Tuesday, July 5, 2022
HomeMilitaryTulsi Gabbard Has Heated Debate With Hannity Over Ukraine War

Tulsi Gabbard Has Heated Debate With Hannity Over Ukraine War

Former Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard recently had a heated debate with Fox News host Sean Hannity over the issue of Ukraine. Hannity’s plea was that Ukraine should get the appropriate tools (meaning weapons) to defend itself against Russia and ultimately win the war. He cited the numerous atrocities committed against the Ukrainian people by Russia as the reason why our moral inclination should side with Ukraine. Tulsi looked at the situation from a more practical perspective. She is also an Iraq war veteran with the US Army. Her viewpoint was deeply rooted in logic but not very popular among neo-conservatives or leftist warmongers.

Tulsi Gabbard said that Ukraine cannot win the war against the Russian Federation. They are simply overwhelmed by Russia’s military might. No nations will come to Ukraine’s aid as far as boots-on-the-ground. Leaders from the Ukrainian Government have appeared on television to ask for more resources, including planes and anti-air defense systems. This is completely ridiculous and somewhat embarrassing. President Zelenskyy of Ukraine needs to do some serious soul-searching and come to the realization that surrender is the best option here. People inside and outside of the country may feel like surrender is a coward’s move but feelings have no place in military strategy. Achieving the best outcome should be the primary objective here.

- Advertisement -

Allowing the West to fund Ukraine and prolong this unwinnable war does not serve in Ukraine’s best interest. All it does is potentially provoke Russia into escalating the battle into dangerous territory which may prompt other nations to join, sparking another World War. This could be the ultimate goal for the warmongers who support furthering the Ukraine war. So this is in their best interest. However, it is not in the best interest of regular people in the world and it is most certainly not going to help the people of Ukraine at all. Life would become more difficult for common people just because elitists want their political objectives met.

SOURCES:

Sean Hannity presses Tulsi Gabbard on her Ukraine stance | Fox News

Sean Hannity Pushes Back as Tulsi Gabbard Defends Russia

- Advertisement -

4 COMMENTS

  1. Sure sure.. throw a couple 100 billion $ at the cause and be done with it. Its not like millions of Americans could better use that money in cleaning up our own streets, society and internal wars on violence which fatality numbers far far surpass any this or any other “war” has brought about. War = $ and all the USA opportunistic scum are booming big in business. Oh and lets not forget about the US bio weapons facilities in Ukraine.. not like that is the sole reason for any involvement at all ie: barrage of deflecting smoke and mirrors, oh no. Fox’s constant sensationalized fabricated delusional xenophobic disinforming rhetoric is beyond reproach. As if. Pathetic.

  2. I watched the AnthonyBrianLogan video “Tulsi Gabbard Has HEATED Debate With Hannity Over Ukraine!” As I listened to Tulsi Gabbard, I became more and more agitated and didn’t know why. The whole talk about how Ukraine had no chance of winning this war and because of this, we (U.S.A.) should not support or help them. And that Ukraine should not fight back and should just surrender to Russia, etc., etc. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. And then, if that wasn’t bad enough, ABL ended by agreeing with Tulsi Gabbard. About 30 minutes later, I remembered where I had heard that same tone and argument before. It was in the old attitude about [email protected] The whole” there is nothing you can do about it, so don’t fight back”, because you might make them mad, and so just endure it. Or worse yet, don’t fight back, just lay back and enjoy it. And anybody remembers this one “The weather is like being [email protected], there is nothing you can do about it so you might as well lay back and enjoy it”. I heard this argument from both men and women over and over back in the day. This always made me sick to hear. And listening to Tulsi Gabbard go on about the subject brought back that same feeling of revulsion. Of course, Ukraine should fight back. If you’re not willing to defend your border or your citizens, then you’re not really a sovereign nation, are you?
    And by the way, there are plenty of examples of the Davids vs Goliath situations where David triumphs. From 1775 to 1784, a collection of thirteen backwoods colonies stood up to and ultimately defeated England, which was the world superpower of the time. Israel vs the Arab world, the Boer War, the Franco Mexican War, the Swiss Cantons vs the Habsburgs, The Russo-Japanese War, and the list goes on and on.
    And besides all that, I refer you to the Budapest Memorandum. That’s right, we are treaty-bound to guarantee the independence of Ukraine. I don’t want the U.S.A. involved in a war against Russia. However, we
    ought to do a better job of honoring our obligations and being the leader of the free world!
    Below is a little refresher on the concerning situation.
    Ukraine
    1991: With the end of the Soviet Union, Ukraine declares
    its independence. Ukraine then finds itself in possession of the 3rd largest
    nuclear arsenal (5,000 nuclear weapons) in the world.
    The United Kingdom, Russia, and the United States all apply immense pressure on Ukraine to give up these same nuclear weapons to Russia. The Ukrainians were hesitant to do so because of the long history of “Crimes Against Humanity” being committed against the Ukrainian people by Russia. They rightfully felt that without these weapons; it was only a matter of time before Russia would attack them.
    Like all former Soviet republics, there was no tradition or experience in republican or democratic governance in Ukraine. And so corrupt
    former communist party bosses came to control many of these former Soviet republics. Russia regularly meddles in the business of these new nations and manipulates them by both encouraging and exploiting their corruption and with election interference campaigns.
    1991 to 2014, Ukraine was governed by a series of corrupt administrations made up of former communist party bosses and pro-Russian puppets. The country was a mess. Meanwhile, Ukraine was being romanced by the
    United States, NATO, and the European Union are away from Russian influence and towards NATO and the European Union. All of which agitated Putin.
    1992 to 1993: Russia and the Clinton White House worked furiously to convince Ukraine to transfer all of its nuclear weapons to Russia.
    1994: Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons and
    heavy bombers for assurances from Moscow, London, and Washington, all of which guaranteed Ukraine’s security and “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. The security and sovereignty of Ukraine are 100% guaranteed by the Budapest Memorandum. This is a binding agreement without loopholes from which Washington, London, or Moscow cannot escape their obligation to Ukraine.
    1994: Ukraine joins the Partnership for Peace (PfP) which is a NATO program aimed at creating trust between the member states of NATO and other non-aligned states in Europe, including several post-Soviet states, Sweden and Finland.
    2004: Pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovich is elected president of Ukraine under suspicious circumstances. This triggers a series of protests that become known as the Orange Revolution, which forces a re-run of
    the election. Pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko, is elected president. Putin is
    furious. Russia attempts to assassinate Yushchenko using TCDD DIOIN poisoning.
    Yushchenko recovers.
    2005: New president Yushchenko promises to lead Ukraine
    out of Russia’s orbit and towards NATO and the EU.
    2008: NATO promises Ukraine admission into the alliance
    sometime in the future.
    2009: President Obama reaffirms the Budapest Memorandum
    and its “Security Assurances” to Ukraine.
    2010: With massive support from Ukraine’s predominately
    ethnically Russian south and east, pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovich wins the presidential election.
    2013-2014: Pro-Putin/Russian President Viktor Yanukovych
    suspends the Ukraine-European Union Association Agreement in favor of closer economic ties with Russia. Mass protests and demonstrations break out in Ukraine, which leads to the overthrow of Yanukovych and the establishment of a new government. Within days of this, Russia/Putin stages a soft invasion of the Ukrainian Crimean Peninsula. Obama stood by and watched as ethnically Russian Ukrainian rebels supported by Russia, with support from Russian troops, seized control of Crimea. The Russian-backed rebel government of Crimea then seceded from Ukraine and was annexed by Russia.
    April 2014: Russia provides financial, military personnel, military equipment, and weapons assistance to pro-Russian separatists in the eastern and southern region of Ukraine who declare their independence and intention to be annexed by Russia. Some 15,000 people have
    been killed since 2014 in fighting between the separatists and the Ukrainian army.
    2017: An association agreement between Ukraine and the EU opens markets for free trade of goods and services, and visa-free travel to the
    EU for Ukrainians.
    2019: Former comedic actor Volodymyr Zelenskiy is elected president.
    2021: Zelenskiy appeals to U.S. president Joe Biden to let Ukraine join NATO. In February, his government freezes the assets of opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk, the Kremlin’s most prominent ally in Ukraine.
    2021: Russia begins massing 100,000 + troops near Ukraine’s borders in what it says are training exercises. In a TV address, Putin states that Ukraine is part of Russia and has a Nazi-Fascist puppet the regime managed by foreign powers. Putin orders so-called Russian
    “peace-keeping” forces into the two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine, after recognizing them as independent. Russia has used this script to disrupt and destabilize several nations including Georgia (Abkhazian and South Ossetian), Moldova (Transnistria), and Ukraine (Crimea Peninsula and Donbas region).
    President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is not a Nazi, he is in fact Jewish and his grandfather (Semyon Ivanovych Zelenskyy) family were all but wiped out by the Nazis in the holocaust while he served as a colonel in the red army fighting against Germany.
    2022: The U.S., Britain, and their allies-imposed sanctions against Russia and, in particular, Putin and his cronies. Putin orders “special military operations” in Ukraine. Russian forces begin missile and artillery attacks, striking major Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv. Russian forces invade Ukraine from the north (Belorussia), east, southeast (Donbas separatist territory), and the south (Crimea Peninsula).
    Ukraine is an independent nation and has the right of self-determination and is not obligated to seek the permission of Putin/Russia to enter negotiations, alliances, and or treaties with other countries.
    I will finish this up by saying good on you Hannity and by asking what type of military officer is Tulsi Gabbard is she believes that you should roll over whenever the odds are against you? What kind of President would she have been?

    Check ignition and may GOD’s love be with you, Cotton Williams.

  3. The only thing that averted WW-3 in 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis was the willingness to conduct sober and informed diplomacy. I believe This is Tulsi Gabbard’s position.

    Ukraine — as of now — is not a NATO ally, and any effort to make it one, is seen by Russia as an act of western aggression with all the implications of the former Soviet Union establishing missiles in Cuba under JFK’s administration.

    NATO elements over the years have been mustered at the Russian Ukraine border. Ukraine presently fights an effective battle against Russia because of those staged and stockpiled weapons, as well as the continuous provision of satellite imagery by the US that allows it to effectively target Russian assets.

    This is the essence of a proxy war footing. Any other interpretation is ludicrous.

    Siting NATO weapons in Ukraine – post Soviet Union collapse – is meant to provoke Russia, and Russia interprets it as such. Therefore dissolving the Ukrainian “buffer” to the west of Russia can serve no other purpose other than to keep Russia on high alert and increase global tensions.

    “Good fences make good neighbors.” So please tell me, what is the purpose of dissolving the Ukrainian “fence?”

    The Russians fought this battle of their western border before, in the June 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany in Operation Barbarossa.

    But in spite of “non aggression pacts”, Germany attacked anyway, for “Lebensraum.” Russian history still teach that WW2 began on June 22, 1941, the day Hitler launched his invasion of the USSR. Russian history still teaches that it suffered atrocities by Germans – during both the attack and the ensuing retreat – as it is occurring now under the Azov Battallion, and other Nazi elements. Russians teach that were it not for the harsh Russian winter, the Nazis would have won.

    One more related thing: when a nation musters its un-conscripted citizens to take up arms outside of the military structure as Ukraine is doing now — those citizens i.e., the “Volkssturm” — they become legitimate military targets according to wartime rules of engagement. Weapons, SAMs, and heavy armament are indeed placed under “civilian cover” as was the case during the various Middle East wars. “Those were not ‘pharmacies and children’s hospitals”, but weapons caches.

    War is indeed hell, which is why I align myself with Tulsi Gabbard’s stance. “Will some adult in the room please stop the madness?”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Most Popular

Recent Comments