"Although by now, more blood had been spilled in Ukraine than in all European conflicts since WWII combined, the organization “committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes” showed no readiness to discuss a peaceful resolution of the conflict."

Zelensky is a hapless boob who brings a wealth of useful experience to the table for his first government job - just like Hunter Biden's Burisma gig. But it's unfair to lay this mess at his feel, solely. These events have been scripted largely by the USA, largely by Victoria Nuland and her cohorts in the Intelligence community and State Department, going back to their active role in the Color Revolution in 2014.

They apparently believe - and they might be right - that people have never heard of peace talks before, and don't remember the scores of other conflicts in which the calls for peace talks and cease fires have commenced almost as soon as the atrocities begin.

Not this time, though. The altruistic, high-minded diplomats over at the UN, who exhort us to contribute endlessly to support the fight against world suffering, have instead been watching the US and NATO shovel cash and armaments to fuel the Ukraine's stand against a former superpower, without the need for audit or due diligence. Awesome, that's the word to describe our leaders.

With respect, the entire conversation is fraught with 'snapshot' syndrome and strawman arguments.

don't pretend to be an expert. But: Who on this planet is saying that anybody doesn't have the right to defend their own country? Nobody is; It's a Bad Faith, strawman argument. Similarly, ad hominem arguments that anybody that opposes US support of the conflict is a 'Putin Stooge'. Nice try.

Who really thinks this is just about a Russian invasion started a couple of years ago, with no historical context, completely isolated from past events? Well... we're encouraged to think this way - a snapshot. The same way snapshots are used to advance climate change arguments, by conveniently eliminating data which conflicts, outside the frame.

James Baker III, SOS when the Soviet Union collapsed, communicated that NATO would never advance, and that Soviet territory would never be threatened. That was a US policy promise, with NATO agreement. Did it happen? Is NATO encroachment irrelevant to Russian security? An honest answer is 'No' to both. These events are part of the situation. NATO is still advancing on Russia, almost 40 years later.

Is it wrong for the US to meddle in the national politics of other countries? I would say, 'not necessarily', as this is part and parcel of international strategic relations. But the 2014 meddling with the Color Revolution is particularly heavy-handed and odious to me, as it disrespected the constitutional authority of Ukrainian elections. We would be boiling mad if it happened here.

The point is, the Ukrainian mess is at least partly our doing (US and NATO), not just the Russians. There's a grudge match aspect of this that is being ignored, and it shouldn't be. And our leadership in the armaments supply is at our own direct strategic disadvantage, and can only advance more hostility there.

Ukraine ain't gonna win outright. Russia might not win, outright. But their manufacturing base will outrun anything the Ukraine can put forward, as the US depletes its own supply. Don't forget, it was the Russians and their manufacturing capacity that withstood a German siege and won WWII

How do you feel about your kids or grandkids dying there? Because they already are. I think it's wrong. Over the next couple of months, I think the US supply chain is going to run out of stock. We're already shipping cluster munitions over, something we have called a 'war crime' in the past when others do it. When we run out of an ability to supply, then the calls for peace will start. A stupid strategy from a position of weakness. That's what I forecast from our genius State Department. We shall see. I think China is the bigger threat, by a lot.