It's a little bit scary. It would be interesting to see the full money trail behind fox news and its celebrities.

And he thinks that's a bad thing? Isn't Tucker Carlson/Fox News supposed to be unapologetically pro-America? This position from the right makes no sense if you think about it for a minute. Bizzaro world.

If you've been paying attention to the crap that Trump and his sycophants have pulled you'd realize it makes total sense. These people are not patriots to America in it's current form. They are wholly on board for a new authoritarian far right nationalist America, in bed with the Russian state to further their goals.

I can't even fathom what this means. Ukraine is not a significant trade partner of the US, nor is it in NATO or even the EU. They don't store our missiles as part of a strategic defense system the way Poland and Turkey do.

Edit: Thinking about it more: what could it mean for this to be a negative thing? It's presumably not even about Ukraine's autonomy, since Carlson seems okay with said autonomy not existing under a Russian imposed state.

Trump speaks well of Putin, so the right-wing commentators also speak well of Putin. They also feel he was maligned unfairly by the Steele Dossier Russia stuff, so to "own the libs" as revenge they embrace the dictator Putin.

Oh, sure -- I get the "meta-game" of it. But "State Department client state" feels like a remarkably...flabby reproach.

Hunter was getting $50k a month from a Ukraine gas company. [0] There’s definitely a conflict of interest with the administration. Also Biden bragging about getting a prosecutor fired and threatening to withhold aid. [1] https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-probe-finds-hunter-b...

Discarding the truth value of these claims: this doesn't explain why Ukraine is characterized as a "State Department client state." Hunter Biden is not a member of the executive branch.

You're looking for nuance where there is none. This is standard right wing "be a dick to own the libs" behaviour.

Americans always find a way to make all news about random American political commentors.

The fact that a portion of the US political population is under active measure psyops compounds the current circumstances.

Candace Owens says WE are at fault

https://twitter.com/realcandaceo/status/1496124028968394765?...

The truth is a bit more nuanced.

NATO expansion is viewed by the Russians as a violation of previous alleged agreements and assurances by the West, and a HUGE sore point with the Russians, to the point that hardliners there believe this to be an existential crisis.

So yes, in the higher Russian circles they do truly believe that this is all America's fault, and in truth America absolutely did harm relations with Russia and for better or worse knowingly intimidated them to the point that lashing out became likely.

However, one cannot attack another and then blame someone else for one's own violence. This is not an acceptable response to such grievances; it's how an abuser reacts.

But people don't like complicated explanations, so we settle on "Russia is bad" vs "America is bad" and then pick sides to sling mud from.

Ukraine should have kept the nukes[1]. Whether NATO is in violation of an agreement or not, Russia is definitely in violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

[1] https://www.kalw.org/npr-news/2022-02-21/why-ukraine-gave-up...

Yes, nukes would definitely have made them think twice about invasion...

What NATO expansion are you talking about?

Expansion into the Ukraine. It's Russia's Rubicon.

But really it's the steady pace of the Visegrád Group, Vilnius Group, and Adriatic Charter.

Ukraine doesn't have a right to decide what treaties they it joins?

Technically, they do. In reality, they don't.

The Ukraine isn't one of the big boys on the playground, so anything they do needs the OK of the big boys.

What opinion is this? Why do you hold it?

It's just the way of things. The only way to keep aggressors at bay is to project power, which is why every nation has police forces to ensure order. But there's no world police force, so nations must make do in other ways. And so the more powerful nations decide on the rules that all must in theory follow, and they also decide when they themselves can break those rules. It's why so many nations want their own nukes.

The "big boys" involved in the Ukrainian issue are America, Russia, and Germany. Germany is still too timid to act (owing to the war), and America and Russia still have ideological cold warriors in their government apparatus.

What agreements specifically were made by the West that promised Russia that there would be no NATO expansion?

What agreements are you talking about?

Unbelievable. They talk a big game when it comes to freedom but are supporting a repressive dictator who hates their freedom.

Reactionary opposition. Doesn't matter the facts, doesn't matter the substance. Trump is right, Biden is old & stupid.

I mean, look at this Reddit thread. Somehow, Trump was the deterrent for 4 years despite his ongoing infatuation with an authoritarian dedicator.

Enough is enough, if you pretend both sides are the same you are the problem.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/t009rq/breaki... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/22/trump-rea...

I got a better one from Tucker.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1458614311413338121

"Why isn't the US on Russia's side in this?"

This would be funny if it weren’t frightening.

Murdoch has some grand plans and he’s by all means getting away with them pretty damn easily.

A war is starting and your big concern is a fringe talk show host that reaches < 1% of the population? Shelve the partisanship for a couple days.

His show is watched by 1.5% of the US population and is the single most watched cable news show. I would find his comments abhorrent whether they were on Fox or MSNBC.

Ratings move around, but for Q4 2021, the last full quarterly ratings period, he averaged 3.2m viewers, which is just under 1% of the population.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/top-cable-news-shows-of-2021...

He'd need to average another million viewers a night to get close to 1.5%.

I'm not sure what's partisan about the GP's comment, unless any reference to Tucker's support for Russia is somehow partisan.

It is partisan, in the opening moments of a terrible war, to look to use said war as a way to attack your local political opponents, or to deflect blame from your political allies.

I do believe that Tucker reaches more than 1% of the population.

Also, my opinion about this situation: war has no place in 2022.

Just under 1% average: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30463730

It is relevant. These commentators give soft power to Putin.

He ain't wrong. U.S. involvement there has been... intense, for lack of a better word, for decades.

I don't understand which decades are in question, since Ukraine has only been independent for about 3 of them. Ukraine entered a partnership with NATO in 1994 (mirroring a similar partnership with CIS), and the US has been palpably hesitant to advance their formal military commitment beyond that level.

This is of course in contrast to annexation of Crimea and the Donbas.

I'm referring to the actions of the State Department in Ukraine, as evidenced by "Cablegate" and by later reporting and leaks regarding the Maiden revolution and subsequent elections. I'm sure HN will be full of experts within a few hours, if the speed of new armchair virologists the last few years are any indication.

Russia poisoned Ukraine's president with dioxin after their preferred candidate lost in 2005.

That's not at all what he's implying.