukraine. I make no apologies that being consistent, logical, and following a methodology of critical thinking, may have the adverse affect of appearing to be a 'stock trade' or 'standard,' because frankly that was always the goal.

I don't see how a multi-message approach differs from previous presidencies, especially cold war presidencies. Especially with something as sensitive as military conflict and exchange of weapons, I appreciate why any US administration would play coyness. It has long been US administrative policy to do a bit of gaslighting when it comes to our military and our intelligence. As have the Russians and Soviets before them. So in that regard sure, I guess it's an advantage to the President if some dismiss him as mentally instable. Other than that, no, I still don't know what you mean about it being a fiasco, and with the velocity of Russian reporting, I can't admit to having captured that whole story, if you wish to tell it.

Blinken leaked this Mig transfer plan, or was it already being publicly discussed or publicly called for?

But, that would be Anthony Blinken's mental state, not Joe Biden's mental state. Disregard the rferl link, it is weeks older than my web search suggested it was.

All the WSJ headline says is "This is an opinion piece on an outlet with a right wing slant"

Wall Street Journal doesn't exactly have the same heft to it as Amnesty International concluding that Israel engaged in apartheid - know what I mean? All it really says is opinion said 'fiasco' so you say, 'fiasco!'

If it's not Biden's mental state, it's not what we are discussing. It appears you are telling me Blinken made the diplomatic error.

Still not following how you get from there, to diagnosing the POTUS with a mental impairment. It is a conclusion in search of a cause.

Sorry, I didn't mean to direct that squarely at You, but at the thread's thesis. I should have asked how do we