On this Frankly, I am unpacking my thoughts on the escalating situation between Russia and Ukraine. US and NATO have been cautiously supporting Ukraine, but increasingly crossing more and more lines that had been previously ‘out of bounds’. With the upcoming Defender 23 military exercise on June 12th, NATO is increasingly pushing the boundary of how far it is willing to engage in this conflict. How is the current narrative being put forth by the US Government and media obscuring the public concern towards the risks of World War III and nuclear exchange? How high is the risk of a nuclear first strike - and what are the chances of further escalation after that?
This podcast is all the more important because of the background of Nate Hagens. We need to share it widely because the people it is reaching are not the traditional anti-war, anti-nuclear advocates. Thank you, Nate Hagens
So, shall we just give Putin Crimea, and declare ‘peace in our times’? What if he demands Luhansk? And when Victor Orban dies, and Putin wants to bring a NATO member back into the fold of mother Russia, should we give that to him too?
Should the world cover their eyes and pretend elections in Hungary are legitimate because we are too afraid to stand up to a bully?
My grandmother was Czech, my grandfather was a commando in WWII.
What you fail to weigh in the balance of your argument is that the people, the farmers and grandmothers and school teachers in Ukraine have decided that they would rather DIE than become RUSSIAN. Who are any of us to deny them that decision? When it is their sons and daughters that are paying the price?
No, this is the entire purpose of NATO. Unfortunately, Ukraine did not become a member in time to benefit as many other former block states did. But the fact that this is exactly the purpose of the treaty has not changed.
Bringing ‘Russia back into the fold as responsible nation’ requires that they start acting responsibly.
Sir, I greatly respect your opinion and enjoy your discussions of energy and technology. In this instance I fear we fundamentally disagree.
Putin is the greatest threat the world has ever seen and he needs to be stood up to and beaten, visibly.
We should have intervened when he invaded Crimea, now it will be harder.
This podcast is all the more important because of the background of Nate Hagens. We need to share it widely because the people it is reaching are not the traditional anti-war, anti-nuclear advocates. Thank you, Nate Hagens
So, shall we just give Putin Crimea, and declare ‘peace in our times’? What if he demands Luhansk? And when Victor Orban dies, and Putin wants to bring a NATO member back into the fold of mother Russia, should we give that to him too?
Should the world cover their eyes and pretend elections in Hungary are legitimate because we are too afraid to stand up to a bully?
My grandmother was Czech, my grandfather was a commando in WWII.
What you fail to weigh in the balance of your argument is that the people, the farmers and grandmothers and school teachers in Ukraine have decided that they would rather DIE than become RUSSIAN. Who are any of us to deny them that decision? When it is their sons and daughters that are paying the price?
No, this is the entire purpose of NATO. Unfortunately, Ukraine did not become a member in time to benefit as many other former block states did. But the fact that this is exactly the purpose of the treaty has not changed.
Bringing ‘Russia back into the fold as responsible nation’ requires that they start acting responsibly.
Sir, I greatly respect your opinion and enjoy your discussions of energy and technology. In this instance I fear we fundamentally disagree.
Putin is the greatest threat the world has ever seen and he needs to be stood up to and beaten, visibly.
We should have intervened when he invaded Crimea, now it will be harder.
It must still be done.
Sincerely
Taran Card