Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.

Do we put troops on the ground?

---

No.

You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine

---

Then what should we do in that scenario?

---

No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."

If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

It NEVER ends.

#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.

Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.

Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.

The game never ends......

The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.

---

THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?

As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.

---

NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.

---

Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?

There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.

You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?

---

1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.

And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization


2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"

3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.

---

#3 is a different discussion. I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt. There is a huge difference between helping a Nation that asks us to help defend from an invader to overthrowing a Govt. I was against Iraq. I thought we stayed too long in Afghanistan.

I do disagree with you that Ukraine is peripheral to our interests, it is right smack in our interest area of Europe. There are areas in the world we need to be present and do what we do. Namely, in my opinion:

• Taiwan, 48% of the worlds commerce fleet goes through that Strait.
• Hormuz
• Horn of Africa
• Panama Canal
• Japan
• Arctic

---

If it is so vital to our interests then why did every group of USA policy planners throughout the 20th century, up until very recently, say the US had no strategic interests east of the Bug river?

Ukraine might be strategically important to Germany (farming and natural gas) but it is not strategically important for the USA or our security concerns.

---

Ukraine as part of Europe is strategically valuable by itself. But also in the Black Sea area. You lose Ukraine, pressure on Bulgaria and ultimately Turkey and the Straits of Bosporus. Russia is not going to Poland and the Baltics, they are going South...Ukraine is where it has to hold.

---

Lose Ukraine?

We never had it.

It was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. Part of the USSR until 1991. And has never been a member of NATO or the EU.

How can we lose a country that was never in our alliance system?

---

Huh, I guess the last 30 years or so they have been part of Russia and no one knew it... They have been an independent Nation and as we have seen will protect its borders when Russia invades, again... Love the defense of Russia in this. Must be doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to make invading with 2800 tanks and 200k troops a positive act...

---

So we agree they were an independent nation (with a neutral policy toward both the Western bloc and Russia)

They were not and still are not ours to "lose" because they are not in our alliance system.

Now if you wan to make the argument that Ukraine should be in our alliance system...Western bloc aligned....then fine.

But that is a different argument.

---

Lose Ukraine, means give Russia access to the next domino toward Bosporus. Ukraine comes under Russian control, Little sliver of Romania and Bulgaria is all that is left to control the Black Sea...

---

Oh the old Domino theory.

How did that work out for us last time when that wildly inaccurate and speculative "theory" got us involved in the disaster of the Vietnam war?

https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/the-domino-theory-in-retrospect/

Not to mention Russia (if it even wanted the Bosporus choke point) would have to go through several NATO nations (Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey) to gain control. And would be militarily crushed it if tried.

---

That was a civil war. This is an out and out invasion. You seem to discount both the invasion part as being serious and that Ukraine chose to ask NATO for help. You act like both of those are small parts. Russia invaded a sovereign nation. I know, we did in Iraq and in Mexico in 1850. Britain invaded France umpteenth times. Right? Sam should jump in here about now and rail on Iraq, which makes this perfectly Ok.

Well apparently the NATO agrees with my assessment based on the amount of training going on in Romania. They are going south...

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.

Do we put troops on the ground?

---

No.

You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine

---

Then what should we do in that scenario?

---

No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."

If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

It NEVER ends.

#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.

Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.

Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.

The game never ends......

The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.

---

THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?

As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.

---

NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.

---

Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?

There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.

You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?

---

1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.

And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization


2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"

3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.

---

#3 is a different discussion. I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt. There is a huge difference between helping a Nation that asks us to help defend from an invader to overthrowing a Govt. I was against Iraq. I thought we stayed too long in Afghanistan.

I do disagree with you that Ukraine is peripheral to our interests, it is right smack in our interest area of Europe. There are areas in the world we need to be present and do what we do. Namely, in my opinion:

• Taiwan, 48% of the worlds commerce fleet goes through that Strait.
• Hormuz
• Horn of Africa
• Panama Canal
• Japan
• Arctic

---

If it is so vital to our interests then why did every group of USA policy planners throughout the 20th century, up until very recently, say the US had no strategic interests east of the Bug river?

Ukraine might be strategically important to Germany (farming and natural gas) but it is not strategically important for the USA or our security concerns.

---

Ukraine as part of Europe is strategically valuable by itself. But also in the Black Sea area. You lose Ukraine, pressure on Bulgaria and ultimately Turkey and the Straits of Bosporus. Russia is not going to Poland and the Baltics, they are going South...Ukraine is where it has to hold.

---

Lose Ukraine?

We never had it.

It was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. Part of the USSR until 1991. And has never been a member of NATO or the EU.

How can we lose a country that was never in our alliance system?

---

Huh, I guess the last 30 years or so they have been part of Russia and no one knew it... They have been an independent Nation and as we have seen will protect its borders when Russia invades, again... Love the defense of Russia in this. Must be doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to make invading with 2800 tanks and 200k troops a positive act...

---

So we agree they were an independent nation (with a neutral policy toward both the Western bloc and Russia)

They were not and still are not ours to "lose" because they are not in our alliance system.

Now if you wan to make the argument that Ukraine should be in our alliance system...Western bloc aligned....then fine.

But that is a different argument.

---

Lose Ukraine, means give Russia access to the next domino toward Bosporus. Ukraine comes under Russian control, Little sliver of Romania and Bulgaria is all that is left to control the Black Sea...

---

Oh the old Domino theory.

How did that work out for us last time when that wildly inaccurate and speculative "theory" got us involved in the disaster of the Vietnam war?

https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/the-domino-theory-in-retrospect/

Not to mention Russia (if it even wanted the Bosporus choke point) would have to go through several NATO nations (Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey) to gain control. And would be militarily crushed it if tried.

---

That was a civil war. This is an out and out invasion. You seem to discount both the invasion part as being serious and that Ukraine chose to ask NATO for help. You act like both of those are small parts. Russia invaded a sovereign nation. I know, we did in Iraq and in Mexico in 1850. Britain invaded France umpteenth times. Right? Sam should jump in here about now and rail on Iraq, which makes this perfectly Ok.

Well apparently the NATO agrees with my assessment based on the amount of training going on in Romania. They are going south...

---

You don't think South Vietnam was being invaded by North Vietnam?

Not only did the Communists of North Vietnam train, fund, and direct the Viet Cong... who waged a insurgency war against the government of South Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong

The regular North Vietnam army itself invaded the sovereign nation of South Vietnam and conquered Saigon in 1975.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War/The-fall-of-South-Vietnam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_in_the_Vietnam_War#:~:text=1975%20marked%20the%20end%20of,(ARVN)%20was%20quickly%20defeated.

It's noteworthy that these perceptions are largely reciprocal; at least as of a year ago, China and India - the world's two biggest countries - were also its most Russophile ones amongst the major ones, and even in that order. pic.twitter.com/xvD78gSC1O

— Anatoly Karlin (@powerfultakes) March 23, 2023

Fun fact: this person lobbying for direct NATO intervention in Ukraine (WWIII) just so happens to be a "fellow" at some "defense" Think Tank in Kyiv funded by the US and UK governments. So congratulations, taxpayers -- you're also *paying* for the WWIII lobbying pic.twitter.com/9YcvlD14S0

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) March 23, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.

Do we put troops on the ground?

---

No.

You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine

---

Then what should we do in that scenario?

---

No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."

If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

It NEVER ends.

#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.

Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.

Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.

The game never ends......

The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.

---

THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?

As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.

---

NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.

---

Sam, you keep overlooking the biggest fact. These Nations ASK to join NATO. It is their decision. When was the last time ANY Nation asked to join the Russian Federation?

There is a huge difference between forcing a Nation with Tanks and them asking to join. Of course when a Nation wants to join you evaluate for strategic value. No one is forcing Finland, Sweden or Ukraine to apply to NATO. Just like no one forced Poland, the Baltics or Romania, the West is just a better system.

You and RedBrick continually disregard a Nations freedom to make their own decisions as being of any value. Keeping Vlad happy and condemning the West, which has provided more personal freedom and opportunity that any system on Earth, appears to be more important. The Russian system cultivates economic and personal opportunity, right?

---

1. NATO is a military alliance...not a nation or union of nations. It would be similar to the CSTO.

And of course 3 nations have left that alliance since it began and none have joined. So you are right that NATO is a far more appealing military alliance to join.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization


2. You are right that just because a nation wants to join you have to evaluate is strategic and military importance. Such as "will bringing in this country help our alliance or get it into more conflict?"

3. That is not true. Sovereign nations have the right to make their own decisions. I oppose when American security agencies use tax payer dollars to help over throw governments. And I oppose getting involved in conflicts between nations that are peripheral to our actual interests or security needs.

---

#3 is a different discussion. I never said a word about overthrowing a Govt. There is a huge difference between helping a Nation that asks us to help defend from an invader to overthrowing a Govt. I was against Iraq. I thought we stayed too long in Afghanistan.

I do disagree with you that Ukraine is peripheral to our interests, it is right smack in our interest area of Europe. There are areas in the world we need to be present and do what we do. Namely, in my opinion:

• Taiwan, 48% of the worlds commerce fleet goes through that Strait.
• Hormuz
• Horn of Africa
• Panama Canal
• Japan
• Arctic

---

If it is so vital to our interests then why did every group of USA policy planners throughout the 20th century, up until very recently, say the US had no strategic interests east of the Bug river?

Ukraine might be strategically important to Germany (farming and natural gas) but it is not strategically important for the USA or our security concerns.

---

Ukraine as part of Europe is strategically valuable by itself. But also in the Black Sea area. You lose Ukraine, pressure on Bulgaria and ultimately Turkey and the Straits of Bosporus. Russia is not going to Poland and the Baltics, they are going South...Ukraine is where it has to hold.

---

Lose Ukraine?

We never had it.

It was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. Part of the USSR until 1991. And has never been a member of NATO or the EU.

How can we lose a country that was never in our alliance system?

---

Huh, I guess the last 30 years or so they have been part of Russia and no one knew it... They have been an independent Nation and as we have seen will protect its borders when Russia invades, again... Love the defense of Russia in this. Must be doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to make invading with 2800 tanks and 200k troops a positive act...

---

So we agree they were an independent nation (with a neutral policy toward both the Western bloc and Russia)

They were not and still are not ours to "lose" because they are not in our alliance system.

Now if you wan to make the argument that Ukraine should be in our alliance system...Western bloc aligned....then fine.

But that is a different argument.

---

Lose Ukraine, means give Russia access to the next domino toward Bosporus. Ukraine comes under Russian control, Little sliver of Romania and Bulgaria is all that is left to control the Black Sea...

---

Oh the old Domino theory.

How did that work out for us last time when that wildly inaccurate and speculative "theory" got us involved in the disaster of the Vietnam war?

https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/the-domino-theory-in-retrospect/

Not to mention Russia (if it even wanted the Bosporus choke point) would have to go through several NATO nations (Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey) to gain control. And would be militarily crushed it if tried.

---

That was a civil war. This is an out and out invasion. You seem to discount both the invasion part as being serious and that Ukraine chose to ask NATO for help. You act like both of those are small parts. Russia invaded a sovereign nation. I know, we did in Iraq and in Mexico in 1850. Britain invaded France umpteenth times. Right? Sam should jump in here about now and rail on Iraq, which makes this perfectly Ok.

Well apparently the NATO agrees with my assessment based on the amount of training going on in Romania. They are going south...

---

You don't think South Vietnam was being invaded by North Vietnam?

Not only did the Communists of North Vietnam train, fund, and direct the Viet Cong... who waged a insurgency war against the government of South Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong

The regular North Vietnam army itself invaded the sovereign nation of South Vietnam and conquered Saigon in 1975.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War/The-fall-of-South-Vietnam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_in_the_Vietnam_War#:~:text=1975%20marked%20the%20end%20of,(ARVN)%20was%20quickly%20defeated.

---

with indirect and direct aid from USSR and China. We actually **** down quite a few Soviet pilots, but didn't escalate. Putin isn't going nuclear unless we do.

Let’s be honest, this is the only battle DOD has been preparing for lately. https://t.co/spI9Zr437S

— Wade Miller (@WadeMiller_USMC) March 23, 2023

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.

Do we put troops on the ground?

---

No.

You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine

---

Then what should we do in that scenario?

---

No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."

If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

It NEVER ends.

#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.

Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.

Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.

The game never ends......

The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.

---

THANK YOU! Nobody has said a word about US troops deploying or taking part in Ukraine. Why keep bringing up a false scenario?

As long as there is Russia, there will be these conflicts. They have tried to dominate their neighbors for more than a millennia. But let's keep the discussion to the modern era, since WW2. They do not view those nations as equals, they view them as vassal states to be used as needed by Mother/Comrade Russia. Their property. Say what you will, but NATO and US has not had that attitude.

---

NATO and the US have exactly that attitude. You just quoted nine paragraphs of it.

---

So does Russia.
Ergo the current conflict.

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.

Do we put troops on the ground?

---

No.

You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine

---

Then what should we do in that scenario?

---

No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."

If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

It NEVER ends.

#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.

Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.

Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.

The game never ends......

The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.

---

I don't want the game played forever, so why don't we just wipe Russia off the map?

---

Best way to ensure the game does not turn hot is to disincentivize powers from deciding to invade.

---

Spoken after 20 years of incentivizing Russia to invade.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.

Do we put troops on the ground?

---

No.

You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine

---

Then what should we do in that scenario?

---

No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."

If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

It NEVER ends.

#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.

Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.

Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.

The game never ends......

The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.

---

I don't want the game played forever, so why don't we just wipe Russia off the map?

---

Best way to ensure the game does not turn hot is to disincentivize powers from deciding to invade.

---

Spoken after 20 years of incentivizing Russia to invade.

---

aka 20+ years of a KGB Peter the Great wannabe staying in power.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.

Do we put troops on the ground?

---

No.

You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine

---

Then what should we do in that scenario?

---

No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."

If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

It NEVER ends.

#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.

Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.

Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.

The game never ends......

The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.

---

I don't want the game played forever, so why don't we just wipe Russia off the map?

---

Best way to ensure the game does not turn hot is to disincentivize powers from deciding to invade.

---

Spoken after 20 years of incentivizing Russia to invade.

---

The only thing we could do to incentivize Russia to invade is not to respond disproportionately when they do.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Ukraine as part of Europe is strategically valuable by itself. But also in the Black Sea area. You lose Ukraine, pressure on Bulgaria and ultimately Turkey and the Straits of Bosporus. Russia is not going to Poland and the Baltics, they are going South...Ukraine is where it has to hold.

---

Lose Ukraine?

We never had it.

It was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. Part of the USSR until 1991. And has never been a member of NATO or the EU.

How can we lose a country that was never in our alliance system?

---

Huh, I guess the last 30 years or so they have been part of Russia and no one knew it... They have been an independent Nation and as we have seen will protect its borders when Russia invades, again... Love the defense of Russia in this. Must be doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to make invading with 2800 tanks and 200k troops a positive act...

---

So we agree they were an independent nation (with a neutral policy toward both the Western bloc and Russia)

They were not and still are not ours to "lose" because they are not in our alliance system.

Now if you wan to make the argument that Ukraine should be in our alliance system...Western bloc aligned....then fine.

But that is a different argument.

---

Lose Ukraine, means give Russia access to the next domino toward Bosporus. Ukraine comes under Russian control, Little sliver of Romania and Bulgaria is all that is left to control the Black Sea...

---

Oh the old Domino theory.

How did that work out for us last time when that wildly inaccurate and speculative "theory" got us involved in the disaster of the Vietnam war?

https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/the-domino-theory-in-retrospect/

Not to mention Russia (if it even wanted the Bosporus choke point) would have to go through several NATO nations (Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey) to gain control. And would be militarily crushed it if tried.

---

The problem with that line of reasoning is that the domino theory is not a theory. It is a real dynamic. Expansionist powers "probe with a bayonet until (they) meet steel." We actually lost (depending on matters of definition) much or most of the third world during the Cold War. But we did succeed in stopping the East Bloc from achieving hegemony globally and regionally.

That is an acceptable outcome….not seeking to dominate, but seeking to prevent others from dominating.
That is what England did re Napoleon.
That is what we are doing now.

This is a very old game we are playing.

Redbri said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Oh the old Domino theory.

How did that work out for us last time when that wildly inaccurate and speculative "theory" got us involved in the disaster of the Vietnam war?

https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/the-domino-theory-in-retrospect/

Not to mention Russia (if it even wanted the Bosporus choke point) would have to go through several NATO nations (Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey) to gain control. And would be militarily crushed it if tried.

---

That was a civil war. This is an out and out invasion. You seem to discount both the invasion part as being serious and that Ukraine chose to ask NATO for help. You act like both of those are small parts. Russia invaded a sovereign nation. I know, we did in Iraq and in Mexico in 1850. Britain invaded France umpteenth times. Right? Sam should jump in here about now and rail on Iraq, which makes this perfectly Ok.

Well apparently the NATO agrees with my assessment based on the amount of training going on in Romania. They are going south...

---

You don't think South Vietnam was being invaded by North Vietnam?

Not only did the Communists of North Vietnam train, fund, and direct the Viet Cong... who waged a insurgency war against the government of South Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong

The regular North Vietnam army itself invaded the sovereign nation of South Vietnam and conquered Saigon in 1975.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War/The-fall-of-South-Vietnam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_in_the_Vietnam_War#:~:text=1975%20marked%20the%20end%20of,(ARVN)%20was%20quickly%20defeated.

---

You have a profound error in timeline here. The NV Army did not invade until very late in the game. Most of the time in question, NV played the game wisely via proxies (VC, Cambodia & Laos operations).

Vietnam was indeed a civil war and a terrible comparable to Ukraine. Viewing it as such actually adopts the Russian premise, that Ukraine is properly considered a former part of greater Russia.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I need an answer on what the next step is if Ukraine can't win, whether you believe it or not.

Do we put troops on the ground?

---

No.

You can ask the question as many times as you like. answer remains the same. No one is advocating US deployment of troops to Ukraine. Yet still, critics of current policy ask the question over an over to create the illusion that some are in fact advocating deployment of US troops to Ukraine

---

Then what should we do in that scenario?

---

No one has advocated a scenario for deployment of US troops to Ukraine. Seriously. Have not read or seen anything of the kind, and I'm an insomniac who is a voracious consumer of the subject material. All statements on the matter by policymakers in power are "no, no, no....."

If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, we must 1) make the Russian victory as costly as possible for Russia, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

If Russia is defeated on the battlefield, they will 1) make the Ukrainian victory as costly as possible for Ukraine, 2) prepare for insurgency in Ukraine, and 3) prepare for future overthrow of the ensuing Ukrainian regime.

It NEVER ends.

#s 2 & 3 may take decades. Our great-great grandfathers argued about this part of the world. Our great-grandkids will be arguing about this part of the world. Ukraine is the Central European shatterzone. The game never stops in a shatterzone. You have to stay engaged to ensure balance, to keep the other guy from achieving hegemony. And if the other guy actually invades the shatterzone, you make him pay DEARLY.

Critics of our support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War have a valid and compelling point on timelines and budgets, but veer off into hidebound myopia, to the point of detachment from reality in making the case that we have no interest in the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A Ukrainian loss will drastically increase the odds of scenarios involving conflict between Nato and Russia. I mean, really. How could one possibly labor under the illusion that an 800 mile westward move of Russian army bases would make our troops in Western Europe safer? Such is an unfathomably goofy idea.

Right now, we are in this stage:
-Russia is trying to make the likely Ukrainian victory as costly as possible Ukraine. We can expect within 12-18 months Russia will re-start the "little green men" insurgencies where they can, and over the coming years to attempt to influence Ukrainian domestic politics in a more pro-Russian direction. If they think they have an opportunity to sponsor a coup, they will.

The game never ends......

The only question is "where is it played."
We do not want it played in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc....
We want it played in UKRAINE.

---

I don't want the game played forever, so why don't we just wipe Russia off the map?

---

Best way to ensure the game does not turn hot is to disincentivize powers from deciding to invade.

---

Spoken after 20 years of incentivizing Russia to invade.

---

This goes back to the Georgia and Chechnya. The West lost the appetite for playing "World Police" after Iraq and Afghanistan. We allowed Putin to be successful in those places. He started within his "borders," as RedBrick pointed out, moved to Crimea and we did nothing again. Then moved into Ukraine after Biden flubbed the Afghanistan situation. That is how we got here. Nothing happened under Trump because when Assad did try early in his Administration in Syria they got 59 cruise missles as a response. Later when they and took on our forces through Wagner, they got spanked hard. Trump (at least early Trump) listened to his military advisors, not politicians. Biden is 100% politically driven. Putin eats that up.

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

Wow, that's going in a direction as unwise as trusting Sam's explanation of the January 6th protest, riot and police-led tours of the Capitol.

Are we defeating Putin yet?

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

---

Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.

if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.

How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?

---

How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

---

Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.

if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.

How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?

---

How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?

---

WE would be safer.

Russia would not.

But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.

---

I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

---

Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.

if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.

How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?

---

How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?

---

Well, the alternative is to sell them to Belgium, Netherlands, and Turkey. So we would have at least 3 more nuclear powers.

Just a war against US/NATO aggression....

https://nypost.com/2023/03/25/putin-wanted-total-cleansing-of-ukraine-leaked-spy-docs-show/

More and more details are leaking out that Putin has planned to commit genocide in Ukraine. Only the Ukrainian victories thwarted that heinous crime. #Ukraine https://t.co/yzAQM26dLw

— (((Tendar))) (@Tendar) March 26, 2023

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

---

Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.

if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.

How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?

---

How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?

---

WE would be safer.

Russia would not.

But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.

---

I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?

---

Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

---

Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.

if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.

How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?

---

How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?

---

WE would be safer.

Russia would not.

But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.

---

I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?

---

Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?

---

The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.

Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

---

Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.

if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.

How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?

---

How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?

---

Well, the alternative is to sell them to Belgium, Netherlands, and Turkey. So we would have at least 3 more nuclear powers.

---

We already have nukes in those countries, as well as Germany and Italy. Poland is next in line to be added.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

---

Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.

if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.

How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?

---

How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?

---

WE would be safer.

Russia would not.

But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.

---

I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?

---

Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?

---

Both sides have accused each other of violations. That has nothing to do with why the treaty collapsed.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

---

Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.

if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.

How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?

---

How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?

---

WE would be safer.

Russia would not.

But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.

---

I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?

---

Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?

---

The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.

Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.

---

No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

---

Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.

if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.

How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?

---

How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?

---

WE would be safer.

Russia would not.

But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.

---

I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?

---

Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?

---

The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.

Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.

---

No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.

---

None taken. Doesn't make it untrue...

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

---

Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.

if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.

How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?

---

How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?

---

WE would be safer.

Russia would not.

But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.

---

I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?

---

Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?

---

Both sides have accused each other of violations. That has nothing to do with why the treaty collapsed.

---

Ah, so now the US is equal to the USSR/Russia in credibility about nuclear testing and development.

According to Samski Lowropov.

"Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win."

What Xi absolutely needs is the support of both State Security and the PLA.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win."

What Xi absolutely needs is the support of both State Security and the PLA.

---

I agree. He has a much more complicated internal politics to play. I would say more dangerous as there are more options to take his place.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine.

Putin said the move was triggered by Britain's decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium.

Putin argued that by deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia was following the lead of the United States, noting that the U.S. has nuclear weapons based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

"We are doing what they have been doing for decades, stationing them in certain allied countries, preparing the launch platforms and training their crews," Putin said, speaking in an interview on state television that aired Saturday night. "We are going to do the same thing."

https://apnews.com/article/russia-belarus-nuclear-weapons-2d9584534da25c00c56dbf7b14694e0e

---

Thank you for posting some corroboration of my assessments above.

if we do as the war critics demand, Ukraine falls into Russian orbit just like Belarus and we have even more tactical nuke sites to worry about.

How on earth are safer if we adopt policies that would allow Russia to position tactical nukes on the borders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania?

---

How on earth are we safer if we adopt policies that would allow us to position tactical nukes on the border of Russia?

---

WE would be safer.

Russia would not.

But it's all academic, as we were not contemplating policies which would do that.

---

I suppose you think withdrawing from the INF Treaty was a good idea too?

---

Why would we remain in a treaty the other party is not honoring?

---

The only thing Putin understands is force. You have to be able to knock him down or in Judo talk get him in a terminal hold. Otherwise, he believes he has the upper hand. The best defense against Russia is demonstrating strength and the will to use it. Period. Putin is not as deep as people make him out to be. Look at the pictures he puts out, all are heavy masculine, shirt off, and independent images. I can't find one at a cultural event or academic. He does not respect those things, if not backed by force and strength.

Xi, is a different animal all together. He is more intellectual, opportunistic and willing to win on multiple fronts. He does not need to be the "Alpha-Male" to win.

---

No offense, but this sounds more like dialogue from a GI Joe cartoon than a sober analysis of real world adversaries.

---

then you, and we already know this, have no clue about Putin or Russian strongman culture.