Scott75

Yep, as I said, bad things.

My thought too, how leftist Americans think. ===== At the start of this Ukraine-Russian Civil War, the idea was to change Russia. Get rid of Putin. The U.S. definitely puts a lot of effort into replacing the governments it doesn't like. Jeffrey Sachs' certainly pointed that out in the speech he made to the European Union. Quoting from it: ** As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me. If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation. There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world. (Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have oft en led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” See O’Rourke’s 2018 book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. After 1989, there is ample evidence of the C.I.A. involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.) That’s what the C.I.A. does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side. They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s [deposed Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the U.S. government. ** Full article: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/

If you like, you can tell me how you came to that conclusion. From what I've seen of him, he seems like someone who has been right about a lot of things, especially in regards to the war in Ukraine, and so should certainly be confident in many of the things he says.

Me too, I think it's just a fad myself and that our Charter of rights should be plenty enough to provide for socioeconomic equality with no need for special rights for anyone. Unfortunately conservatives are so goddamn intransigent that even the Charter is too much for them. The fact LGBT issues have become such an overarching issue is akin to Romans playing fiddles before their end. We've probably already driven off the cliff. Not driven off the cliff just yet. Here's to hoping we manage to hang on 🙂

There's definitely benefits to mutual respect and cooperation but I'm nowhere near optimistic enough to believe that it's possible. We're going over a cliff whether we like it or not. Our global economy is completely unsustainable and scarcity of resources will soon be the only driver of conflict that matters. When the waterhole shrinks the animals get meaner and they do not cooperate or share. Survival is entirely dependent on dominance. The thing is, with 2 countries essentially having the ability to annihilate most living things on earth is that they can't both dominate and if either were to try, it'd most likely trigger conditions where it'd be very difficult if not impossible for everyone to survive. I think people understood this pretty good during what we could call the first cold war. The problem is that when the Soviet Union dissolved, the United States got insanely arrogant, thinking that the heart of said Union, that is, Russia, was now powerless to stop it from dominating the world. I think Jeffrey Sachs does a very good job of explaining how the U.S. provoked Russia into starting its military operation in Ukraine. Some good excerpts from an article of his that I've quoted before: ** You will recall that on Feb. 7, 1990, Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker III spoke with Gorbachev. Genscher gave a press conference afterwards where he explained that NATO will not move eastward. Germany and the U.S. would not take advantage of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Understand, please, that this commitment was made in a juridical and diplomatic context, not a casual context. These commitments were core to the negotiations to end World War II that made way for German reunification. An understanding was reached that NATO will not move one inch eastward. (This was an agreement, albeit verbal, as Gorbachev emphasized to the U.S. and Germany the importance of the U.S.-German pledge not to expand NATO eastward.) And it was explicit, and it is in countless documents. And just look up National Security Archive of George Washington University, and you can get dozens of documents. It’s a website called “What Gorbachev Heard About NATO.” Take a look, please, because everything you’re told by the U.S. about this promise is a lie, but the archives are perfectly clear. (Many of the key documents are here and here.) So, the decision was taken by Clinton in 1994 to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is a long-term U.S. project. This is not due to one administration or another. This is a U.S. government project that started more than 30 years ago. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote The Grand Chessboard, describing the NATO enlargement eastward. That book is not just the musings of Mr. Brzezinski. That is his presentation to the public of decisions already made by the United States government, which is how a book like this works. The book describes the eastward enlargement of Europe and of NATO as simultaneous and conjoined events. And there’s a good chapter in that book that asks, what will Russia do as Europe and NATO expand eastward? I knew Zbig Brzezinski personally. He was very nice to me. I was advising Poland, and he was a big help. He was also a smart man, and yet he got everything wrong in 1997. In 1997, he wrote in detail why Russia could do nothing but accede to the eastward expansion of NATO and Europe. (Here is Brzezinski on page 118 of Grand Chessboard: In fact, he says the eastward expansion of Europe and not just Europe, but NATO. This was a U.S. plan, a project. And Brzezinski explains how Russia will never align with China. Unthinkable. Russia will never align with Iran. According to Brzezinski, Russia has no vocation other than the European vocation. So, as Europe moves east, there’s nothing Russia can do about it. So, says yet another American strategist. Is it any question why we’re in war all the time? Because one thing about America is we always “know” what our counterparts are going to do, and we always get it wrong! And one reason we always get it wrong is that in the non-cooperative game theory that the American strategists play, you don’t actually talk to the other side. You just know what the other side’s strategy is. That’s wonderful. It saves so much time. You simply don’t need any diplomacy. [snip] In 2008, as everybody knows, our former C.I.A. Director William Burns, who at the time was the U.S. ambassador to Russia, sent a long diplomatic cable back to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, which was famously entitled “Nyet means Nyet.” Burns’ message was that NATO enlargement was opposed by the entire Russian political class, not just President Putin. We know about the cable only from Julian Assange. Believe me, not one word is told to the American people about anything of this by our government or our leading newspapers these days. So, we have Julian Assange to thank for the memo, which we can read in detail. As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me. If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation. There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world. [snip] Now in 2014, the U.S. worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call intercepted by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and the U.S. ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence. The Russians intercepted her call, and they put it on the Internet. It’s fascinating. By doing that, they all got promoted in the Biden administration. That’s the job. When the Maidan occurred, I was called soon after. “Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian prime minister would like to see you to talk about the economic crisis.” So, I flew to Kyiv, and I was walked around the Maidan. And I was told how the U.S. paid the money for all the people around the Maidan, the “spontaneous” Revolution of Dignity. Ladies and gentlemen, please, how did all those Ukrainian media outlets suddenly appear at the time of the Maidan? Where did all this organization come from? Where did all these buses come from? Where did all those people come from? Are you kidding? This is an organized effort. And it’s not a secret, except perhaps to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly. ** Full article: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/

I really enjoyed reading the article linked below. It's an interview from the Unbecoming substack with retired U.S. army military officer Chase Spears. Being something of a political hybrid, with some of my views on the left and some of my views on the right, I don't always agree with Mr. Spears, who is pretty much on the right side of things, but I certainly agree with some of his points in regards to Covid mandates and the view among some in the military brass that U.S. soldiers are "property" of Uncle Sam. With that said, here is the article: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/you-knew-what-you-signed-up-for Some quotes from the article that I thought were very informative: ** 4. Your story describes a profound shift in how you viewed the phrase "You knew what you signed up for." How did your understanding of this statement evolve throughout your service? There’s some truth to the old adage “you knew what you signed up for” when joining the military. No one is surprised that soldiers wake up early, run long distances, learn to shoot, and deploy to potentially dangerous locations. Those are givens. In basic training, we’re taught the limits of free speech for military members. For example, troops can’t make obscene remarks about elected officials or the chain of command to maintain good order and discipline. We can’t wear a uniform to a political rally that’s sponsored by a political party. These restrictions are spelled out in military regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But there are also unspoken restrictions—ones that go beyond anything we actually sign up for. I remember in 2004 hearing a staff sergeant at Fort Meade, MD yelling at a group of soldiers that they were all property of Uncle Sam. I thought he was just trying to sound tough. I didn’t sign away my life as a piece of property to anyone when enlisting; though, it became clear later in my career that his perspective was shared among others. I became acclimated to the formal and tacit restrictions placed upon me as a military member over time. Occasionally, people who sensed my passion for discussing domestic politics would warn me to keep my thoughts to myself because “you knew what you signed up for.” I didn’t like it, but usually nodded along. This was not because I actually agreed with the charge that I signed away my First Amendment rights to be a soldier. Rather, I had simply learned to navigate the military culture, despite my best efforts to stay connected to my identity as a citizen. It wasn’t until 2018, during the final months of my Georgetown University fellowship, that I fully grasped how far some were willing to take that phrase. A colonel who disapproved of my writing for publication told me bluntly: “When you became a PAO, you gave up your right to an opinion.” He went on to say that I was only allowed to say things that aligned with approved Army messaging. I found that statement not only offensive but also ignorant. At no point had I signed away my right to think or speak freely beyond the limits I already understood as a military officer. And if I was truly only authorized to speak in pre-approved Army soundbites, would I need a disclaimer for every off-duty conversation? [snip] 6. You draw a parallel between the treatment of unvaccinated service members and historical discrimination. Could you elaborate on why you see these situations as comparable? Marking human beings as lessers—viewing them as animalistic property—is a long-standing and dark tradition. Throughout history, rulers have required physical markings to identify those they hold in low esteem. Slaves were tattooed in ancient Rome. In Egypt, they were branded. That practice endured in America until slavery was abolished. More recently, the Nazi regime forced Jews to wear the Star of David. There are many other such civilizational examples. Human behavior does not change. Creature comforts and technology evolve, but we remain capable of the same savagery as our ancestors. Ted Martin was not the only senior military official to resurrect this practice. By requiring those who declined the Covid-19 shot to wear masks while the vaccinated walked freely, he directed the ritual of public shaming of fellow American citizens. Elsewhere, it was worse. Colleagues told me of bases where the so-called unvaccinated were required to wear armbands as visible symbols of their defiance. Soldiers on Fort Leavenworth who applied for religious exemptions were forced to undergo weekly virus testing—a requirement I had never seen imposed for any other overdue vaccination. The intent was clear: humiliate, denigrate and dehumanize. History has shown what happens when a group is singled out in this way. The rhetoric of hatred against those of us who were suspicious of the experimental shot intensified alongside these measures. Many influential Americans called for people like us to be denied medical care, fired from our jobs, and banned from public gatherings. That hatred has lessened, but has not disappeared. Just last month Cincinnati Children’s Hospital refused to put Vice President J.D. Vance’s 12-year-old cousin on a heart transplant list because she has not taken the shot. The contempt still remains among many across this nation. The words “Land of the free, and the home of the brave” matter little when the worth of a person is determined by whether they submitted to a government decree. When a society embraces shame, hatred, and isolation against those who exercise bodily autonomy—we enter a dangerous place. Germany has declared Nie Wieder—Never Again—to the horrors of the Holocaust. America must also say “Never Again” to shaming, hating, isolating, and believing worthy of death those who hold to their God-given right of bodily autonomy. **

Not if someone somewhere believes the adage better dead than fill-in-blank-here, in this case a co-dominion of Putin and Trump's. Something that's about as bleak and black a future as anything I want to contemplate. Putin and Trump are just the temporary leaders of their respective countries. The benefits of the United States and Russia respecting each other are hard to overstate in my view. Far from it being "bleak and black", I think its effect would be just the opposite, a world where we can stop living under the constant fear that a quick set of events could lead to nuclear armageddon. A good website that's been working on this type of thing for a while: https://defusenuclearwar.org/ As I've said elsewhere, I'm something of a political hybrid, with some views on the "left" and some on the "right". I'm definitely on the left when it comes to my LGBT views, though that doesn't mean I support some views there. To give an example, I think Trump made the right decision in allowing biological women to not have to compete with biological men. For nuances on my views, there's a large thread where I contributed quite a bit in the past, which can be seen here: I think we can agree that that'd be pretty cold comfort to anyone who might have survived a nuclear war.

You're not the first person to make me chuckle with your assumption that I'm American :-p. I've lived in the United States for a few months when I was a lot younger, but that's as American as I've ever been. I'm Canadian Mexican.

Interesting article I just finished reading from a substacker I've come to respect: SITREP 3/7/25: EU's Mega-Billion Bid for Ukraine Flops Again, as Trump's Erratic Messaging Dissipates 'Peace' Momentum | Simplicius

Trump and Putin agree that woke globalism is bad for everyone. I'm not sure what woke globalism means, but I certainly believe that Trump is much more intelligent in terms of his cost/benefit analysis when it comes to the war in Ukraine then Biden ever was. I think Professor Jeffrey Sachs had some pretty good lines in regards to Trump's take of the war in Ukraine in the speech he gave to the European Union recently. Quoting: ** Let me end with a few words about President Donald Trump. Trump does not want Biden’s losing hand. This is why Trump and President Putin are likely to agree to end the war. Even if Europe continues with its warmongering, it won’t matter. The war is ending. So, please, get it out of your system. Please tell your colleagues. “It’s over.” It’s over because Trump doesn’t want to hold on to a loser. The one that will be saved by the negotiations taking place right now is Ukraine. The second is Europe. ** Source: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/

Your cite completely lacks credibility cause it reads like it was written by a petulant CHILD. Why do you believe that? Larry Johnson's the name of the author of the site I quoted and referenced. His arguments make sense to me. I've been following this war since Russia started its military operation in Ukraine and what he says aligns with other sources I trust. I think it's clear we don't exactly see eye to eye on the war in Ukraine, though, so I can see why you'd be skeptical of his point of view.

I am not even sure an apology will do at this point. Zelensky posted a video to social media yesterday, basically thanking the Europeans for all their increased efforts saying he has secured enough funding to keep the war going through 2025 and never really acknowledged Trump or any plan for peace with Trump and his usual schtick for a real lasting peace and at the end threw in that America would keep helping him too. I think the timeline for aid being cut was after that video being posted. He doesn't get to brag about continued American support through 2025 to keep the war going when he knows that isn't what Trump wants. Looks like you're right. Here's what the White House said on Wednesday: https://kyivindependent.com/trump-may-resume-ukraine-aid-after-further-steps-toward-peace-confidence-building-white-house-says/

I definitely agree with those statements. As Trump said in February when Ukraine protested not being invited to the U.S. meeting with Russian official in Saudi Arabia: ** “Ukraine, Europe in a broad sense – and this includes the European Union, Turkey, and the UK – should be involved in conversations and the development of the necessary security guarantees with America regarding the fate of our part of the world,” Zelensky said. Trump brushed off Zelensky’s concerns. “I’m very disappointed, I hear that they’re upset about not having a seat,” the president noted nonchalantly. “Today I heard, oh, well, we weren’t invited. Well, you’ve had a seat for three years, and a long time before that... You should have never started it. You could have made a deal,” Trump said. ** Source: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47380

Russia lost its faith in its ability to threaten MAD in the event they're attacked? No, that's not what I said. Russia has certainly made it clear that if its existence is threatened, it reserves the right to use the nuclear option and I doubt anyone doubts it. The problem with the U.S. is that it decided to play a game of chicken with Russia. It led to some very dangerous events, such as this one back in September 2024: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/19/scott-ritter-72-hours/ To his credit, Trump recognized the stupidity of helping Ukraine bomb historical Russia as well: https://apnews.com/article/trump-putin-russia-ukraine-atacms-f3ca80252ea2812b6ab4f6844f7ecd23 I heard that Trump didn't stop the bombing even in early February, but hopefully it's now been stopped, especially after the row with Zelensky.

I suspect it won't actually happen, now that the U.S. is backing off of backing western Ukraine. I believed even before the United States stopped supplying Ukraine with financial and military assistance that the war in Ukraine would end this year. I am even more confident that this will happen now. The only thing that I think could derail this would be a nuclear conflict, and I think those in charge, while pretty foolish, are not so foolish as to go down that path.

I acknowledge that Putin may have done some pretty bad things, but then, that can be said about a lot of heads of state. The important thing is, as you say, he has no interest in dominating Europe. From what I've seen, he's not that interested in taking most of what's left of Ukraine. What he has wanted since before his military operation in Ukraine began was a European security framework where Russia wouldn't feel that its western neighbours are getting poised to strike them as Germany did at the start of World War II.

I suspect it's because the global military industrial complex is making a killing off of this war.

Ukraine and Russia were getting along relatively well, until 2014. A good article on what happened then: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/

Alright. Why are you telling us this?

Even Putin admits that there was a time after the dissolution of the U.S.S.R., there was a certain amount of time when Russia was weak. Here's how he put it in the speech he gave on the day he began Russia's special military operation in Ukraine: ** As for our country, after the disintegration of the USSR, given the entire unprecedented openness of the new, modern Russia, its readiness to work honestly with the United States and other Western partners, and its practically unilateral disarmament, they immediately tried to put the final squeeze on us, finish us off, and utterly destroy us. This is how it was in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs of mercenaries in southern Russia. What victims, what losses we had to sustain and what trials we had to go through at that time before we broke the back of international terrorism in the Caucasus! We remember this and will never forget. Properly speaking, the attempts to use us in their own interests never ceased until quite recently: they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature. This is not going to happen. No one has ever succeeded in doing this, nor will they succeed now. Despite all that, in December 2021, we made yet another attempt to reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. Our efforts were in vain. The United States has not changed its position. It does not believe it necessary to agree with Russia on a matter that is critical for us. The United States is pursuing its own objectives, while neglecting our interests. ** Putin then gets into an interesting speech on what I believe is how he views the west's bid to have Ukraine as a part of NATO by bringing up what happened prior to Germany's invasion of Russia back in World War II: ** Of course, this situation begs a question: what next, what are we to expect? If history is any guide, we know that in 1940 and early 1941 the Soviet Union went to great lengths to prevent war or at least delay its outbreak. To this end, the USSR sought not to provoke the potential aggressor until the very end by refraining or postponing the most urgent and obvious preparations it had to make to defend itself from an imminent attack. When it finally acted, it was too late. As a result, the country was not prepared to counter the invasion by Nazi Germany, which attacked our Motherland on June 22, 1941, without declaring war. The country stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it, but this came at a tremendous cost. The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people. In the first months after the hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic importance, as well as millions of lives. We will not make this mistake the second time. We have no right to do so. **

Biden certainly seemed to think that if Putin was removed from office, he'd see it as an improvement. As to whether some or all if them intended it, I don't know. What's clear is that up until now, Putin is still very much the head of state of Russia, and most Russians seem to be fine with this.

So long as the United States respects Russia's interests, I sincerely doubt that'd happen. I think most people are aware that the U.S. and Russia are the 2 countries on earth that could end most if not all life on earth. Biden's green lighting the bombing of Russia was perhaps the dumbest thing he did in his entire tenure. Even Trump realized the idiocy of this move: https://apnews.com/article/trump-putin-russia-ukraine-atacms-f3ca80252ea2812b6ab4f6844f7ecd23 I saw in the news just now some media reports that Trump is 'turning' on Russia, but I don't think that's true. He starts his social media post by actually pointing out something that media likes to ignore, which is that Ukraine is getting pounded, continues by talking about how he's considering sanctioning Russia more and ends by saying that Russia -and- Ukraine should come up with a peace deal. Saying that he's considering throwing a few more sanctions on Russia is hardly much of a threat at this point. I think his final comment is directed more towards Zelensky than to Russia, as it's Ukraine that he's stopped supplying with weapons and money last I checked. An article on the whole thing can be seen here: https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-us-president-donald-trump-warns-of-sanctions-tariffs-on-russia-until-ceasefire-is-reached-with-ukraine-8831867/ Agreed. Do you agree that Trump made the right choice?

My thoughts on Sachs? He's a typical American abroad who opposes his country. I think you've confused Sachs' views of America's military industrial complex with his views on America itself. Sachs himself is deeply involved in trying to improve not just U.S. politics, but the world as a whole. Here's the introduction to his Wikipedia page: ** Jeffrey David Sachs (/sæks/ SAKS; born November 5, 1954)[4] is an American economist and public policy analyst who is a professor at Columbia University,[5][6] where he was formerly director of The Earth Institute. He worked on the topics of sustainable development and economic development.[7] Sachs is director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.[8] He is an SDG Advocate for United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 global goals adopted at a UN summit meeting in September 2015.[9] From 2001 to 2018, Sachs was special advisor to the UN Secretary General, and held the same position under the previous UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and prior to 2016 a similar advisory position related to the earlier Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),[10] eight internationally sanctioned objectives to reduce extreme poverty, hunger and disease by 2015. In connection with the MDGs, he had first been appointed special adviser to the UN Secretary-General in 2002 during the term of Kofi Annan.[10][11] Sachs is co-founder and chief strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger. From 2002 to 2006, he was director of the United Nations Millennium Project's work on the MDGs. In 2010, he became a commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, whose stated aim is to boost the importance of broadband internet in international policy.[12] Sachs has written several books and received several awards. His views on economics, on the origin of COVID-19, and on the Russian invasion of Ukraine have garnered attention and some criticism.[13][14] ** He is someone who has had a very distinguished career and whose goals most would agree are to be aspired to. He recognizes the faults in his country and like any good patriot, he points them out in the hope that putting light on them will help get them fixed.

The Monarchy is pretty much just ceremonial at this point: ** the Constitution Act, 1982, ended all legislative ties to Britain, as well as adding a constitutional amending formula and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[178] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#Government_and_politics

I have to chuckle a bit here. I'm not American, I'm Canadian Mexican :-p. Secondly, what gives you the idea that Professor Sachs is not pro-American? Mr. Sachs is anti imperialist, not anti American. I'm not sure what you mean by "Zelensky ocean threat".