[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

--- "So again I ask, what is it that drives you guys so nuts about Davydov in particular, as opposed to anyone else posting videos on Ukraine?"

I don't represent a group of "you guys." Nor am I pleased with your characterization of my comments as "nuts."

There are not two sides represented in these threads. There are many pro-Z and some pro-P comments, but there are also "not my war" sorts of stances, as well as concerns about the state of the US national debt.

You wrote, "The source for my opinions is me, BroJoeK." My source for my opinions is therefore more extensive than yours. Your welcome to your opinions, as and if you allow others be welcome to their opinions.

[BroJoeK]

Worldtraveler once upon a time: "Your welcome to your opinions, as and if you allow others be welcome to their opinions."

Reasonable opinions reasonably expressed are not the problem here.
Anyone can discuss and agree or disagree reasonably about facts and logic.

Russian propaganda, by contrast, is almost always a huge problem because it consists overwhelmingly of:

1. Lies

2. Personal attacks

3. Crazy logic to defend the indefensible.

In the specific example of Davydov, there are several accusations repeated endlessly which cannot be verified, including:

1. He is a "draft dodger".
   In fact, his official status is unknown and highly unlikely to be in any way negative.

2. He lives in Switzerland.
   In fact, you have confirmed that his YouTube posts upload in Switzerland, but they could originate anywhere.

3. He lives in Luzern, Switzerland.
   In fact, nothing online confirms that.

4. He makes a rich living from YouTube.
   In fact, he may well, though nobody knows his expenses or whether net-net he is really better off.

5. He lives the life of a wealthy single man, cruising bars at night to pick up one-night stands.
   In fact, he is a married family man with no evidence to support claims otherwise.
   There is another man, a Russian, named Denys Davydov, arrested in New York a few years ago, who could be the source of such claims.

So again, I ask, what is it about Davydov that drives you guys -- yes, I mean you guys because there are several of you -- so nuts about him?
Why the repeated personal attacks?
Why not just address whatever facts & logic you disagree with?

If he said something you don't like, let's hear what it is, specifically, and stop with the personal attacks.

Worldtraveler once upon a time: "I don't represent a group of "you guys."
Nor am I pleased with your characterization of my comments as "nuts.""

First, there are several of you guys doing this.
Second, if your comments are based strictly on lies, then they are indeed, by definition, "nuts".

Worldtraveler once upon a time: "There are not two sides represented in these threads.
There are many pro-Z and some pro-P comments, but there are also "not my war" sorts of stances, as well as concerns about the state of the US national debt."

Sure, I 100% understand your point.
You say "we" assert a false dichotomy, or false dilemma, and there should not be just two choices here.
I "get" your argument.

Sadly, in the case of Ukraine, there are not more than two choices, indeed there's only really one choice.
That's because, if we chose to do nothing, then we are, in effect, choosing Russian victory over Ukraine.
And there is nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- acceptable about a Russian victory in Ukraine, not in the short run and certainly not in the long run.

If we chose to help Ukrainians, then there are many other questions about how and how much and for how long, etc., etc.
So, up to today, typical of Democrats, our administration has sent Ukraine just enough aid to keep fighting, but not enough to actually win.
Among other things, like you, our administration is afraid of Putin's nuclear threats, but that's not the only reason.
Everything Western hi-tech requires extensive training and cultural adaptation to use effectively.
There's no point in sending them weapons they don't know how to use.

Bottom line: there are not really three choices here -- pro-Russia, neutral or pro-Ukraine -- there are not even two choices because if we do nothing, then Russia wins in Ukraine and uses Ukraine's resources to prepare for its next invasions.
The only real choices we have are in how much aid to provide, and clearly what we've done so far is either not enough or, more likely, not enough of the right stuff.

Finally, Trump has promised to end the war quickly, in 2025, if reelected, and I think he could.
But Putin will not agree to give up Ukrainian territories he's already conquered, and Ukrainians are unlikely to agree to peace without full restoration of 2013 borders.
If Trump then withdraws all US aid, it will destroy NATO, and I don't think that's what Trump intends.

Sadly, our Democrats are more characterized by Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan than by any serious legacy of military victory, such as the bi-partisan efforts in WWII.
So, Ukraine's fate today is unknown and will be largely a function of their own resourcefulness, grit and determination.

What else? National debt?
Ukraine is a drop in the bucket compared to massive and insane Democrat vote-buying schemes.
Address those and Ukraine aid will not be a major issue.