Here's the truth on Ukraine, as far as
I can tell

President Potted Plant - that will be my new monitor of Poopy-Pants!

Wow, an article about this war that isn't full of propaganda for either side. That is refreshing. However, I think there are some things that also need to be pointed out: When the US launched Operation Desert Storm, we all thought it was amazing that we could win in such "lightning fast" speed. It was just so amazing that we could win that war so quickly. Desert Storm took over 40 days. The current Russian invasion of Ukraine is on day 14 or 15. Ukraine is larger (almost 1.5 times bigger) than Iraq. Ukraine has a larger population than Iraq had. Ukraine is heavily wooded, not wide-open desert like most of Iraq. Ukraine has a popular elected president, not a hated despot dictator like Iraq had. Ukraine has a much more well-trained and well-armed military than Iraq had. Putin may be evil (Hitler-level evil), but he is not stupid. He never expected Ukraine "to fall in 2 or 3 days". And as evil as Putin is, he has avoided large-scale attacks that would have resulted in mass civilian casualties (or there would be a lot more dead Ukrainians right now). Sure, there are going to be civilian casualties in any war, especially since most countries put lots of civilians around military targets to hopefully make them less-desirable targets in a war. But if Putin decides to go full blitzkrieg on Ukraine, and starts to blow up anything in his way, expect those civilian fatalities to skyrocket. No, I am not pro-Russia on this in any way. While the Russians did have some valid concerns about Ukraine, none of it was enough to justify an invasion. But I am just so sick that all this war has become is a massive outpouring of propaganda on both sides. It's almost impossible to have a clue about what is really happening there.

This column has it right...sit down and talk to Putin. He wants a deal to get out of this mess. Unfortunately, there is no one in the administration who has the maturity and experience to do a deal. One person can and that is The Donald. But that's a non-starter! How about Michael Bloomberg, or for the good the country, Jared Kirschner. He's RINO and Dems might find him acceptable...another non-starter. Does anyone see the pickle we are in?

I really see little similarity between Putin and Trump. I do think that Putin is a Putin first guy; though I know he loves his country. Trump also loves his country, but he is an America First guy. That's the only similarity I see between the two men.

with all that said, Russia is attacking civilians as a means to its ends: bombing hospitals and evacuation corridors and apartment buildings, priority one is stop all of that. no room for priority two just now. it is like telling us that the man who is choking his neighbor is upset about the property line and a whole long string of Insults and Betrayals. does not justify killing civilians and does not necessarily justify killing the army either. As well please note, Yanukovych ran away under pressure. Had he been as brave as Zelensky then 2014 would have turned out very differently. Once he ran off, what was everybody supposed to do? Leave the office open until he deigned to return? He was a coward and once he ran away there was no good answer in 2014. yes he was under pressure but Zelensky more so. as well, Zelensky was elected later, he is not the person who took Yanukovych's place in 2014. As well, Putin may be killing fewer people than he could, but you can say that much about Literally Anybody.

Spot on. Best article on Ukraine debacle I've read.

I read this with mixed emotions and belief. What I do agree on is that George Bush was a moron in the White House and Biden is a potted plant moved around by his handlers. As for Putin, only the most depraved agree to bomb hospitals and harmless elderly citizens in flight for their lives.

I read through Truitt's analysis. Yes, the West (the USA) really did a pisspoor job in its foreign policy on Ukraine and this was with Obie and his lieutenant, biden the future cheater, in charge. Several other US presidents sure didn't help with this - Bush II, BJ, Obie, and biden you cheater, this means you. You clowns. Trump was the only one to understand what went right and what went wrong in our foreign policy on Ukraine. On the other hand, why would NATO give a flip about russia as long as russia behaved. Ok, it reneged on its deal with russia to not expand NATO after the former Soviet Union fell. For what reason then that NATO had expanded anyway? Afterall, russia is just a large gasoline can, it's what they do. On the other other hand, why did Putie feel compelled to bomb the crap out of Ukraine - like NATO was going to start a war. On the other other other hand, why did Putie think it was ok to engage in the Great Election Fraud of 2020 to get biden the cheater instead of Trump. Nothing adds up here except today's genocide in Ukraine results from a gross lack of quality communication and leadership over the last 40 years between the elites. The elites blew this one bigtime. And now we have the Great Reset crowd trying to compete with the post-cold war world order crowd (Putie). Very poor international leadership and communication is why we are here. It's all about power and money. All players could not have screwed this Ukraine thing up better if they had tried. Those poor people in Ukraine.

A little itty bit breath of truth of course its a glass of water on a forest fire but thanks anyway

A little truth and a lot of misinterpretation. Assuming OP and commenters are well intended ... - No, the NATO allies did NOT promise no NATO expansion eastward. The promise was that non-German NATO forces would not be moved east into the former East Germany. At the time of the "promise", the Warsaw pact still existed, so the question of NATO expansion never came up. - No, George Bush did NOT pull out of the ABM treaty because of offensive capabilities. He pulled out because of the rise of OTHER nuclear aspirant powers like North Korea (thank you Bill Clinton), Iraq (thank you Pappy Bush), and Iran (thank you Jimmy Carter). He rightly saw the ABM treaty as prohibiting defense against other, rogue, states. And, he attempted to negotiate changes to the treaty to allow for other defenses, but Putin wasn't having it. - No, the US is NOT responsible for pushing NATO expansion to the east. Putin is. By invading and subverting his neighbors, and professing his desire to reconstitute Imperial Russia, he has scared the hell out of the neighboring countries. Now, even formerly "neutral" Sweden and Finland show interest in joining. - No, Russia CANNOT be trusted. Their repeated violations of INF treaty, etc., show that they have no interest in peace and stability. - If Russia has a right to be so concerned about (defensive) NATO forces on its border, what rights does NATO and the EU have in regards to nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad, in the heart of Europe, on land that Russia stole from Poland / Prussia (depending on era) and never gave back. Russia has NEVER acknowledged or renounced the partition of eastern Europe that it perpetrated in concert with Nazi Germany. The current Russian leadership only regrets that events have turned against them. They still embrace and embody fascistic ideals of pan-Slavic hegemony over a reconstituted Russian Empire. The enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend. Just because you oppose the globalist agenda does NOT make Putin your ally.

Dan is spot on! Shame on FOX News! Tucker is the only one asking the right questions!

NATO has no business with Ukraine and no reason to rush to its defense, except to antagonize the Russians. In fact, our Euro allies fear Russia so little that they have allowed their military forces to wither as they increased their dependence on their energy and other commodities. The assurances within the Budapest Memorandum do not promise military assistance/response to "aggression" against Ukraine, rather a referral to world bodies, such as the UN. NATO is indeed the US and a gaggle of pygmies who want no part of a war with Russia over anything short of a massive invasion - of which Russia is largely incapable. Whether the Russians were explicitly given a pledge regarding NATO expansion into the Eastern Bloc, it was apparently given some level of assurances by the US and perhaps other "major" NATO powers, namely Germany and Britain. At any rate, it was impolitic of NATO to expand its obviously anti-Russian alliance to the borderlands. Of course, with the collapse of the Soviet Union NATO had to do something to ensure its survival as a permanent political animal. The US in particular has no core to its foreign policy. It cannot explain its role except to claim this fallacious "Leader of the Free World" monicker that allows it to "legitimately" rush into any and all the world's conflicts, needed or welcome or not. While for half a century the core was anti-Communism, today it is blank...whatever cliche the publicists can spin. And the neo-Patton boobs follow, afraid their patriotism will be questioned if they don't huff and puff for at least a show of force, if not a few nukes. And what hath we wrought? In Afghanistan? In Iraq? In Eastern Europe? Throughout Europe? Several areas of perpetual conflict that are quick to inflame whenever needed. And in the meantime the Chinese sign more than half the world to its Belt and Road Initiative club. No shots fired; no troops garrisoned. And less money invested than we have in expanding and defending that vaunted Free World. But, then Russia is the boogie man, not-so-much China. We are where we are largely due to our own bipartisan (Unipartisan) hubris. And who will be the leader away from these permanent alliances and foreign intrigues of which George Washington warned?

What if...just what if...the official US position on this war (Putin is an evil warmonger, Zelensky is a saintly boy scout just protecting defenseless widows and orphans) is driven by the secret desire of the Biden crime family to maintain their Ukrainian gravy train? I mean, the $83,000/month that Hunter was paid to sit on a BOD for Burisma, a job for which he had no relevant experience is the only Ukrainian paycheck we know about. Given those details, I'd put the chance of other Ukrainian paychecks for Hunter, and therefore "the big guy," at 100%....and hence, the Biden, er, the USA's position on the war.

I will not be distracted. Washington DC is the enemy.

Sorry for second comment, but, screwed US foreign policy together with a corrupt Ukraine together with a screwed up EU and corrupt and woke NATO together with a russia that supposedly wants its land back is why we are here. An overall collapse in world leadership is why the Ukrainian people are getting the crap bombed out of them.

#10 is about the only voice of sanity on this thread. How can anyone be supportive of Putin --- currently bombing civilians, destroying hospitals, and causing nearly two million refugees, among his other multiple crimes --- is beyond me.

This is mostly accurate to the best of my knowledge (mainly gleaned from listening to people who have made careers out of tracking public sentiment and political activity in eastern Europe for decades). Putin has spent two decades rebuilding Russia from such dire straights that the party promising a return to Communism very nearly won power. His actions have been calculated, cold, and ruthless, but they have consistently been in pursuit of creating a Russia that does not need to fear anyone. A massive portion of this has been building up their food production, energy production, and manufacturing bases such that sanctions have little impact on the lives of the people. Russia has always been rich in resources and manpower, and he has worked to add to that a capable industrial base. The thing is, Russians know this, and they have a very similar view of Putin as Republicans have of Trump because of it. That's the level of support he has at home. I see no evidence that Putin has aims of restoring the USSR. In fact, everything from his words to his actions suggests exactly the opposite. It's pretty well known in Russia itself that the former Kremlin man has no love for the former Soviet system. He uses "Bolshevik" as an insult and term of derision and has openly declared Communism a perverse tool of globalists. He is absolutely a nationalist and of the same vein as Trump (though more ruthless and willing to spill blood for his goals): describing his philosophy as "Of Russia, by Russia, for Russia, by any means necessary" is a good way to think of it. NATO antagonism has absolutely played a part here, a part most of the West is unwilling to admit. NATO was designed as a balancing organization against the USSR and the WTO (notice the similarity in naming? might be a reason the West insists on calling it the Warsaw Pact instead). But it's outlived its purpose since neither the WTO nor the USSR exist any longer, nor is there any analogous entity. There is only Russia now, and it needed a diplomatically extended hand and relaxation of hostilities. NATO should have been dismantled after serving its purpose. Instead, NATO, heavily under our direction, has continued to build up and build up and snatch up former Soviet Bloc members, putting more and more one-sided pressure on Russia. In the bureaucrats' desperation to perpetuate their jobs' existence, they have kept an explicitly military and explicitly anti-Russian trundling along. To Putin, the recent pushes to incorporate Ukraine into NATO look exactly like the Cuban Missile Crisis did to the US. He has no reason to trust that NATO, an organization built specifically as a gun pointed at Russia and largely run by a country that has made a habit of invading others on flimsy or outright false pretenses while demanding regime change, won't be lining up first-strike weapons along his border. In fact, the US was deeply involved in the overthrow of a relatively friendly regime in Ukraine and replacing it with one openly hostile to Russia. And multiple western nations in NATO have been riling up tensions between Russia and Ukraine for years. So what's Putin's move here? Does he just sit quietly and allow the gun to be placed against Russia's temple? His actions are neither insane nor just strongman antics (unlike our own Counterfeit pResident signing off on the murder of civilians for a few days of good headlines). They are bloody, certainly, but that's nothing unusual. They look to me like a calculated best choice of bad options. Ukraine's incorporation into NATO was almost a forgone conclusion, just a matter of time, so he acted in what he things is the best available way to prevent that. You don't have to agree with it, but it is not irrational. Incidentally, this is why Putin did seem to truly like and respect Trump, not that he recognized a similar nationalist in Trump. Trump was willing to pull that gun back and make actual overtures towards peace and friendship while suggesting NATO's time had passed. He gave Putin hope for actual de-escalation and maybe turning those tensions into cooperation. And then Putin watched the US Permanent Political Complex stab Trump in the back over and over and finally outright steal an election from him. Note that the stolen election is a bigger deal to Putin that most people here realize. He wins his elections primarily by legitimate support of the Russian people. Older Russians who remember the 80s and 90s will crawl over broken glass to vote for him. And he watched our Establishment corrupt our own election to remove someone he saw as a kindred spirit. The same Establishment that made Russia the Big Bad for years. The same Establishment Putin realizes is actually the finger on that trigger, so he's no likely to trust any president to come. I would not be surprised if the (D)imwits desperation to destroy Trump instead destroyed the last real chance we had of unwinding tensions with Russia, and I'm supported in that by Russia now solidly aligning with China. Long story short, the West refused to lower its gun at the end of the Cold War, and Putin's Russia is real nervous about us having an unstable finger on that trigger. Nervous enough to ally with China, invade Ukraine for some breathing room, and ratchet up an economic war against us.

I have trouble with the notion that all that Zelensky needs to do is agree with Putin that Ukraine will never join NATO, and Putin will retreat. I wouldn't trust any tyrant who has stolen $200 Billion from the country "he loves." You don't have to be sane to be a genius. You might have to be blind to think that President Trump was "all hot air and Big Macs," but Putin divorcing his wife of decades to seize a young gymnast and treat her like a personal inflatable sex doll, and riding around shirtless on horseback to try and look presidential is not obvious midlife crisis madness on steroids.

#17 - A sane and fair assessment. Thank you.