Invasion of Ukraine

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Currently reflecting on Civ 6 warmonger penalty. Firaxis will have to rethink the mechanics. Reality has trumped the game.

And I was just thinking Putin probably wishes he had a previous save to load.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The point I'm making is that you can't not be dependent on foreign markets unless you are isolationist.

I have long believed in the argument that "We want to integrate possible bad actor/warmonger nations into the world economy. If their economy becomes dependent on international trade, then they will have too much to lose by going to war or otherwise stepping too far out of line."

This conflict is showing me the flipside of that approach. They become dependent on your trade. But you also become dependent on their trade.

Not sure where the right balance lies, but I'm certainly in a position to re-calibrate my thoughts.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yeah, good luck with that (regardless of which party is in power).

The Executive Branch isn't going to defy a court order.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The Executive Branch isn't going to defy a court order.

Not this one and not for this, anyways

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Currently reflecting on Civ 6 warmonger penalty. Firaxis will have to rethink the mechanics. Reality has trumped the game.

Just like zombie or contagion movies have to be rethought after the last 2 years

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Just like zombie or contagion movies have to be rethought after the last 2 years

I've watched some contagion like movies past couple years. The transmission seems realistic but the reaction is (as we know now) underwhelming. Limited mask wearing!

Originally Posted by Atocep

And I was just thinking Putin probably wishes he had a previous save to load.

Oh yeah. Similar to how I'm constantly reloading when playing Long War mod for WOTC

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I've watched some contagion like movies past couple years. The transmission seems realistic but the reaction is (as we know now) underwhelming. Limited mask wearing!

The joke I saw was that the pandemic has made Sci-Fi harder to believe.

"IN THE YEAR 3050, ALIENS CAME TO OUR SOLAR SYSTEM WITH PLANS TO TURN OFF THE SUN!"

Me: Eh. Seems plausible.

"SO HUMANITY BANDED TOGETHER . . . "

Me: Oh my God. That is so unrealistic.

[molson]

You win Plague Inc. when the vaccine is discovered. Because it's just assumed that people will want the thing that saves their lives.

[Edward64]

This is fantastic.

Article points out countries that stayed to listen. I did not see China or India on that list but would have thought they stayed also.

Astonishing moment diplomats WALK OUT as Kremlin minister says Russia was forced to invade Ukraine | Daily Mail Online

World turns its back on Russia: Astonishing moment diplomats WALK OUT as Kremlin minister tells disarmament conference Russia was forced to invade Ukraine to 'stop them getting nuclear weapons'

Outside that chamber, diplomats also gathered in front of a Ukrainian flag and applauded loudly.

The applause could be heard in the chamber where Lavrov's speech continued, with only a handful of ambassadors from countries including Yemen, Syria, Venezuela and Tunisia there to hear it.

[QuikSand]

Слава Україні

[Edward64]

There were some posts here that Putin may have emboldened China on Taiwan.

I think based on how the war is going so far and the world reaction, this has reduced the odds that China will try to invade Taiwan militarily. If Taiwan declares independence then all bets are off.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

In the middle of all of this, the Fifth Circuit holds that federal judges, not military leaders, should make deployment decisions at the individual troop level:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinion...-10077-CV0.pdf

5th Circuit sure is something. Especially in contrast to other rulings where they give the executive branch immense powers with the military. Almost like this one little exception was carved out for political purposes.

[Edward64]

A Reuters reporter on the ground in Ukraine. Not many answers to questions yet for his AMA but I'll be monitoring for his insights.

Reddit - Dive into anything

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This conflict is showing me the flipside of that approach. They become dependent on your trade. But you also become dependent on their trade.

That's a fair point. To me it's not really a question of geopolitical strategy at all, but just one of inevitability. If no one country can produce everything it needs and purchase everything it produces - and IMO that's a truism - then at a certain level it just doesn't matter if global trade is a good idea or a bad idea, any more than one might question whether gravity is a good or bad thing. It just *is*.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's a fair point. To me it's not really a question of geopolitical strategy at all, but just one of inevitability. If no one country can produce everything it needs and purchase everything it produces - and IMO that's a truism - then at a certain level it just doesn't matter if global trade is a good idea or a bad idea, any more than one might question whether gravity is a good or bad thing. It just *is*.

It's more that an energy grid is a basic requirement for participation in the world economy. If you outsource the key components, you give the countries that produce what you need a lot of power they wouldn't ordinarily have.

Russia has the 11th largest GDP in the world. Yet Putin, who is not a Democratic leader even though Russia has somewhat of a modern marketplace, is one of the most powerful people in the world because he sells Europe what's closing in on half of their energy needs. The EU can't exist in its current form without Russia's oil, gas and coal. You could say the same thing about food in the past, and that's still an issue in some places in the world.

Trade is one thing. Yes, it "is" and it ends up benefiting both sides to such an extent that isolationism is reckless and damaging. Dependence is something else. When you give an authoritarian control over your existence, there's a danger this can happen.

[sterlingice]

I kindof agree with both of you but I think it's not always that simple, either.

I was talking to a relative of mine in Italy about the war on Friday:

As for Italy, I must tell you that it is a wonderful country, full of wonderful, friendly, intelligent, creative and also very cultured and sensitive people. Unfortunately, our economic system is based on the processing industry. We do beautiful things. However, we do not have energy sources. We depend on abroad.

What do you tell a country like that?

Along with energy, food and water are major security issues, as well. Again, oversimplifying, but you only have so much land and you can use some of to farm or get water, some for energy generation, and some for industry to keep you politically relevant/powerful. The US can mostly get all of them and we can even we can play our hand where things like rare earth metals, good placement for military bases, high tech infrastructure, etc. can somewhat be treated like "security concerns". But most places don't have that luxury.

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I get sending $ but also sending fighter jets? I'd think Ukraine would need more Stingers & Javelins (and spec ops to help out). Hard to believe they could maintain fighter jets for any length of time. But Ukraine asked for them.

Individual EU countries have already been helping with weaponry but fighter jets seem to be on the next level.

"This is a watershed moment": EU to purchase and deliver weapons to Ukraine in historic first

Looks like the fighter jets deal fell through.

European plan to donate fighter jets to Ukraine collapses - POLITICO

the announcement Sunday by EU security chief Josep Borrell that fighter jets were also on their way appeared to be a game-changer for European military assistance. Borrell was forced to walk his pronouncement back somewhat by Monday, acknowledging that any transfers wouldn’t come from the EU itself, but would instead be donated “bilaterally” by individual EU countries.

Soon after, a Ukrainian government official told POLITICO their country had sent pilots to Poland to pick up the jets and the Ukrainian parliament announced that the planes from Slovakia, Bulgaria and Poland would soon be on their way. But by Tuesday, Bulgaria and Slovakia said there was no deal to send fighters, and the Polish president, appearing at a Polish air base alongside NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, said no planes would be flying any time soon.

“We are supporting Ukrainians with humanitarian aid. However, we are not going to send any jets to Ukrainian airspace,” President Andrzej Duda said.

[cuervo72]

Future Italy be burning a lot of olive oil.

[sterlingice]

Dammit. That was going to be a big deal.

And from what I saw, the US was like "here's some F-16s" to the EU countries get upgrades, Ukraine gets the planes they need, and everyone's happy.

SI

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I kindof agree with both of you but I think it's not always that simple, either.

I was talking to a relative of mine in Italy about the war on Friday:


What do you tell a country like that?

Along with energy, food and water are major security issues, as well. Again, oversimplifying, but you only have so much land and you can use some of to farm or get water, some for energy generation, and some for industry to keep you politically relevant/powerful. The US can mostly get all of them and we can even we can play our hand where things like rare earth metals, good placement for military bases, high tech infrastructure, etc. can somewhat be treated like "security concerns". But most places don't have that luxury.

SI

You tell Italy the same thing Italy tells San Marino. You are part of a Democratic union. Just like the concept of the United States, or the European Union. Democracy makes this work. When you serve at the will of your people, you have incentive to come together.

In the last couple of days, Olaf Sholz announced the construction of terminals at a couple of ports to handle LNG, presumably from the US. Hopefully, we are ramping up production so that we can play that role. Same with Canada.

I think it's easy to get distracted by Trumpisms like "America First" and mistake that for a show of strength or a declaration of hostility. The world is a very complex place, and politicians exist to try and fuck that up.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Dammit. That was going to be a big deal.

And from what I saw, the US was like "here's some F-16s" to the EU countries get upgrades, Ukraine gets the planes they need, and everyone's happy.

SI

How would that work, though? How would they even get to Ukraine? Zelensky has asked NATO for a "No-Fly-Zone" enforcement over Ukraine. That would start WWIII the second anyone engaged because presumably Russia is monitoring and ready to enforce its own No-Fly-Zone over Ukraine.

They took out the entire Ukraine air force. Let's say you could sneak planes in or have Ukrainian pilots sneak out of the country and "borrow" them. Then what? They engage for ten minutes and are destroyed.

Unfortunately, Russia has complete air and sea control right now. Challenging that means direct NATO engagement, no way around it. Even getting the essential anti-tank weapons in there would be a miracle at this point. Russia is setting up siege-like offenses. Maybe they don't work because their own supply lines aren't good or they are underestimating the Ukrainians. But that's what they're doing and if the threat of isolation is failing (hard to even try because everyone depends on Nordstream I) because of China, I don't know how this ends up. If Putin can stomach what he's asked his forces to do to Kharkiv in the last couple of days, we're just not dealing with a rational human being - unfortunately one with far too much control.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Dammit. That was going to be a big deal.

And from what I saw, the US was like "here's some F-16s" to the EU countries get upgrades, Ukraine gets the planes they need, and everyone's happy.

SI

This could also b a cover story for Ukraine getting the planes. Who knows? Everybody involved has an interest in doing more while appearing to do less.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

How would that work, though? How would they even get to Ukraine? Zelensky has asked NATO for a "No-Fly-Zone" enforcement over Ukraine. That would start WWIII the second anyone engaged because presumably Russia is monitoring and ready to enforce its own No-Fly-Zone over Ukraine.

They took out the entire Ukraine air force. Let's say you could sneak planes in or have Ukrainian pilots sneak out of the country and "borrow" them. Then what? They engage for ten minutes and are destroyed.

Unfortunately, Russia has complete air and sea control right now. Challenging that means direct NATO engagement, no way around it. Even getting the essential anti-tank weapons in there would be a miracle at this point. Russia is setting up siege-like offenses. Maybe they don't work because their own supply lines aren't good or they are underestimating the Ukrainians. But that's what they're doing and if the threat of isolation is failing (hard to even try because everyone depends on Nordstream I) because of China, I don't know how this ends up. If Putin can stomach what he's asked his forces to do to Kharkiv in the last couple of days, we're just not dealing with a rational human being - unfortunately one with far too much control.

The Russians don't have a lot of control in the west and if those were coming across the border from Moldova or Romania or Poland, it would be doable, I think. The link Edward posted said Ukraine got pilots out to Poland to try and pick up planes and that's when they found out there were no planes.

SI

[bhlloy]

I also had the question about how all these weapons make it to the frontline and if they are all just being destroyed once they make it 20 miles into Ukraine.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

You tell Italy the same thing Italy tells San Marino. You are part of a Democratic union. Just like the concept of the United States, or the European Union. Democracy makes this work. When you serve at the will of your people, you have incentive to come together.

Democracy helps, doing what you can with your own natural resources help, but it does not at all solve this or make it work, for a couple reasons. What happens when different democratic nations decide they have different interests from each other? Italy and other countries may be benevolent to San Marino, but they still absolutely have the economic power to tell San Marino to go pound sand if they wish. Same with Italy/Germany, UK/US, whatever.

Even more fundamentally though, this only works if there are enough democracies to control world resources. There are not. Take aluminum for example. China produces almost 10x as much as the second-largest producer. In terms of global reserves, neither the US or anyone in Europe outside of Russia is in the Top 10. Australia is, so they can help quite a bit, but they produce less than a 20th of what China does. There are many resources this is true for.

The point is, unless democratic countries completely dominate the globe to the point where authoritarian ones are non-factors (which would make this entire conversation academic), there are key resources that any modern society relies upon that they can't make themselves in sufficient quantities because there simply aren't physically enough of those resources in those countries to meet the demand. It's admittedly simplistic, binary, and misleading to divide the world into free/authoritarian segments, but even under that view each relies on the other - neither is or can be self-sufficient. They can get closer than they are, but the mutual dependence is just a fact of life.

This is one part of why we're going to continue to have issues until we realize the necessity, as a species, of a global government.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Democracy helps, doing what you can with your own natural resources help, but it does not at all solve this or make it work, for a couple reasons. What happens when different democratic nations decide they have different interests from each other? Italy and other countries may be benevolent to San Marino, but they still absolutely have the economic power to tell San Marino to go pound sand if they wish. Same with Italy/Germany, UK/US, whatever.

Even more fundamentally though, this only works if there are enough democracies to control world resources. There are not. Take aluminum for example. China produces almost 10x as much as the second-largest producer. In terms of global reserves, neither the US or anyone in Europe outside of Russia is in the Top 10. Australia is, so they can help quite a bit, but they produce less than a 20th of what China does. There are many resources this is true for.

The point is, unless democratic countries completely dominate the globe to the point where authoritarian ones are non-factors (which would make this entire conversation academic), there are key resources that any modern society relies upon that they can't make themselves in sufficient quantities because there simply aren't physically enough of those resources in those countries to meet the demand. It's admittedly simplistic, binary, and misleading to divide the world into free/authoritarian segments, but even under that view each relies on the other - neither is or can be self-sufficient. They can get closer than they are, but the mutual dependence is just a fact of life.

This is one part of why we're going to continue to have issues until we realize the necessity, as a species, of a global government.

I don't know. I still don't buy how the Federation somehow survived the onslaught of the Borg.

How would this necessity work? Who decides who is in power and, more importantly, who keeps the Putins and the Kings George from abusing that power?

What do we do about the people who feel oppressed under such a government? When Yugoslavia fell, it broke into so many pieces and factions we may still be counting them 100 years from now. Europe, with its 44 countries, and counting, at least is figuring out that there needs to be some sort of union. But any further than that and the problems become severe.

As for resources - the idea is that you do your part. If you have something to trade, you're in the game or you're reliant on someone who is in the game. We've created this China monster - 1.5 billion people who live under communist control - because we insist that they use those people as slaves to mine what we're no longer willing to mine and sew together what we're no longer willing to sew together and burn the fuels that we're no longer willing to burn.

I don't know how it all works, but there's a shift coming and China's version of a world government is not one I think we can share.

[RainMaker]

Another one bounces.

BREAKING: Exxon withdraws from Russia. “We are beginning the process to discontinue operations and developing steps to exit the Sakhalin-1 venture,” it says (unclear what “discontinue” means, but Exxon operates the LNG facility, so it’s a big deal) https://t.co/BeeL2Sxphc

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) March 2, 2022

[GrantDawg]

My understanding is that Russia doesn't have complete air superiority. Ukraine still has many air defenses operating, and have been very successfully using drones to take out Russian units. I don't know if they could keep planes flying for long, though. Are there still operable airports in the west?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

There is a claim right now that a 600 vehicle convoy was taken out by Ukrainian air along with ground troops. That number seems crazy big. I will need to see some real proof on that.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

There is a claim right now that a 600 vehicle convoy was taken out by Ukrainian air along with ground troops. That number seems crazy big. I will need to see some real proof on that.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I saw that. But even if true, its not that "big" one going south towards Kyiv.

[Edward64]

Apparently we are still importing a lot of oil from Russia.

Ukraine: Joe Manchin slams 'hypocritical' White House for buying 500k Russian oil barrels a day | Daily Mail Online

Manchin, a Democrat who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said it was hypocritical to ask other countries to do 'what we can do for ourselves' – and demanded the administration halt the imports, which he noted exceed 500,000 barrels a day of oil and other petroleum products.

Biden admin response is weak. The US government can certainly (or highly encourage) where US market sells or acquires oil & gas. WTF do you think sanctions do?

Yes, gas prices will go up. Yes, it'll be a negative to mid-terms. But it is the right thing to do. Go find more oil & gas somewhere else.

'As it relates to Russian gas, the U.S. government doesn't dictate where the U.S. market sells our own oil and gas products nor where it acquires crude or refined products from for domestic consumption. This is all up to the private sector, other than exceptions like countries under sanctions, she said.

'So, the U.S. refiners currently importing Russian products are largely legacy refinery operations tooled in Hawaii and Alaska for certain supplies because of geography; and imports to the Gulf, both of certain refined products and of crude, as refiners in the Gulf mix crude supplies to meet the needs of their particular refinery designs,' she added. She said the U.S. applauds private companies who made their own announcements, and wouldn't rule out further action.

[PilotMan]

"A lot" is probably not the right term to keep numbers in perspective.

The U.S. imported around 7.86 million barrels of petroleum products, including crude oil, per day in 2020 from about 80 countries. Around 5.88 million barrels, or 75% of imported petroleum products, was crude oil, the EIA reported.

Complete statistics for 2021 were not available from the EIA.

Canada accounted for 52% of the imported petroleum, with 4.13 billion barrels per day coming into the U.S. from the north in 2020. Of that amount, 3.59 million was crude oil.

Russia on the other hand, accounted for only 7% of the petroleum brought into the U.S. for 2020, with only 540,000 barrels per day. Of that amount, 76,000 barrels were of crude oil, according to the EIA.

Historical importation data from the EIA also shows the amount of petroleum and oil the U.S. receives from Russia fluctuates and has not been a steady source like Canada.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

"A lot" is probably not the right term to keep numbers in perspective.

Sure is a lot vs zero.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure is a lot vs zero.

Oooh snap! You got me boss.

[Brian Swartz]

Agreed with both of you. We should stop buying it. No, it isn't a lot by the relevant comparison (how much we buy overall).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Oooh snap! You got me boss.

Zing. Owiee. You got me back "bro"

[Edward64]

Biden’s “go get em” has cause some confusion for the non-US redditors in the r/world news. Some thinking specifically targeting Putin.

Thankfully some US redditors put that to rest.

A little comic relief in a tense situation.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Apparently we are still importing a lot of oil from Russia.

Ukraine: Joe Manchin slams 'hypocritical' White House for buying 500k Russian oil barrels a day | Daily Mail Online

Biden admin response is weak. The US government can certainly (or highly encourage) where US market sells or acquires oil & gas. WTF do you think sanctions do?

Yes, gas prices will go up. Yes, it'll be a negative to mid-terms. But it is the right thing to do. Go find more oil & gas somewhere else.

Manchin is the hypocrite here. He screamed about inflation and is now advocating for a policy that would spike inflation. He wants energy independence but voted no on a bill that would have pushed us toward it.

Also worth noting that the United States exports more oil than it imports from Russia. And that Manchin's buddies in Saudi Arabia cut production to drive up prices.

All Manchin wants is higher domestic energy costs because he is heavily invested in the industry and receives most of his political donations from the industry. He does not give one zero fuck about Russia or Ukraine (and I doubt he could point out either on a map).

[RainMaker]

In other Manchin news, here's the company his crook daughter ran.

EpiPen antitrust litigation settled; Viatris to pay $264 million | Reuters

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Edward64

There were some posts here that Putin may have emboldened China on Taiwan.

I think based on how the war is going so far and the world reaction, this has reduced the odds that China will try to invade Taiwan militarily. If Taiwan declares independence then all bets are off.

I have been totally wondering if the Ukraine/Russia thing is anything like the China/Taiwan thing.

[GrantDawg]

To answer my own question earlier, yes Ukraine still have active airports and active planes still flying. This article talks about how baffling it is that the Russian have not gain air superiority yet, and they don't seem to be willing to invest the equipment to do so. That just seems strange. Are the Russian's holding back aircraft in fear of a NATO attack? What other reason would there be for Russia committing such a small amount of their air force to the conflict?


What happened to Russia's Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped | Reuters

[GrantDawg]

It looks as if the Ukrainians are doing a counter-offensive to slow down or push back the Russian advance. Reports are they have taken parts of Horlivka that has been under Russian control for 8 years.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure is a lot vs zero.

Context matters.

[Kodos]

Anyone else want to see the Ukraine start invading Russia?

(Not being serious…)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Anyone else want to see the Ukraine start invading Russia?

(Not being serious…)

No, but it would be interesting (though unrealistic) if they somehow were able to fend off the attack and also take back Crimea

SI

[NobodyHere]

It would be some kind of poetic justice if Ukraine took back Crimea

[PilotMan]

Couple videos in case anyone is struggling to understand the larger Russian strategy. The second video is from 6 years ago and is 100% accurate still.

Would Putin have invaded with trump in office? Probably not. The trump policies were pushing the Russian position on the world, devaluing NATO and working to put Ukraine in a vice via tit for tat world comments and political commentary. Why attack when the President of the United States will help you do it? The Lavrov who is saying WW3 will be nuclear is the same Lavrov that trump gave classified information to that had been withheld from allies (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...69_story.html). He was basically working as a Russian agent in terms of furthering Russian policy. So no, they wouldn't have needed to attack.

In addition:
1. Said it was Ukraine who interfered in the 2016 election
2. Kicked out the US Ambassador to the Ukraine and smeared her.
3. Froze military assets
4. Denied a WH meeting with Zelensky
5. Turned over all policy to Guiliani, and made him the point person for all things Ukraine. Not Sec State.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ukraine-putin/)

[Edward64]

FWIW, Euronews interviewed 4 Russians.

Essentially 1-2-1 with the 2 in the middle leaning pro-War. Interesting perspectives from common people.

What do Russians think of Putin's invasion of Ukraine? | Euronews

[GrantDawg]

The Russians heavily shelled Kharkiv along with a paratrooper assault. There is a school in Kharkiv that has a larger Indian student population, and they are now trapped in an underground shelter. Putin is claiming the students are hostages being used as human shields, and the Russians are simply trying free them. Lots of Indians are pretty upset and blaming the Ukrainians for the situation. If those silly Ukrainians would just stop bombing themselves.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Couple videos in case anyone is struggling to understand the larger Russian strategy. The second video is from 6 years ago and is 100% accurate still.

Would Putin have invaded with trump in office? Probably not. The trump policies were pushing the Russian position on the world, devaluing NATO and working to put Ukraine in a vice via tit for tat world comments and political commentary. Why attack when the President of the United States will help you do it? The Lavrov who is saying WW3 will be nuclear is the same Lavrov that trump gave classified information to that had been withheld from allies (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...69_story.html). He was basically working as a Russian agent in terms of furthering Russian policy. So no, they wouldn't have needed to attack.

In addition:
1. Said it was Ukraine who interfered in the 2016 election
2. Kicked out the US Ambassador to the Ukraine and smeared her.
3. Froze military assets
4. Denied a WH meeting with Zelensky
5. Turned over all policy to Guiliani, and made him the point person for all things Ukraine. Not Sec State.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ukraine-putin/)

I have wondered if this would have played out more in Putin's favor if he had started this while Trump was in office. It's clear why he didn't, but I don't think there's any chance the US uses it's intel as effectively and I seriously doubt Trump would have been willing to work with NATO.

On a side note, Newsmax had Bolton on as they were trying to squash the narrative that Trump wasn't tough enough on Russia. I thought Bolton played the interview pretty well. He didn't push back too hard on what they were wanting to strongly push other than point out a lot of what they were listing off as things Trump did to hurt Russia were actually Congressional decisions. Instead he pointed out that Trump had no understanding of history and therefore went into these situations ignorant and blind. He also said every decision Trump made was based on how it would benefit him personally and listed off the issues surrounding the first impeachment and withholding of aid. It seemed to catch the interviewer off guard and he wasn't prepared to defend Trump in that manner and largely ended up looking like he agreed or deferred to Bolton on those points. Yes Bolton is a piece of shit, ect but it was interesting to see how he handled that interview.