Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Aside from the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states, European support has been lukewarm. As usual it's the US that drives the policy and bears most of the expense.

---

You keep using subjective qualifiers. "Lukewarm"? Germany debates but sends tanks, lukewarm? France has even sent equipment and NATO is asking S Korea. England has led and Poland and the Baltics desperately wants the US involved (Funny how the closer to Putin you get the more they want US help) If Putin is no threat why the fear?

The US has taken the material lead in NATO since 49, why should this be different? You let Putin get away with this and all bets are off on Taiwan and the other former Soviet "subjagees."

---

So we are taking the lead, or we're not?

---

Lead? NATO is a group, a coalition, we give our thoughts and proposals and others give theirs. Deals are made, such as with tanks - Germany sends theirs we send ours. Why are you obsessed with who leads? The whole purpose of the coalition is self protection of its members, NATO has obviously determined supporting Ukraine is on NATOs best interest. The whole point of a coalition is members give what they can to support the whole, Denmark cannot supply what the US r Germany can.

Don't get the are we leading stuff.

---

Well, you made it sound like we're obligated because Europe supported us after 9/11 and if "they say" it's a threat worth fighting then we need to toe the line (besides defending international law, which no one really ever does). I think the reality is that Europe's commitment is half-hearted at best and they're the ones following our lead, not the other way around. It seems like an important distinction to me.

---

I love the words used -obligated.

How about support? Loyalty? Good Partner? Team Player?

NATO is charged with protecting Europe. The Russians at the gates in Ukraine pretty much quaifies.

---

Nope. Russia can do whatever it wants in Ukraine, and NATO should not be concerned. The second it enters Poland it gets blown into pre-St. Petersburg times.

---

And if Ukraine doesn't want to give into Russia and asks NATO for help? Just turn back on them?

---

They are not in NATO

We have no obligation to help a corrupt ex-Soviet state on the other side of the world who apparently can't stay on good terms with its largest neighbor.

---

So, we only should do things we are obligated to do. If there is no obligation, no assistance. Very transactional view of the world.

---

---

You guys would be hell of a group of allies. No wonder China and Moslem are coverting more than Capitalim and Christianity.

---

You need to get out more, if you think China and Islam are converting folks.

Those two are gaining through childbirth, not attention to what people want.

---

Moslem is the fastest growing religion in the world.

China is gaining access and allied through there road and belt program.

You guys want us to turn our back on those that want to be capitalist and democracies. How is that going to end up?

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Aside from the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states, European support has been lukewarm. As usual it's the US that drives the policy and bears most of the expense.

---

You keep using subjective qualifiers. "Lukewarm"? Germany debates but sends tanks, lukewarm? France has even sent equipment and NATO is asking S Korea. England has led and Poland and the Baltics desperately wants the US involved (Funny how the closer to Putin you get the more they want US help) If Putin is no threat why the fear?

The US has taken the material lead in NATO since 49, why should this be different? You let Putin get away with this and all bets are off on Taiwan and the other former Soviet "subjagees."

---

So we are taking the lead, or we're not?

---

Lead? NATO is a group, a coalition, we give our thoughts and proposals and others give theirs. Deals are made, such as with tanks - Germany sends theirs we send ours. Why are you obsessed with who leads? The whole purpose of the coalition is self protection of its members, NATO has obviously determined supporting Ukraine is on NATOs best interest. The whole point of a coalition is members give what they can to support the whole, Denmark cannot supply what the US r Germany can.

Don't get the are we leading stuff.

---

Well, you made it sound like we're obligated because Europe supported us after 9/11 and if "they say" it's a threat worth fighting then we need to toe the line (besides defending international law, which no one really ever does). I think the reality is that Europe's commitment is half-hearted at best and they're the ones following our lead, not the other way around. It seems like an important distinction to me.

---

I love the words used -obligated.

How about support? Loyalty? Good Partner? Team Player?

NATO is charged with protecting Europe. The Russians at the gates in Ukraine pretty much quaifies.

---

Nope. Russia can do whatever it wants in Ukraine, and NATO should not be concerned. The second it enters Poland it gets blown into pre-St. Petersburg times.

---

And if Ukraine doesn't want to give into Russia and asks NATO for help? Just turn back on them?

---

They are not in NATO

We have no obligation to help a corrupt ex-Soviet state on the other side of the world who apparently can't stay on good terms with its largest neighbor.

---

So, we only should do things we are obligated to do. If there is no obligation, no assistance. Very transactional view of the world.

---

---

You guys would be hell of a group of allies. No wonder China and Moslem are coverting more than Capitalim and Christianity.

---

You need to get out more, if you think China and Islam are converting folks.

Those two are gaining through childbirth, not attention to what people want.

---

Moslem is the fastest growing religion in the world.

China is gaining access and allied through there road and belt program.

You guys want us to turn our back on those that want to be capitalist and democracies. How is that going to end up?

---

Turn our back?

We have troops in 80 nations and 750 military bases spread across the globe.

And that is not going to change.

And we have Russia and China surrounded.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive

This is not about pulling out of world affairs. It's about not potential starting a nuclear war by interfering in the most sensitive areas for Russia and China.

We have no business in places like Ukraine or Mongolia.

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Aside from the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states, European support has been lukewarm. As usual it's the US that drives the policy and bears most of the expense.

---

You keep using subjective qualifiers. "Lukewarm"? Germany debates but sends tanks, lukewarm? France has even sent equipment and NATO is asking S Korea. England has led and Poland and the Baltics desperately wants the US involved (Funny how the closer to Putin you get the more they want US help) If Putin is no threat why the fear?

The US has taken the material lead in NATO since 49, why should this be different? You let Putin get away with this and all bets are off on Taiwan and the other former Soviet "subjagees."

---

So we are taking the lead, or we're not?

---

Lead? NATO is a group, a coalition, we give our thoughts and proposals and others give theirs. Deals are made, such as with tanks - Germany sends theirs we send ours. Why are you obsessed with who leads? The whole purpose of the coalition is self protection of its members, NATO has obviously determined supporting Ukraine is on NATOs best interest. The whole point of a coalition is members give what they can to support the whole, Denmark cannot supply what the US r Germany can.

Don't get the are we leading stuff.

---

Well, you made it sound like we're obligated because Europe supported us after 9/11 and if "they say" it's a threat worth fighting then we need to toe the line (besides defending international law, which no one really ever does). I think the reality is that Europe's commitment is half-hearted at best and they're the ones following our lead, not the other way around. It seems like an important distinction to me.

---

I love the words used -obligated.

How about support? Loyalty? Good Partner? Team Player?

NATO is charged with protecting Europe. The Russians at the gates in Ukraine pretty much quaifies.

---

Nope. Russia can do whatever it wants in Ukraine, and NATO should not be concerned. The second it enters Poland it gets blown into pre-St. Petersburg times.

---

And if Ukraine doesn't want to give into Russia and asks NATO for help? Just turn back on them?

---

They are not in NATO

We have no obligation to help a corrupt ex-Soviet state on the other side of the world who apparently can't stay on good terms with its largest neighbor.

---

So, we only should do things we are obligated to do. If there is no obligation, no assistance. Very transactional view of the world.

---

---

You guys would be hell of a group of allies. No wonder China and Moslem are coverting more than Capitalim and Christianity.

---

You need to get out more, if you think China and Islam are converting folks.

Those two are gaining through childbirth, not attention to what people want.

---

Moslem is the fastest growing religion in the world.

China is gaining access and allied through there road and belt program.

You guys want us to turn our back on those that want to be capitalist and democracies. How is that going to end up?

---

You might consider not lumping me in with others just for making a point.

Your post does not change the fact of my statement, that Islam and China through birthrates not policy.

Lots of folks prefer Capitalism and Freedom, even in the Middle East. But as long as Europe has a net negative native birthrate, so they let Islamic young men come into their country to do manual labor and incite violence.

Now as for China, things have a brighter outlook. A lot of African countries are welcoming China with their machinery and projects, but China is making many of the same mistakes the US made in the 1960s, providing valuable resources for nothing but the promise that China will later be the beneficiary of trade deals. Those trade deals with the US never worked out in the 1960s, nor with the Soviets in the 1970s, nor will they pan out now.

But what else should be considered, and this addresses Ukraine somewhat, is what South Korea and Japan are doing. If you don't know, you should find out.

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Aside from the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states, European support has been lukewarm. As usual it's the US that drives the policy and bears most of the expense.

---

You keep using subjective qualifiers. "Lukewarm"? Germany debates but sends tanks, lukewarm? France has even sent equipment and NATO is asking S Korea. England has led and Poland and the Baltics desperately wants the US involved (Funny how the closer to Putin you get the more they want US help) If Putin is no threat why the fear?

The US has taken the material lead in NATO since 49, why should this be different? You let Putin get away with this and all bets are off on Taiwan and the other former Soviet "subjagees."

---

So we are taking the lead, or we're not?

---

Lead? NATO is a group, a coalition, we give our thoughts and proposals and others give theirs. Deals are made, such as with tanks - Germany sends theirs we send ours. Why are you obsessed with who leads? The whole purpose of the coalition is self protection of its members, NATO has obviously determined supporting Ukraine is on NATOs best interest. The whole point of a coalition is members give what they can to support the whole, Denmark cannot supply what the US r Germany can.

Don't get the are we leading stuff.

---

Well, you made it sound like we're obligated because Europe supported us after 9/11 and if "they say" it's a threat worth fighting then we need to toe the line (besides defending international law, which no one really ever does). I think the reality is that Europe's commitment is half-hearted at best and they're the ones following our lead, not the other way around. It seems like an important distinction to me.

---

I love the words used -obligated.

How about support? Loyalty? Good Partner? Team Player?

NATO is charged with protecting Europe. The Russians at the gates in Ukraine pretty much quaifies.

---

Nope. Russia can do whatever it wants in Ukraine, and NATO should not be concerned. The second it enters Poland it gets blown into pre-St. Petersburg times.

---

And if Ukraine doesn't want to give into Russia and asks NATO for help? Just turn back on them?

---

They are not in NATO

We have no obligation to help a corrupt ex-Soviet state on the other side of the world who apparently can't stay on good terms with its largest neighbor.

---

So, we only should do things we are obligated to do. If there is no obligation, no assistance. Very transactional view of the world.

---

---

You guys would be hell of a group of allies. No wonder China and Moslem are coverting more than Capitalim and Christianity.

---

You need to get out more, if you think China and Islam are converting folks.

Those two are gaining through childbirth, not attention to what people want.

---

Moslem is the fastest growing religion in the world.

China is gaining access and allied through there road and belt program.

You guys want us to turn our back on those that want to be capitalist and democracies. How is that going to end up?

---

Not to derail this thread but I found this to be a very funny take on this Islamic religion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Aside from the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states, European support has been lukewarm. As usual it's the US that drives the policy and bears most of the expense.

---

You keep using subjective qualifiers. "Lukewarm"? Germany debates but sends tanks, lukewarm? France has even sent equipment and NATO is asking S Korea. England has led and Poland and the Baltics desperately wants the US involved (Funny how the closer to Putin you get the more they want US help) If Putin is no threat why the fear?

The US has taken the material lead in NATO since 49, why should this be different? You let Putin get away with this and all bets are off on Taiwan and the other former Soviet "subjagees."

---

So we are taking the lead, or we're not?

---

Lead? NATO is a group, a coalition, we give our thoughts and proposals and others give theirs. Deals are made, such as with tanks - Germany sends theirs we send ours. Why are you obsessed with who leads? The whole purpose of the coalition is self protection of its members, NATO has obviously determined supporting Ukraine is on NATOs best interest. The whole point of a coalition is members give what they can to support the whole, Denmark cannot supply what the US r Germany can.

Don't get the are we leading stuff.

---

Well, you made it sound like we're obligated because Europe supported us after 9/11 and if "they say" it's a threat worth fighting then we need to toe the line (besides defending international law, which no one really ever does). I think the reality is that Europe's commitment is half-hearted at best and they're the ones following our lead, not the other way around. It seems like an important distinction to me.

---

I love the words used -obligated.

How about support? Loyalty? Good Partner? Team Player?

NATO is charged with protecting Europe. The Russians at the gates in Ukraine pretty much quaifies.

---

Nope. Russia can do whatever it wants in Ukraine, and NATO should not be concerned. The second it enters Poland it gets blown into pre-St. Petersburg times.

---

And if Ukraine doesn't want to give into Russia and asks NATO for help? Just turn back on them?

---

They are not in NATO

We have no obligation to help a corrupt ex-Soviet state on the other side of the world who apparently can't stay on good terms with its largest neighbor.

---

So, we only should do things we are obligated to do. If there is no obligation, no assistance. Very transactional view of the world.

---

---

You guys would be hell of a group of allies. No wonder China and Moslem are coverting more than Capitalim and Christianity.

---

You need to get out more, if you think China and Islam are converting folks.

Those two are gaining through childbirth, not attention to what people want.

---

Moslem is the fastest growing religion in the world.

China is gaining access and allied through there road and belt program.

You guys want us to turn our back on those that want to be capitalist and democracies. How is that going to end up?

---

You might consider not lumping me in with others just for making a point.

Your post does not change the fact of my statement, that Islam and China through birthrates not policy.

Lots of folks prefer Capitalism and Freedom, even in the Middle East. But as long as Europe has a net negative native birthrate, so they let Islamic young men come into their country to do manual labor and incite violence.

Now as for China, things have a brighter outlook. A lot of African countries are welcoming China with their machinery and projects, but China is making many of the same mistakes the US made in the 1960s, providing valuable resources for nothing but the promise that China will later be the beneficiary of trade deals. Those trade deals with the US never worked out in the 1960s, nor with the Soviets in the 1970s, nor will they pan out now.

But what else should be considered, and this addresses Ukraine somewhat, is what South Korea and Japan are doing. If you don't know, you should find out.

---

I see very little momentum for freedom in the Middle East, or the Islamic world in general. The largest Muslim country has rolled back the clock, and has active morality police patrolling the country and enforcing adultery and cohabitation outside of marriage laws even on tourists.

The real power of China and the Middle East is manifesting via the massive wealth of sovereign funds, but it's hard to identify it as capitalism. I would argue that what China is doing in Africa is hard pressed to be considered a trade deal, but more akin to predatory lending or a corporate raiding.

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Aside from the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states, European support has been lukewarm. As usual it's the US that drives the policy and bears most of the expense.

---

You keep using subjective qualifiers. "Lukewarm"? Germany debates but sends tanks, lukewarm? France has even sent equipment and NATO is asking S Korea. England has led and Poland and the Baltics desperately wants the US involved (Funny how the closer to Putin you get the more they want US help) If Putin is no threat why the fear?

The US has taken the material lead in NATO since 49, why should this be different? You let Putin get away with this and all bets are off on Taiwan and the other former Soviet "subjagees."

---

So we are taking the lead, or we're not?

---

Lead? NATO is a group, a coalition, we give our thoughts and proposals and others give theirs. Deals are made, such as with tanks - Germany sends theirs we send ours. Why are you obsessed with who leads? The whole purpose of the coalition is self protection of its members, NATO has obviously determined supporting Ukraine is on NATOs best interest. The whole point of a coalition is members give what they can to support the whole, Denmark cannot supply what the US r Germany can.

Don't get the are we leading stuff.

---

Well, you made it sound like we're obligated because Europe supported us after 9/11 and if "they say" it's a threat worth fighting then we need to toe the line (besides defending international law, which no one really ever does). I think the reality is that Europe's commitment is half-hearted at best and they're the ones following our lead, not the other way around. It seems like an important distinction to me.

---

I love the words used -obligated.

How about support? Loyalty? Good Partner? Team Player?

NATO is charged with protecting Europe. The Russians at the gates in Ukraine pretty much quaifies.

---

Nope. Russia can do whatever it wants in Ukraine, and NATO should not be concerned. The second it enters Poland it gets blown into pre-St. Petersburg times.

---

And if Ukraine doesn't want to give into Russia and asks NATO for help? Just turn back on them?

---

They are not in NATO

We have no obligation to help a corrupt ex-Soviet state on the other side of the world who apparently can't stay on good terms with its largest neighbor.

---

So, we only should do things we are obligated to do. If there is no obligation, no assistance. Very transactional view of the world.

---

---

You guys would be hell of a group of allies. No wonder China and Moslem are coverting more than Capitalim and Christianity.

---

You need to get out more, if you think China and Islam are converting folks.

Those two are gaining through childbirth, not attention to what people want.

---

Moslem is the fastest growing religion in the world.

China is gaining access and allied through there road and belt program.

You guys want us to turn our back on those that want to be capitalist and democracies. How is that going to end up?

---

You might consider not lumping me in with others just for making a point.

Your post does not change the fact of my statement, that Islam and China through birthrates not policy.

Lots of folks prefer Capitalism and Freedom, even in the Middle East. But as long as Europe has a net negative native birthrate, so they let Islamic young men come into their country to do manual labor and incite violence.

Now as for China, things have a brighter outlook. A lot of African countries are welcoming China with their machinery and projects, but China is making many of the same mistakes the US made in the 1960s, providing valuable resources for nothing but the promise that China will later be the beneficiary of trade deals. Those trade deals with the US never worked out in the 1960s, nor with the Soviets in the 1970s, nor will they pan out now.

But what else should be considered, and this addresses Ukraine somewhat, is what South Korea and Japan are doing. If you don't know, you should find out.

---

If you look you will see Moslem is growing faster than just birthrate, Moslem women are having more children. But, they are also getting more concerts and losing less to aethism.

As for China, their belts and roads program has made inroads in Africa and South America. As we have people saying not to help other Nation's that ask for help. China is stepping up in strategic areas.

I am not lumping, just discussing. Going back and forth is not a negative or an attack, it used to be a dialog. Just because we dont share each other's point of view, provide different data sources or just disagree it is not personal. I like your posts. This type of forum lends to short, curt responses. Sorry if it comes across that way.

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Aside from the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states, European support has been lukewarm. As usual it's the US that drives the policy and bears most of the expense.

---

You keep using subjective qualifiers. "Lukewarm"? Germany debates but sends tanks, lukewarm? France has even sent equipment and NATO is asking S Korea. England has led and Poland and the Baltics desperately wants the US involved (Funny how the closer to Putin you get the more they want US help) If Putin is no threat why the fear?

The US has taken the material lead in NATO since 49, why should this be different? You let Putin get away with this and all bets are off on Taiwan and the other former Soviet "subjagees."

---

So we are taking the lead, or we're not?

---

Lead? NATO is a group, a coalition, we give our thoughts and proposals and others give theirs. Deals are made, such as with tanks - Germany sends theirs we send ours. Why are you obsessed with who leads? The whole purpose of the coalition is self protection of its members, NATO has obviously determined supporting Ukraine is on NATOs best interest. The whole point of a coalition is members give what they can to support the whole, Denmark cannot supply what the US r Germany can.

Don't get the are we leading stuff.

---

Well, you made it sound like we're obligated because Europe supported us after 9/11 and if "they say" it's a threat worth fighting then we need to toe the line (besides defending international law, which no one really ever does). I think the reality is that Europe's commitment is half-hearted at best and they're the ones following our lead, not the other way around. It seems like an important distinction to me.

---

I love the words used -obligated.

How about support? Loyalty? Good Partner? Team Player?

NATO is charged with protecting Europe. The Russians at the gates in Ukraine pretty much quaifies.

---

Nope. Russia can do whatever it wants in Ukraine, and NATO should not be concerned. The second it enters Poland it gets blown into pre-St. Petersburg times.

---

And if Ukraine doesn't want to give into Russia and asks NATO for help? Just turn back on them?

---

They are not in NATO

We have no obligation to help a corrupt ex-Soviet state on the other side of the world who apparently can't stay on good terms with its largest neighbor.

---

So, we only should do things we are obligated to do. If there is no obligation, no assistance. Very transactional view of the world.

---

---

You guys would be hell of a group of allies. No wonder China and Moslem are coverting more than Capitalim and Christianity.

---

You need to get out more, if you think China and Islam are converting folks.

Those two are gaining through childbirth, not attention to what people want.

---

Moslem is the fastest growing religion in the world.

China is gaining access and allied through there road and belt program.

You guys want us to turn our back on those that want to be capitalist and democracies. How is that going to end up?

---

You might consider not lumping me in with others just for making a point.

Your post does not change the fact of my statement, that Islam and China through birthrates not policy.

Lots of folks prefer Capitalism and Freedom, even in the Middle East. But as long as Europe has a net negative native birthrate, so they let Islamic young men come into their country to do manual labor and incite violence.

Now as for China, things have a brighter outlook. A lot of African countries are welcoming China with their machinery and projects, but China is making many of the same mistakes the US made in the 1960s, providing valuable resources for nothing but the promise that China will later be the beneficiary of trade deals. Those trade deals with the US never worked out in the 1960s, nor with the Soviets in the 1970s, nor will they pan out now.

But what else should be considered, and this addresses Ukraine somewhat, is what South Korea and Japan are doing. If you don't know, you should find out.

---

If you look you will see Moslem is growing faster than just birthrate, Moslem women are having more children. But, they are also getting more concerts and losing less to aethism.

As for China, you are right in that their belts and roads program has made inroads in Africa and South America. Whether they payoff is still a question. In context to the conversation on Ujraine, as we have people saying not to help other Nation's that ask for help. China is stepping up in strategic areas.

I am not lumping, just discussing. Going back and forth is not a negative or an attack, it used to be a dialog. Just because we dont share each other's point of view, provide different data sources or just disagree it is not personal. I like your posts and agree with your views very often. This type of forum lends to short, curt responses. Sorry if it comes across that way.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Aside from the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states, European support has been lukewarm. As usual it's the US that drives the policy and bears most of the expense.

---

You keep using subjective qualifiers. "Lukewarm"? Germany debates but sends tanks, lukewarm? France has even sent equipment and NATO is asking S Korea. England has led and Poland and the Baltics desperately wants the US involved (Funny how the closer to Putin you get the more they want US help) If Putin is no threat why the fear?

The US has taken the material lead in NATO since 49, why should this be different? You let Putin get away with this and all bets are off on Taiwan and the other former Soviet "subjagees."

---

So we are taking the lead, or we're not?

---

Lead? NATO is a group, a coalition, we give our thoughts and proposals and others give theirs. Deals are made, such as with tanks - Germany sends theirs we send ours. Why are you obsessed with who leads? The whole purpose of the coalition is self protection of its members, NATO has obviously determined supporting Ukraine is on NATOs best interest. The whole point of a coalition is members give what they can to support the whole, Denmark cannot supply what the US r Germany can.

Don't get the are we leading stuff.

---

Well, you made it sound like we're obligated because Europe supported us after 9/11 and if "they say" it's a threat worth fighting then we need to toe the line (besides defending international law, which no one really ever does). I think the reality is that Europe's commitment is half-hearted at best and they're the ones following our lead, not the other way around. It seems like an important distinction to me.

---

I love the words used -obligated.

How about support? Loyalty? Good Partner? Team Player?

NATO is charged with protecting Europe. The Russians at the gates in Ukraine pretty much quaifies.

---

Nope. Russia can do whatever it wants in Ukraine, and NATO should not be concerned. The second it enters Poland it gets blown into pre-St. Petersburg times.

---

And if Ukraine doesn't want to give into Russia and asks NATO for help? Just turn back on them?

---

They are not in NATO

We have no obligation to help a corrupt ex-Soviet state on the other side of the world who apparently can't stay on good terms with its largest neighbor.

---

So, we only should do things we are obligated to do. If there is no obligation, no assistance. Very transactional view of the world.

---

---

You guys would be hell of a group of allies. No wonder China and Moslem are coverting more than Capitalim and Christianity.

---

You need to get out more, if you think China and Islam are converting folks.

Those two are gaining through childbirth, not attention to what people want.

---

Moslem is the fastest growing religion in the world.

China is gaining access and allied through there road and belt program.

You guys want us to turn our back on those that want to be capitalist and democracies. How is that going to end up?

---

You might consider not lumping me in with others just for making a point.

Your post does not change the fact of my statement, that Islam and China through birthrates not policy.

Lots of folks prefer Capitalism and Freedom, even in the Middle East. But as long as Europe has a net negative native birthrate, so they let Islamic young men come into their country to do manual labor and incite violence.

Now as for China, things have a brighter outlook. A lot of African countries are welcoming China with their machinery and projects, but China is making many of the same mistakes the US made in the 1960s, providing valuable resources for nothing but the promise that China will later be the beneficiary of trade deals. Those trade deals with the US never worked out in the 1960s, nor with the Soviets in the 1970s, nor will they pan out now.

But what else should be considered, and this addresses Ukraine somewhat, is what South Korea and Japan are doing. If you don't know, you should find out.

---

If you look you will see Moslem is growing faster than just birthrate, Moslem women are having more children. But, they are also getting more concerts and losing less to aethism.

As for China, their belts and roads program has made inroads in Africa and South America. As we have people saying not to help other Nation's that ask for help. China is stepping up in strategic areas.

I am not lumping, just discussing. Going back and forth is not a negative or an attack, it used to be a dialog. Just because we dont share each other's point of view, provide different data sources or just disagree it is not personal. I like your posts. This type of forum lends to short, curt responses. Sorry if it comes across that way.

---

Thanks RMF. I agree about discussion.

One thing that occurs to me that I see as a mistake, is lumping geographic areas together as if cultural events were the same in character and scope as national policy.

Some of that comes, I think, from not having enough exposure to people, businesses, and government agencies in the Middle East. Afghanistan is not Egypt is not Algeria is not Morocco, et cetera.

US policy therefore should address the demographic effect of Islamic migration and the consequences of allowing Sharia to be practiced in Western nations with different focus and planning than, say, China's institutionalized practices of stealing IP and spying on private businesses,

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Aside from the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states, European support has been lukewarm. As usual it's the US that drives the policy and bears most of the expense.

---

You keep using subjective qualifiers. "Lukewarm"? Germany debates but sends tanks, lukewarm? France has even sent equipment and NATO is asking S Korea. England has led and Poland and the Baltics desperately wants the US involved (Funny how the closer to Putin you get the more they want US help) If Putin is no threat why the fear?

The US has taken the material lead in NATO since 49, why should this be different? You let Putin get away with this and all bets are off on Taiwan and the other former Soviet "subjagees."

---

So we are taking the lead, or we're not?

---

Lead? NATO is a group, a coalition, we give our thoughts and proposals and others give theirs. Deals are made, such as with tanks - Germany sends theirs we send ours. Why are you obsessed with who leads? The whole purpose of the coalition is self protection of its members, NATO has obviously determined supporting Ukraine is on NATOs best interest. The whole point of a coalition is members give what they can to support the whole, Denmark cannot supply what the US r Germany can.

Don't get the are we leading stuff.

---

Well, you made it sound like we're obligated because Europe supported us after 9/11 and if "they say" it's a threat worth fighting then we need to toe the line (besides defending international law, which no one really ever does). I think the reality is that Europe's commitment is half-hearted at best and they're the ones following our lead, not the other way around. It seems like an important distinction to me.

---

I love the words used -obligated.

How about support? Loyalty? Good Partner? Team Player?

NATO is charged with protecting Europe. The Russians at the gates in Ukraine pretty much quaifies.

---

Nope. Russia can do whatever it wants in Ukraine, and NATO should not be concerned. The second it enters Poland it gets blown into pre-St. Petersburg times.

---

And if Ukraine doesn't want to give into Russia and asks NATO for help? Just turn back on them?

---

They are not in NATO

We have no obligation to help a corrupt ex-Soviet state on the other side of the world who apparently can't stay on good terms with its largest neighbor.

---

So, we only should do things we are obligated to do. If there is no obligation, no assistance. Very transactional view of the world.

---

---

You guys would be hell of a group of allies. No wonder China and Moslem are coverting more than Capitalim and Christianity.

---

You need to get out more, if you think China and Islam are converting folks.

Those two are gaining through childbirth, not attention to what people want.

---

Moslem is the fastest growing religion in the world.

China is gaining access and allied through there road and belt program.

You guys want us to turn our back on those that want to be capitalist and democracies. How is that going to end up?

---

You might consider not lumping me in with others just for making a point.

Your post does not change the fact of my statement, that Islam and China through birthrates not policy.

Lots of folks prefer Capitalism and Freedom, even in the Middle East. But as long as Europe has a net negative native birthrate, so they let Islamic young men come into their country to do manual labor and incite violence.

Now as for China, things have a brighter outlook. A lot of African countries are welcoming China with their machinery and projects, but China is making many of the same mistakes the US made in the 1960s, providing valuable resources for nothing but the promise that China will later be the beneficiary of trade deals. Those trade deals with the US never worked out in the 1960s, nor with the Soviets in the 1970s, nor will they pan out now.

But what else should be considered, and this addresses Ukraine somewhat, is what South Korea and Japan are doing. If you don't know, you should find out.

---

If you look you will see Moslem is growing faster than just birthrate, Moslem women are having more children. But, they are also getting more concerts and losing less to aethism.

As for China, their belts and roads program has made inroads in Africa and South America. As we have people saying not to help other Nation's that ask for help. China is stepping up in strategic areas.

I am not lumping, just discussing. Going back and forth is not a negative or an attack, it used to be a dialog. Just because we dont share each other's point of view, provide different data sources or just disagree it is not personal. I like your posts. This type of forum lends to short, curt responses. Sorry if it comes across that way.

---

Increasingly that is only true of Muslims in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Muslim fertility rate in the North Africa and the Middle East (MENA) is in serious decline. As well as Muslim fertility rates in Central Asia & Southeast Asia.

https://www.hoover.org/research/fertility-decline-muslim-world

For instance places like Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Palestine now have fertility rates that are around 3.0 which is about the rate the USA had in 1965.

While Iran, Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and others are at 2.0 and thus below the replacement level of 2.1

These rates are all well below the 6.0 fertility rates they had 45 years ago.

The entire Middle East and Central Asia are rapidly heading toward below replacement fertility.

In fact if you exclude 3 countries (Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan) there are no other Islamic majority nations from Morocco to Indonesia that have a fertility rate of 4.0 anymore. Its all 3.5 to 1.8

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Total_Fertility_Rate_Map_by_Country.svg

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Aside from the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states, European support has been lukewarm. As usual it's the US that drives the policy and bears most of the expense.

---

You keep using subjective qualifiers. "Lukewarm"? Germany debates but sends tanks, lukewarm? France has even sent equipment and NATO is asking S Korea. England has led and Poland and the Baltics desperately wants the US involved (Funny how the closer to Putin you get the more they want US help) If Putin is no threat why the fear?

The US has taken the material lead in NATO since 49, why should this be different? You let Putin get away with this and all bets are off on Taiwan and the other former Soviet "subjagees."

---

So we are taking the lead, or we're not?

---

Lead? NATO is a group, a coalition, we give our thoughts and proposals and others give theirs. Deals are made, such as with tanks - Germany sends theirs we send ours. Why are you obsessed with who leads? The whole purpose of the coalition is self protection of its members, NATO has obviously determined supporting Ukraine is on NATOs best interest. The whole point of a coalition is members give what they can to support the whole, Denmark cannot supply what the US r Germany can.

Don't get the are we leading stuff.

---

Well, you made it sound like we're obligated because Europe supported us after 9/11 and if "they say" it's a threat worth fighting then we need to toe the line (besides defending international law, which no one really ever does). I think the reality is that Europe's commitment is half-hearted at best and they're the ones following our lead, not the other way around. It seems like an important distinction to me.

---

I love the words used -obligated.

How about support? Loyalty? Good Partner? Team Player?

NATO is charged with protecting Europe. The Russians at the gates in Ukraine pretty much quaifies.

---

Nope. Russia can do whatever it wants in Ukraine, and NATO should not be concerned. The second it enters Poland it gets blown into pre-St. Petersburg times.

---

And if Ukraine doesn't want to give into Russia and asks NATO for help? Just turn back on them?

---

They are not in NATO

We have no obligation to help a corrupt ex-Soviet state on the other side of the world who apparently can't stay on good terms with its largest neighbor.

---

So, we only should do things we are obligated to do. If there is no obligation, no assistance. Very transactional view of the world.

---

---

You guys would be hell of a group of allies. No wonder China and Moslem are coverting more than Capitalim and Christianity.

---

You need to get out more, if you think China and Islam are converting folks.

Those two are gaining through childbirth, not attention to what people want.

---

Moslem is the fastest growing religion in the world.

China is gaining access and allied through there road and belt program.

You guys want us to turn our back on those that want to be capitalist and democracies. How is that going to end up?

---

You might consider not lumping me in with others just for making a point.

Your post does not change the fact of my statement, that Islam and China through birthrates not policy.

Lots of folks prefer Capitalism and Freedom, even in the Middle East. But as long as Europe has a net negative native birthrate, so they let Islamic young men come into their country to do manual labor and incite violence.

Now as for China, things have a brighter outlook. A lot of African countries are welcoming China with their machinery and projects, but China is making many of the same mistakes the US made in the 1960s, providing valuable resources for nothing but the promise that China will later be the beneficiary of trade deals. Those trade deals with the US never worked out in the 1960s, nor with the Soviets in the 1970s, nor will they pan out now.

But what else should be considered, and this addresses Ukraine somewhat, is what South Korea and Japan are doing. If you don't know, you should find out.

---

If you look you will see Moslem is growing faster than just birthrate, Moslem women are having more children. But, they are also getting more concerts and losing less to aethism.

As for China, their belts and roads program has made inroads in Africa and South America. As we have people saying not to help other Nation's that ask for help. China is stepping up in strategic areas.

I am not lumping, just discussing. Going back and forth is not a negative or an attack, it used to be a dialog. Just because we dont share each other's point of view, provide different data sources or just disagree it is not personal. I like your posts. This type of forum lends to short, curt responses. Sorry if it comes across that way.

---

Increasingly that is only true of Muslims in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Muslim fertility rate in the North Africa and the Middle East (MENA) is in serious decline. As well as Muslim fertility rates in Central Asia & Southeast Asia.

https://www.hoover.org/research/fertility-decline-muslim-world

For instance places like Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Palestine now have fertility rates that are around 3.0 which is about the rate the USA had in 1965.

While Iran, Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and others are at 2.0 and thus below the replacement level of 2.1

These rates are all well below the 6.0 fertility rates they had 45 years ago.

The entire Middle East and Central Asia are rapidly heading toward below replacement fertility.

In fact if you exclude 3 countries (Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan) there are no other Islamic majority nations from Morocco to Indonesia that have a fertility rate of 4.0 anymore. Its all 3.5 to 1.8

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Total_Fertility_Rate_Map_by_Country.svg

---

I thought Indonesia was the area of most growth. I do not know the specifics well enough to go into a discussion on how it is happening.

Either way, Muslim is growing whether through birth rate and/or conversion and will be the top religion by 2050.

China is increasing its sphere of influence.

I brought up this point, not to argue the particulars of those facts but to illustrate that the US may have to do things that are costly if we want to maintain our position in the world (which has lowered). We are losing ground and to not support Ukraine that is asking for European/North American help will lead to a vacuum that the Chinese and Muslim Nations will not think twice about filling.


https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/year-2050-top-10-countries-to-have-the-highest-muslim-populations.html

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Aside from the UK, Poland, and the Baltic states, European support has been lukewarm. As usual it's the US that drives the policy and bears most of the expense.

---

You keep using subjective qualifiers. "Lukewarm"? Germany debates but sends tanks, lukewarm? France has even sent equipment and NATO is asking S Korea. England has led and Poland and the Baltics desperately wants the US involved (Funny how the closer to Putin you get the more they want US help) If Putin is no threat why the fear?

The US has taken the material lead in NATO since 49, why should this be different? You let Putin get away with this and all bets are off on Taiwan and the other former Soviet "subjagees."

---

So we are taking the lead, or we're not?

---

Lead? NATO is a group, a coalition, we give our thoughts and proposals and others give theirs. Deals are made, such as with tanks - Germany sends theirs we send ours. Why are you obsessed with who leads? The whole purpose of the coalition is self protection of its members, NATO has obviously determined supporting Ukraine is on NATOs best interest. The whole point of a coalition is members give what they can to support the whole, Denmark cannot supply what the US r Germany can.

Don't get the are we leading stuff.

---

Well, you made it sound like we're obligated because Europe supported us after 9/11 and if "they say" it's a threat worth fighting then we need to toe the line (besides defending international law, which no one really ever does). I think the reality is that Europe's commitment is half-hearted at best and they're the ones following our lead, not the other way around. It seems like an important distinction to me.

---

I love the words used -obligated.

How about support? Loyalty? Good Partner? Team Player?

NATO is charged with protecting Europe. The Russians at the gates in Ukraine pretty much quaifies.

---

Nope. Russia can do whatever it wants in Ukraine, and NATO should not be concerned. The second it enters Poland it gets blown into pre-St. Petersburg times.

---

And if Ukraine doesn't want to give into Russia and asks NATO for help? Just turn back on them?

---

They are not in NATO

We have no obligation to help a corrupt ex-Soviet state on the other side of the world who apparently can't stay on good terms with its largest neighbor.

---

So, we only should do things we are obligated to do. If there is no obligation, no assistance. Very transactional view of the world.

---

---

You guys would be hell of a group of allies. No wonder China and Moslem are coverting more than Capitalim and Christianity.

---

You need to get out more, if you think China and Islam are converting folks.

Those two are gaining through childbirth, not attention to what people want.

---

Moslem is the fastest growing religion in the world.

China is gaining access and allied through there road and belt program.

You guys want us to turn our back on those that want to be capitalist and democracies. How is that going to end up?

---

You might consider not lumping me in with others just for making a point.

Your post does not change the fact of my statement, that Islam and China through birthrates not policy.

Lots of folks prefer Capitalism and Freedom, even in the Middle East. But as long as Europe has a net negative native birthrate, so they let Islamic young men come into their country to do manual labor and incite violence.

Now as for China, things have a brighter outlook. A lot of African countries are welcoming China with their machinery and projects, but China is making many of the same mistakes the US made in the 1960s, providing valuable resources for nothing but the promise that China will later be the beneficiary of trade deals. Those trade deals with the US never worked out in the 1960s, nor with the Soviets in the 1970s, nor will they pan out now.

But what else should be considered, and this addresses Ukraine somewhat, is what South Korea and Japan are doing. If you don't know, you should find out.

---

---

---

I thought Indonesia was the area of most growth. I do not know the specifics well enough to go into a discussion on how it is happening.

Either way, Muslim is growing whether through birth rate and/or conversion and will be the top religion by 2050.

China is increasing its sphere of influence.

I brought up this point, not to argue the particulars of those facts but to illustrate that the US may have to do things that are costly if we want to maintain our position in the world (which has lowered). We are losing ground and to not support Ukraine that is asking for European/North American help will lead to a vacuum that the Chinese and Muslim Nations will not think twice about filling.


https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/year-2050-top-10-countries-to-have-the-highest-muslim-populations.html

---

Yea it is certainly an interesting topic.

And I don't disagree that the Islamic world will still be growing for decades to come.

But it is interesting to note that the growth rate is certainly slowing down.

Indonesia as you say is the largest Muslim country on earth. But it now has a 2.2 fertility rate (right at replacement) and will probably start losing population by around 2070

https://www.populationpyramid.net/indonesia/2100/

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IDN/indonesia/fertility-rate

[Prime Minister of Hungary and President of Croatia warn that the West is walking into a catastrophe...


According to my notes, Orban did say that the West is at war with Russia de facto, but he very clearly thinks this is a terrible idea, and, in my recollection, said it in the context of warning Hungary's Western allies that it is playing a dangerous game here. In other words, I understood him to be saying that decision-makers in other Western countries are deceiving themselves about what they are really doing in Ukraine, and putting us all in danger of a much wider conflict. More on this point:

Quote:

---

The West has thus reached a kind of strategic paralysis (my term, essaying to capture the thought): it is not seeking an immediate cease-fire since that would fail the world-historical importance test, but it is not seeking an immediate or total victory since that would risk nuclear war. When asked what the answer to the conflict would be, Orbn did not hesitate to answer, almost axiomatically: "if we would like to have a peace, first we have to convince both sides to have a cease-fire."

---

This seems right to me. Our leaders, by their rhetoric, are making a negotiated end to this extremely risky conflict less and less possible. This is the idiocy of the constant references in the American press, and by certain American politicians, to Munich 1938. If peace negotiations are described as Chamberlain's "peace in our time" foolishness after meeting with Hitler, then any attempt to bring this conflict to an end before further bloodshed, a widening of the war, or, God forbid, a nuclear exchange, becomes politically impossible. Whose interest does this serve? Not America's. Not the West's.]



https://www.theamericanconservative.com/is-peace-possible-between-russia-ukraine/

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China as little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

Don't disagree, until they don't. Chinese long game attitude makes it difficult to predict and they can turn on a dime. If Russia weakens enough, does it become advantageous to torment? China is a tough "friend" to have.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

That is a good point

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

Wishful thinking.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

Wishful thinking.

---

Not quite.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

Wishful thinking.

---

Russia is done without China, and Xi already rebuked Russia's threats. It's not wishful, it's pragmatic.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

Wishful thinking.

---

So you think China is going to stand by and let Putin destroy or irradiate the 2 biggest markets for Chinese goods?

Good thread

Osodecentx said:

---

Good thread

---

I agree, spirited discussion without going postal on each other.

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Good thread

---

I agree, spirited discussion without going postal on each other.

---

Has
We'll done

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

Wishful thinking.

---

Quick question: What readiness do you think Russian missile forces are able to muster?

Hint: 90%+ of Russian missiles are fueled by liquid chemicals which can be sold on the black market.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

Wishful thinking.

---

So you think China is going to stand by and let Putin destroy or irradiate the 2 biggest markets for Chinese goods?

---

Probably one but not both.

I would not put it past them to let Russia respond with nukes at the USA.

This removing a long term strategic rival to China.

While leaving the EU as a trading partner for Chinese goods.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

Wishful thinking.

---

So you think China is going to stand by and let Putin destroy or irradiate the 2 biggest markets for Chinese goods?

---

Probably one but not both.

I would not put it past them to let Russia respond with nukes at the USA.

This removing a long term strategic rival to China.

While leaving the EU as a trading partner for Chinese goods.

---

What type of trading partner do you think the EU would be after a nuclear launch against its most important ally?

And I won't even mention the economic MAD a loss of US trade does to China.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

Wishful thinking.

---

So you think China is going to stand by and let Putin destroy or irradiate the 2 biggest markets for Chinese goods?

---

Probably one but not both.

I would not put it past them to let Russia respond with nukes at the USA.

This removing a long term strategic rival to China.

While leaving the EU as a trading partner for Chinese goods.

---

What type of trading partner do you think the EU would be after a nuclear launch against its most important ally?

And I won't even mention the economic MAD a loss of US trade does to China.

---

You don't think the 450 million person EU can survive without the USA?

Man you really are a true believer in the Empire.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

Wishful thinking.

---

So you think China is going to stand by and let Putin destroy or irradiate the 2 biggest markets for Chinese goods?

---

Probably one but not both.

I would not put it past them to let Russia respond with nukes at the USA.

This removing a long term strategic rival to China.

While leaving the EU as a trading partner for Chinese goods.

---

What type of trading partner do you think the EU would be after a nuclear launch against its most important ally?

And I won't even mention the economic MAD a loss of US trade does to China.

---

You don't think the 600 million person EU can survive without the USA?

Man you really are a true believer in the Empire.

---

It's cute to see people post the idea of a major nuclear exchange that only affects a few countries and leave most alone to go about their business.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

Wishful thinking.

---

So you think China is going to stand by and let Putin destroy or irradiate the 2 biggest markets for Chinese goods?

---

Probably one but not both.

I would not put it past them to let Russia respond with nukes at the USA.

This removing a long term strategic rival to China.

While leaving the EU as a trading partner for Chinese goods.

---

What type of trading partner do you think the EU would be after a nuclear launch against its most important ally?

And I won't even mention the economic MAD a loss of US trade does to China.

---

You don't think the 600 million person EU can survive without the USA?

Man you really are a true believer in the Empire.

---

It's cute to see people post the idea of a major nuclear exchange that only affects a few countries and leave most alone to go about their business.

---

I didn't start this hypothetical nuclear talk.

But in a far fetched hypothetical situation where the USA and Russia destroyed themselves in war.

I have no doubt the EU could rebuild and survive.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

BREAKING NEWS: Rand corporation insiders leak that, when asked why they reversed their position on the merits of a long war with Russia in Ukraine, responded "we took the previous position before we realized that they would win."

— Garland Nixon (@GarlandNixon) February 1, 2023

Oh look, Pentagon think tank starting to realize and admit that Russia will win, it will retain the Donbas & Crimea and Ukraine will still be not in Nato.

---

That is a revelation? Ukraine can't win a long war with Russia, they do not have the capacity. They can fight a decisive defensive action and apply the hurt to Russia. But if this thing goes long, all advantage goes to Russia for several reason, namely it will mean Putin has survived and eliminated his rivals.

The only wild card in this equation is China. They support Russia, until they don't. If Russia gets too weak, China's long game starts to change and their are areas that they can exploit to cause Russia all sorts of problems. There are a lot of proxies out there.

---

China has little if any reason to mess with Russia.

As of now Russia is cut off from EU markets...so China is its main buyer of oil, natural gas, timber, wheat, potatoes, and minerals.

Its has become for China what Canada is for us.

The leadership in Beijing has little reason to upset that situation.

Long term Russia then settles in a junior partner status to China...and Xi Jinping likes it that way.

---

China is the reason the Russian nuclear threat is a ruse.

---

Wishful thinking.

---

So you think China is going to stand by and let Putin destroy or irradiate the 2 biggest markets for Chinese goods?

---

Probably one but not both.

I would not put it past them to let Russia respond with nukes at the USA.

This removing a long term strategic rival to China.

While leaving the EU as a trading partner for Chinese goods.

---

What type of trading partner do you think the EU would be after a nuclear launch against its most important ally?

And I won't even mention the economic MAD a loss of US trade does to China.

---

You don't think the 450 million person EU can survive without the USA?

Man you really are a true believer in the Empire.

---

No, I can do math.