He may have been talking about Joe Biden and his ‘’hirelings’’.
At least in America Americans by and large are adverse to those who use public office to enrich themselves.
“Show me a man who got rich in politics and I'll show you a crook’’ said Harry Truman.
We do, by and large prosecute those officials who do sell their office for monetary gain. But to Ukraine and Russia there seems to be all the stew of money, ruthless ambition and power. I guess we just differ you and I on this issue. I don't see it as our concern and I don't see this as a repeat of 1939. We've moved on from that world, for better or worse. Funny that yesterday was the 83rd anniversary of the launching of Hitlers mad ambition in the West. Two generations of my family almost lost their lives fighting for Europe's freedom, in 1918 and 1944. I guess in some way it proves the point that the more things change the more they stay the same. I see this as a localized European problem. By now Europe should have learned how to deal with it's own squabbles without Uncle Sam running to the rescue. What concerns me more is the expected invasion on our southern border. For that I'd be willing to see our military somehow put a stop to it.
I have the same stance, jmacusa.
But protecting our southern border isn't competing with, e.g., imposing sanctions on Russia or aiding Ukraine (insisting that it does would be a blatant instance of the False Dilemma Fallacy)
The "price-tag" for protecting our southern border would be effectively nil - i.e., we only need to enforce current laws, maybe spend a few more bucks for instant deportation, but the savings (in contrast to allowing the illegal invaders into our country, "hosting" them, letting them suck at the govt. teat, and allowing them to commit further crimes) would be very quickly noticeable.
Protecting our southern border would be cost-neutral - but probably actually result in a net positive effect!
Thus, protecting our southern border is NOT in competition with ensuring that Putin fails.
Regards,