whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Your assumption is based on the false premise that not to confront Russia is to guarantee a broader European war. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The closer NATO creeps to Russia's borders, the more animosity is generated in the relations between our two nations. Russia and the United States are not (outside of the Bolshevik period) natural enemies. Russia has no desire to march through Paris as Hitler did.

Ukraine is not part of the American portfolio.

The biggest problem in Europe is not Russia, but demographic suicide that will turn the EU into a caliphate in two generations.

---

Good Grief. You are STILL making the argument that it matters not whether Russian armies are stationed in Russia's border with Ukraine, or Ukraine's border with Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland.

Complete and utter dumbassery

---

When I was born the Soviets had 5 million men in the Red army and tank divisions stationed just outside Berlin.

Somehow the USA was still able to defend its NATO allies and be the most powerful nation on earth.

30 something years later and the Red army is long gone and so is the Warsaw pac.

Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland are all in NATO now….and so are the Baltic states (that used to be part of the USSR)

What's laughable is the idea that any of these nations are in danger of poor, broke, rapidly depopulating Russia.

Places like Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan are simply not worth fighting Russia over and are not vital to the security of the United States

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

What happens in Ukraine is irrelevant to the United States. What happens in our hemisphere is not. I supported Reagan's intervention in Grenada and still do. I would have invaded Cuba and crushed Castro's communist revolution about five minutes after it began. I would never have turned the Panama Canal over to anyone even if it meant turning Panama into the 51st state.

The United States does have legitimate geopolitical interests close to home. Meddling in Ukraine (or Taiwan in a world where everything from Harley Davidson parts to antibiotics to the boots our enlisted men and women are given come from China) do not rise to that level. The neocon foreign policy you propose is like sending a cancer patient to the olympics.

I wore the uniform for the better part of a decade. If you are content with your daughter being deployed to Ukraine to fight Russia your understanding of world events is worse than I imagined.

---

As long as we belong to Nato, what happens in Ukraine matters significantly, as developments there strategically threaten allies we are sworn to defend, with nuclear weapons if necessary.

---

Malarkey. The idea that Russia fighting to a stalemate in Ukraine "strategically threatens allies" is baseless and unsupported rhetoric. Russia is having to ask Iran for weapons just to keep this thing going, for goodness sake. Iran.

You neocons have lost it. What do you think your boy Trump is going to do about this situation?

---

Well, that wasn't the scenario I argued, counselor. Ending the war at current battle lines is, however, a clear and significant improvement in Russian strategic position (insert Liddel-Hart's Maxim here.). That incentivizes resumption of conflict as soon as Russia rebuilds. We can and should fund Ukrainian victory, complete withdrawal of Russian armies from Ukrainian sovereign territory. It won't be hard. Russia cannot keep up its supply chain, which as you note, is quite ragged.

As you alluded, Russia is struggling. Why on earth should we let them win, when their defeat is of such significant advantage to NATO? That is not a sink cost argument; it's a "we have them by the nuts" argument.

---

Sounds all good in a fairytale world where we "have them by the nuts." But we don't. Reality is Ukraine doesn't have them by the anything and likely never will. Russia has solidified its positions and isn't giving them up - just like the precious territories it took many years ago. And as we have seen repeatedly, Ukraine doesn't have the ability to take them back.

The idea that continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons will change that years long dynamic is complete and utter foolishness. But you want to keep sinking billions into a losing proposition. Hilarious.

Reality:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4305675-ukraine-is-waking-up-to-reality/amp/

This all ends if Trump gets elected, FYI.

---

Russians are attacking relentlessly, suffering casualties at 5-6x the rate of Ukrainians. They cannot sustain that, and are making exactly the bet you are - that US resolve will falter.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

What happens in Ukraine is irrelevant to the United States. What happens in our hemisphere is not. I supported Reagan's intervention in Grenada and still do. I would have invaded Cuba and crushed Castro's communist revolution about five minutes after it began. I would never have turned the Panama Canal over to anyone even if it meant turning Panama into the 51st state.

The United States does have legitimate geopolitical interests close to home. Meddling in Ukraine (or Taiwan in a world where everything from Harley Davidson parts to antibiotics to the boots our enlisted men and women are given come from China) do not rise to that level. The neocon foreign policy you propose is like sending a cancer patient to the olympics.

I wore the uniform for the better part of a decade. If you are content with your daughter being deployed to Ukraine to fight Russia your understanding of world events is worse than I imagined.

---

As long as we belong to Nato, what happens in Ukraine matters significantly, as developments there strategically threaten allies we are sworn to defend, with nuclear weapons if necessary.

---

Malarkey. The idea that Russia fighting to a stalemate in Ukraine "strategically threatens allies" is baseless and unsupported rhetoric. Russia is having to ask Iran for weapons just to keep this thing going, for goodness sake. Iran.

You neocons have lost it. What do you think your boy Trump is going to do about this situation?

---

Well, that wasn't the scenario I argued, counselor. Ending the war at current battle lines is, however, a clear and significant improvement in Russian strategic position (insert Liddel-Hart's Maxim here.). That incentivizes resumption of conflict as soon as Russia rebuilds. We can and should fund Ukrainian victory, complete withdrawal of Russian armies from Ukrainian sovereign territory. It won't be hard. Russia cannot keep up its supply chain, which as you note, is quite ragged.

As you alluded, Russia is struggling. Why on earth should we let them win, when their defeat is of such significant advantage to NATO? That is not a sink cost argument; it's a "we have them by the nuts" argument.

---

Sounds all good in a fairytale world where we "have them by the nuts." But we don't. Reality is Ukraine doesn't have them by the anything and likely never will. Russia has solidified its positions and isn't giving them up - just like the precious territories it took many years ago. And as we have seen repeatedly, Ukraine doesn't have the ability to take them back.

The idea that continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons will change that years long dynamic is complete and utter foolishness. But you want to keep sinking billions into a losing proposition. Hilarious.

Reality:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4305675-ukraine-is-waking-up-to-reality/amp/

This all ends if Trump gets elected, FYI.

---

Russians are attacking relentlessly, suffering casualties at 5-6x the rate of Ukrainians. They cannot sustain that, and are making exactly the bet you are - that US resolve will falter.

---

And yet we still hear people talking about how Russia is a threat to our other NATO allies in Europe.

They can't even beat little Ukraine.

Imagine militarily what would happen to Russia if they took on America, UK, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, ect.

It would be more lopsided than the Gazans taking on Israelis 1st world military

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

What happens in Ukraine is irrelevant to the United States. What happens in our hemisphere is not. I supported Reagan's intervention in Grenada and still do. I would have invaded Cuba and crushed Castro's communist revolution about five minutes after it began. I would never have turned the Panama Canal over to anyone even if it meant turning Panama into the 51st state.

The United States does have legitimate geopolitical interests close to home. Meddling in Ukraine (or Taiwan in a world where everything from Harley Davidson parts to antibiotics to the boots our enlisted men and women are given come from China) do not rise to that level. The neocon foreign policy you propose is like sending a cancer patient to the olympics.

I wore the uniform for the better part of a decade. If you are content with your daughter being deployed to Ukraine to fight Russia your understanding of world events is worse than I imagined.

---

As long as we belong to Nato, what happens in Ukraine matters significantly, as developments there strategically threaten allies we are sworn to defend, with nuclear weapons if necessary.

---

Malarkey. The idea that Russia fighting to a stalemate in Ukraine "strategically threatens allies" is baseless and unsupported rhetoric. Russia is having to ask Iran for weapons just to keep this thing going, for goodness sake. Iran.

You neocons have lost it. What do you think your boy Trump is going to do about this situation?

---

Well, that wasn't the scenario I argued, counselor. Ending the war at current battle lines is, however, a clear and significant improvement in Russian strategic position (insert Liddel-Hart's Maxim here.). That incentivizes resumption of conflict as soon as Russia rebuilds. We can and should fund Ukrainian victory, complete withdrawal of Russian armies from Ukrainian sovereign territory. It won't be hard. Russia cannot keep up its supply chain, which as you note, is quite ragged.

As you alluded, Russia is struggling. Why on earth should we let them win, when their defeat is of such significant advantage to NATO? That is not a sink cost argument; it's a "we have them by the nuts" argument.

---

Sounds all good in a fairytale world where we "have them by the nuts." But we don't. Reality is Ukraine doesn't have them by the anything and likely never will. Russia has solidified its positions and isn't giving them up - just like the precious territories it took many years ago. And as we have seen repeatedly, Ukraine doesn't have the ability to take them back.

The idea that continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons will change that years long dynamic is complete and utter foolishness. But you want to keep sinking billions into a losing proposition. Hilarious.

Reality:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4305675-ukraine-is-waking-up-to-reality/amp/

This all ends if Trump gets elected, FYI.

---

Russians are attacking relentlessly, suffering casualties at 5-6x the rate of Ukrainians. They cannot sustain that, and are making exactly the bet you are - that US resolve will falter.

---

And yet we still hear people talking about how Russia is a threat to our other NATO allies in Europe.

They can't even beat little Ukraine.

Imagine militarily what would happen to Russia if they took on America, UK, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, ect.

It would be more lopsided than the Gazans taking on Israelis 1st world military

---

In WWII,Germany had no business getting involved in a 2-front war. But it did. And lost.
Look what that victory cost.

perhaps more to the point:
You wanna talk about lopsided? Hamas had no business attacking Israel, assuming that Hizballah, and Iran, and Russia would come to their aid....that an intifada on the streets of NATO cities would cause western support for Israel to cave. Hamas calculated that circumstances were ripe for asymmetrical warfare that would isolate Israel so completely that it would have to sue for peace, and therefore picked a war that will likely involve the total destruction of Hamas.
LOOK AT WHAT IT WILL COST ISRAEL TO WIN!!!!!

Countries that say what you said - "They'll never attack us. It'd be suicide for them. We need not respond to anything they do" - are the countries that end up in devastating wars.

I can lead you to water, buddy, but I can't make you drink. Russia is never, ever going to stop trying to return the entire eastern flank of NATO to Russian control. Not in our lifetime. Not in this century, or the next. That contest never stops. Ever. It's a great game that's gone on for a millennia, and will in all likelihood continue for another millennia. If you ignore it, you, your children, or your grandchildren will have to fight a hot war against a great power. You must play the game, carefully, thoughtfully, deliberately, earnestly, relentlessly, REMORSELESSLY. When your opponent moves, you respond. When he thrusts you parry. When he missteps, you inch forward. And when he blunders, YOU. MAKE. HIM. PAY. You use sanctions to make him pay. You use diplomacy to make him pay. You use proxies to make him pay. You use everything at your disposal to make him pay, in order to avoid having to use your own sons & daughters to make him pay. Worst case: you make him pay, so that it will take him decades to rebuild. Reasonable case: you make him pay to teach him lessons about effing with your at this point in time. Best case: you endeth the need for future lessons by changing his worldview. But you cannot simply waive him off and say "that lot is wearing animal skins, sleeping in tents, and drinking horsemilk for dinner. They cannot cross our rivers or threaten our castles on forested mountainsides. Fuggedabout 'em." You do that, you will at some point end up paying tribute to people who will raise your children to speak a strange tongue while wearing animal skins to drink horse milk in their tents on your own lands.

You are making completely unserious arguments that will increase the likelihood of war in our lifetime.

Quote:

---

LOOK AT WHAT IT WILL COST ISRAEL TO WIN!!!!!

---

That's a decision that Israel will have to make for itself.

Quote:

---

Russia is never, ever going to stop trying to return the entire eastern flank of NATO to Russian control

---

There's a difference between "control" and "influence". Russia, a large country with a strong military and a lot of resources wants influence over its neighbors...just as the Chinese want influence over their neighbors...and we want influence over our neighbors. Russia has an existential interest in Ukraine as Ukrainian territory is basically a (and has been used as) a highway to invasion of the Russian homeland. Their interest in what goes on in Ukraine is as fundamental as ours as to what goes on in Canada and Mexico.

The only thing Ukraine had to do to avoid this war was adhere to the Minsk agreements and not join NATO. It could have easily been a prosperous neutral state like Switzerland.

Quote:

---

...increasing the likelihood of war in our lifetime...

---

Says the biggest advocate of the wars that have been actually started in our lifetime.

As Anchorman would say....I don't believe you

Wow.

According to a new WSJ poll, Nikki Haley would beat President Biden in the general election by 17%. (51%-34)

Do you believe this poll? pic.twitter.com/JuItoS6nTs

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) December 10, 2023

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

LOOK AT WHAT IT WILL COST ISRAEL TO WIN!!!!!

---

That's a decision that Israel will have to make for itself.

Quote:

---

Russia is never, ever going to stop trying to return the entire eastern flank of NATO to Russian control

---

There's a difference between "control" and "influence". Russia, a large country with a strong military and a lot of resources wants influence over its neighbors...just as the Chinese want influence over their neighbors...and we want influence over our neighbors. Russia has an existential interest in Ukraine as Ukrainian territory is basically a (and has been used as) a highway to invasion of the Russian homeland. Their interest in what goes on in Ukraine is as fundamental as ours as to what goes on in Canada and Mexico.

The only thing Ukraine had to do to avoid this war was adhere to the Minsk agreements and not join NATO. It could have easily been a prosperous neutral state like Switzerland.

Quote:

---

...increasing the likelihood of war in our lifetime...

---

Says the biggest advocate of the wars that have been actually started in our lifetime.

---

A bunch of pro-RU BS. Par for the course.

Trump says he can’t say “bad things” about President Xi because: the look, the whole thing, he stands in front of a million soldiers as they walk by pic.twitter.com/xQpOTA0f2m

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 10, 2023

Trump says Gavin Newsom won the debate against Ron DeSantis pic.twitter.com/8oo8luXbhi

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 10, 2023

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

LOOK AT WHAT IT WILL COST ISRAEL TO WIN!!!!!

---

That's a decision that Israel will have to make for itself.
There is no decision to make in war. You win, or you die. And the cost of victory is almost as dear as the loss. So you have to act prudently to prevent war. Prudently does not mean "do nothing." It means everything is on the table. To include proxy wars. And when your adversary is clearly intent on moving your direction, it is damned foolish to just let him advance, no cost, no resistance, which is exactly what you are arguing for. When your adversary does something so extraordinary, so disproportionate, as to invade not a tiny province like Andorra but the largest country in Europe.....well, that is a wake up call. So many historical allegories here to show the foolishness of your policy recommendations.

Quote:

---

Russia is never, ever going to stop trying to return the entire eastern flank of NATO to Russian control

---

There's a difference between "control" and "influence". Russia, a large country with a strong military and a lot of resources wants influence over its neighbors...just as the Chinese want influence over their neighbors...and we want influence over our neighbors. Russia has an existential interest in Ukraine as Ukrainian territory is basically a (and has been used as) a highway to invasion of the Russian homeland. Their interest in what goes on in Ukraine is as fundamental as ours as to what goes on in Canada and Mexico.
You cannot even apply the analogies correctly. Yes, Russia does have an interest in what happens in Ukraine, but a pro-EU government in Kyiv does not justify an invasion to completely subsume the country back into the Russian state. Russia has clearly and wildly overstepped, every bit as much as it would be an overstep for the US to invade and annex part/all of Mexico over its growing relationship with China (which is the proper analogy).

The only thing Ukraine had to do to avoid this war was adhere to the Minsk agreements and not join NATO. It could have easily been a prosperous neutral state like Switzerland.
LOL Ukraine had not even applied to join Nato at the time it was invaded.

Quote:

---

...increasing the likelihood of war in our lifetime...

---

Says the biggest advocate of the wars that have been actually started in our lifetime.
if supporting a proxy war reduces the chance of my daughter standing on the border of Romania looking down the barrel of a Russian T-72, then yes, I am a big advocate of proxy wars.

---

Pull your head out, dude.

You consistently refuse to look at the history of what happened in Kiev, and between Ukraine and Russia from 2014 till the invasion. You continue to pretend that the Russian invasion was an out of the blue land grab, the precursor to the red army overrunning Europe like it's 1960.

To recap: a US State Department sponsored coup in 2014 overthrew the democratically elected government in Kiev. The new government refused to seat elected representatives from eastern Ukraine. This led to these areas declaring independence. The Ukrainian armed forces then proceeded to attack them in an attempt to recapture those territories. The Minsk treaties were drawn up to stop the conflict, but were broken by the government in Kiev and NATO.

Zelensky admits he never intended to implement Minsk agreements

"The Ukrainian president said Kiev used the agreement only for the exchange of prisoners of war.
Ex-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was in office from 2005 to 2021 said in an interview published in early December that the Minsk accords were signed to "give Ukraine time" to strengthen itself.
Merkel said "The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger"

Ukraine on Fire

You can lead a horse to water, but I guess you can't make it drink.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

What happens in Ukraine is irrelevant to the United States. What happens in our hemisphere is not. I supported Reagan's intervention in Grenada and still do. I would have invaded Cuba and crushed Castro's communist revolution about five minutes after it began. I would never have turned the Panama Canal over to anyone even if it meant turning Panama into the 51st state.

The United States does have legitimate geopolitical interests close to home. Meddling in Ukraine (or Taiwan in a world where everything from Harley Davidson parts to antibiotics to the boots our enlisted men and women are given come from China) do not rise to that level. The neocon foreign policy you propose is like sending a cancer patient to the olympics.

I wore the uniform for the better part of a decade. If you are content with your daughter being deployed to Ukraine to fight Russia your understanding of world events is worse than I imagined.

---

As long as we belong to Nato, what happens in Ukraine matters significantly, as developments there strategically threaten allies we are sworn to defend, with nuclear weapons if necessary.

---

Malarkey. The idea that Russia fighting to a stalemate in Ukraine "strategically threatens allies" is baseless and unsupported rhetoric. Russia is having to ask Iran for weapons just to keep this thing going, for goodness sake. Iran.

You neocons have lost it. What do you think your boy Trump is going to do about this situation?

---

Well, that wasn't the scenario I argued, counselor. Ending the war at current battle lines is, however, a clear and significant improvement in Russian strategic position (insert Liddel-Hart's Maxim here.). That incentivizes resumption of conflict as soon as Russia rebuilds. We can and should fund Ukrainian victory, complete withdrawal of Russian armies from Ukrainian sovereign territory. It won't be hard. Russia cannot keep up its supply chain, which as you note, is quite ragged.

As you alluded, Russia is struggling. Why on earth should we let them win, when their defeat is of such significant advantage to NATO? That is not a sink cost argument; it's a "we have them by the nuts" argument.

---

Sounds all good in a fairytale world where we "have them by the nuts." But we don't. Reality is Ukraine doesn't have them by the anything and likely never will. Russia has solidified its positions and isn't giving them up - just like the precious territories it took many years ago. And as we have seen repeatedly, Ukraine doesn't have the ability to take them back.

The idea that continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons will change that years long dynamic is complete and utter foolishness. But you want to keep sinking billions into a losing proposition. Hilarious.

Reality:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4305675-ukraine-is-waking-up-to-reality/amp/

This all ends if Trump gets elected, FYI.

---

Russians are attacking relentlessly, suffering casualties at 5-6x the rate of Ukrainians. They cannot sustain that, and are making exactly the bet you are - that US resolve will falter.

---

Read the military assessments. Read the articles. Educate yourself. The Russians are entrenched in their newly acquired territory, and aren't going to budge. All of the military assessments are now throwing cold water on the idea Ukraine has the ability to retain them.

How many billions of dollars, years and lives would you like to pour into Ukraine somehow re-acquiring their territory? It's been almost 10 years since the first invasion, and none of that territory has been reclaimed? Should we wait another 10 years? 20? 30? How many billions? Trillions?

And the same Russia that can't defeat little ol' Ukraine is somehow a threat to our allies? Do you realize how laughable and illogical that position sounds?

Trump has expanded his lead to 51% first-choice support among likely Iowa caucusgoers, per an NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll.

It's the biggest recorded lead this close to a competitive GOP caucus in the poll's history.
https://t.co/IZLeei7YZW

— Axios (@axios) December 11, 2023

In the past 50 years we’ve spent over $30T to prepare our military for Russian aggression. Ukraine has severely weakened the Russian military, with our secondhand weapons and about 5% of our annual defense budget. Best deal we’ve ever gotten.

— Carlos Turnbull (@cturnbull1968) December 11, 2023

This is the polling one would expect to see for an incumbent in Biden's position. Over the course of the next year, is his position more likely to improve, or deteriorate?

NEW: @RacetotheWH Swing States polling avg. (Biden vs Trump, July 20 ➡️ Dec. 10)

GA: D+0.2 ➡️ R+5.7
AZ: D+1.2 ➡️ R+4.9
NV: D+2.7 ➡️ R+2.9
PA: D+1.5 ➡️ R+2.3
MI: D+1.6 ➡️ R+1.3
WI: D+7.3 ➡️ D+1.9
——
EC based on polls
🔴 Trump — 301
🔵 Biden — 235https://t.co/b0GexgbmFK pic.twitter.com/Vjc6EMCl4u

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 11, 2023

Swing state polling. Middle East policy has presented Biden (and Democrats) with a dilemma they cannot resolve - whether to support Israel or Hamas. That will cause a real problem for them in MI specifically. No, the muslim vote in MI is not going to vote red. But it is not going to vote blue, either. That could make it impossible for Biden to win MI, a competitive swing state where he will need all hands on deck.

🇺🇲 2024 GE: CNN/SSRS

MICHIGAN
Trump: 50% (+10)
Biden: 40%
--
Trump: 39% (+8)
Biden: 31%
RFK Jr: 20%
West: 6%
—
GEORGIA
Trump: 49% (+5)
Biden: 44%
--
Trump: 42% (+8)
Biden: 34%
RFK Jr: 15%
West: 6%
—
1,197 RV (MI) | 1,068 RV (GA) | 11/29-12/7 https://t.co/mUmHTAGlC8 pic.twitter.com/rrwzQc2tdT

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 11, 2023

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

What happens in Ukraine is irrelevant to the United States. What happens in our hemisphere is not. I supported Reagan's intervention in Grenada and still do. I would have invaded Cuba and crushed Castro's communist revolution about five minutes after it began. I would never have turned the Panama Canal over to anyone even if it meant turning Panama into the 51st state.

The United States does have legitimate geopolitical interests close to home. Meddling in Ukraine (or Taiwan in a world where everything from Harley Davidson parts to antibiotics to the boots our enlisted men and women are given come from China) do not rise to that level. The neocon foreign policy you propose is like sending a cancer patient to the olympics.

I wore the uniform for the better part of a decade. If you are content with your daughter being deployed to Ukraine to fight Russia your understanding of world events is worse than I imagined.

---

As long as we belong to Nato, what happens in Ukraine matters significantly, as developments there strategically threaten allies we are sworn to defend, with nuclear weapons if necessary.

---

Malarkey. The idea that Russia fighting to a stalemate in Ukraine "strategically threatens allies" is baseless and unsupported rhetoric. Russia is having to ask Iran for weapons just to keep this thing going, for goodness sake. Iran.

You neocons have lost it. What do you think your boy Trump is going to do about this situation?

---

Well, that wasn't the scenario I argued, counselor. Ending the war at current battle lines is, however, a clear and significant improvement in Russian strategic position (insert Liddel-Hart's Maxim here.). That incentivizes resumption of conflict as soon as Russia rebuilds. We can and should fund Ukrainian victory, complete withdrawal of Russian armies from Ukrainian sovereign territory. It won't be hard. Russia cannot keep up its supply chain, which as you note, is quite ragged.

As you alluded, Russia is struggling. Why on earth should we let them win, when their defeat is of such significant advantage to NATO? That is not a sink cost argument; it's a "we have them by the nuts" argument.

---

Sounds all good in a fairytale world where we "have them by the nuts." But we don't. Reality is Ukraine doesn't have them by the anything and likely never will. Russia has solidified its positions and isn't giving them up - just like the precious territories it took many years ago. And as we have seen repeatedly, Ukraine doesn't have the ability to take them back.

The idea that continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons will change that years long dynamic is complete and utter foolishness. But you want to keep sinking billions into a losing proposition. Hilarious.

Reality:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4305675-ukraine-is-waking-up-to-reality/amp/

This all ends if Trump gets elected, FYI.

---

Russians are attacking relentlessly, suffering casualties at 5-6x the rate of Ukrainians. They cannot sustain that, and are making exactly the bet you are - that US resolve will falter.

---

Read the military assessments. Read the articles. Educate yourself. The Russians are entrenched in their newly acquired territory, and aren't going to budge. All of the military assessments are now throwing cold water on the idea Ukraine has the ability to retain them.

How many billions of dollars, years and lives would you like to pour into Ukraine somehow re-acquiring their territory? It's been almost 10 years since the first invasion, and none of that territory has been reclaimed? Should we wait another 10 years? 20? 30? How many billions? Trillions?

And the same Russia that can't defeat little ol' Ukraine is somehow a threat to our allies? Do you realize how laughable and illogical that position sounds?

---

I think it is you who are not well read on the situation. Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia is on the attack from the Dnieper all the way to the Russian border = particularly at Adiivka with mindless human wave attacks incurring shocking levels of loss of personnel and equipment. Even the Orkhiv salient has turned static, with Russia posting occasional tactical advances (of feet/yards) a few days a week. Russia cannot sustain this rate of loss, which is averaging close to 1000/day. The only front where Ukraine is advancing is in Kherson, where they are incrementally increasing their bridgehead, with cautious advances against spent Russian forces.

What we see in the aggregate is what we've seen all along = Ukraine being very cautious with its troops and equipment in tactical level assaults, then taking defensive positions to await the predictable Russian human wave counter-attacks. Ukraine has realized its limitations and is playing within them. Russia, on the other hand, is desperate and counting on a collapse of Western aid.

This is a war of attrition. In wars of attrition, things change slowly, then suddenly. As long as western support continues, Ukraine has a far more reliable supply chain. Russia is at far higher risk of collapse than Ukraine.

You say: "it is laughable that Russia is a threat to invade Nato, because it cannot even defeat Ukraine." That analysis is junior high school debate team one dimensional, only dealing with the scenario of Russian invasion, as if that is the only threat Nato faces. Russia is a threat to drag Nato into severe instability. We have never stationed Nato troops in any of the front-line states. If one of them falls into political instability (as did Belarus and Ukraine......hint, hint...), the risks of conflict are high. Russian proximity to those states does affect their ability to influence events, directly or indirectly. But even worse is the foremost threat your analysis ignores = miscalculation. Russia severely miscalculated in its Ukraine policy, on multiple levels. It assumed Ukraine would collapse, and that Nato would not have the will to respond (and as a result, Russia is now in an existential position). It also severely miscalculated its own abilities. They are most certainly going to lose their goal of subsuming Ukraine back into the Russian state, or even of a Plan B return of Ukraine back into the Russian orbit. The only gain they will have is a province or three. Some would call that a loss, a Ukrainian victory of sorts. LOOK WHAT THAT VICTORY COST UKRAINE. And look what it cost Nato. $$$$$$ and blood. (and of course, Liddell-Hart would call it outright Russian victory.) Mostly though, that Russia is no match for Nato (by our assumption) does not bear at all on the question of what Russia will do. Russia, in fact, has a well-documented history of great power miscalculation = overestimating its own abilities and underestimating the capabilities of its adversaries. Russia invades Nato, it will get smoked. But look at the risks and costs Nato will face securing such a victory. Cities destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of deaths. My daughter dodging arty rounds. The ONLY way we avoid that is to keep Russian armies IN Russia. And what we are paying to support Ukrainian efforts to drive Russian armies back to Russia is a bargain. We've already bought time, just with sheer destruction of Russian troops & material.

Russian armies stationed in Ukraine is a severe deterioration in the security posture of NATO. It's worth way more than we're spending to keep them out.

Don't Conserve Institutions That Hate You

"The right needs to rethink how it approaches institutions that have been captured by those who seek to radically alter the character of the nation...America's institutions still have an agenda, but it's clear that they no longer serve the interest of the American citizen."

If you're sitting at home watching Fox News and cheering permawar, the cultural revolution happened while you were asleep.

There are only two reasons to hold Whiterock's position: You're stuck in 1985 and simply can't believe how much the world has changed or you're a principle in Blackrock and are profiting from the chaos.

Realitybites said:

---

Don't Conserve Institutions That Hate You

"The right needs to rethink how it approaches institutions that have been captured by those who seek to radically alter the character of the nation...America's institutions still have an agenda, but it's clear that they no longer serve the interest of the American citizen."

If you're sitting at home watching Fox News and cheering permawar, the cultural revolution happened while you were asleep.

There are only two reasons to hold Whiterock's position: You're stuck in 1985 and simply can't believe how much the world has changed or you're a principle in Blackrock and are profiting from the chaos.

---

No, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The article is paywalled, but the title is intriguing, one I would expect to contain a lot of content I would agree with. I have often posted here about institutional failure.....media establishments, educational establishments, etc...... And there is no question that foreign policy establishments are insensitive to public aversion to expensive long-term and more to the point inconclusive foreign adventures. but that does not mean that free speech, education, and national security are unimportant topics which warrant no policy responses.

Dude. We are party to a defense alliance facing Russian expansionism on its borders. The idea that we have not a nickel to spare to influence events there (because they do not matter to us) is really, really stupid turd-like material. You should quit playing with it.

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Don't Conserve Institutions That Hate You

"The right needs to rethink how it approaches institutions that have been captured by those who seek to radically alter the character of the nation...America's institutions still have an agenda, but it's clear that they no longer serve the interest of the American citizen."

If you're sitting at home watching Fox News and cheering permawar, the cultural revolution happened while you were asleep.

There are only two reasons to hold Whiterock's position: You're stuck in 1985 and simply can't believe how much the world has changed or you're a principle in Blackrock and are profiting from the chaos.

---

No, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The article is paywalled, but the title is intriguing, one I would expect to contain a lot of content I would agree with. I have often posted here about institutional failure.....media establishments, educational establishments, etc...... And there is no question that foreign policy establishments are insensitive to public aversion to expensive long-term and more to the point inconclusive foreign adventures. but that does not mean that free speech, education, and national security are unimportant topics which warrant no policy responses.

Dude. We are party to a defense alliance facing Russian expansionism on its borders. The idea that we have not a nickel to spare to influence events there (because they do not matter to us) is really, really stupid turd-like material. You should quit playing with it.

---

Russia being involved in countries right on its borders is expansionism.

While NATO expanding right up to Russia borders since 1999 is not expansionism.

Interesting way to frame that.....

In these two swing states, no statistically significant difference between Trump or Haley vs Biden.

🇺🇲 2024 GE: CNN/SSRS

GEORGIA
(R) Trump: 49% (+5)
(D) Biden: 44%
-
(D) Biden: 48% (+3)
(R) DeSantis: 45%
-
(R) Haley: 49% (+6)
(D) Biden: 43%
—
MICHIGAN
(R) Trump: 50% (+10)
(D) Biden: 40%
-
(R) DeSantis: 49% (+7)
(D) Biden: 42%
-
(R) Haley: 50% (+12)
(D) Biden: 38% https://t.co/R3rgYWKaFH pic.twitter.com/h0kz7VFfrV

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 11, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Don't Conserve Institutions That Hate You

"The right needs to rethink how it approaches institutions that have been captured by those who seek to radically alter the character of the nation...America's institutions still have an agenda, but it's clear that they no longer serve the interest of the American citizen."

If you're sitting at home watching Fox News and cheering permawar, the cultural revolution happened while you were asleep.

There are only two reasons to hold Whiterock's position: You're stuck in 1985 and simply can't believe how much the world has changed or you're a principle in Blackrock and are profiting from the chaos.

---

No, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The article is paywalled, but the title is intriguing, one I would expect to contain a lot of content I would agree with. I have often posted here about institutional failure.....media establishments, educational establishments, etc...... And there is no question that foreign policy establishments are insensitive to public aversion to expensive long-term and more to the point inconclusive foreign adventures. but that does not mean that free speech, education, and national security are unimportant topics which warrant no policy responses.

Dude. We are party to a defense alliance facing Russian expansionism on its borders. The idea that we have not a nickel to spare to influence events there (because they do not matter to us) is really, really stupid turd-like material. You should quit playing with it.

---

Russia being involved in countries right on its borders is expansionism.

While NATO expanding right up to Russia borders since 1999 is not expansionism.

Interesting way to frame that.....

---

Again, we see flawed understanding of events.

Admitting a sovereign state requesting membership in your alliance WITHOUT extending a concomitant commitment of permanent troop deployments is not remotely in the same universe as invading a neighboring state for the purpose of subsuming it into your own polity. Notably, Nato STILL has no permanently based combat units in ANY of the former WP states. Meanwhile, Russian armies are conducting combat operations on Ukrainian soil.

it's like you're trying to drive without understanding the difference between a clutch and a brake.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Don't Conserve Institutions That Hate You

"The right needs to rethink how it approaches institutions that have been captured by those who seek to radically alter the character of the nation...America's institutions still have an agenda, but it's clear that they no longer serve the interest of the American citizen."

If you're sitting at home watching Fox News and cheering permawar, the cultural revolution happened while you were asleep.

There are only two reasons to hold Whiterock's position: You're stuck in 1985 and simply can't believe how much the world has changed or you're a principle in Blackrock and are profiting from the chaos.

---

No, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The article is paywalled, but the title is intriguing, one I would expect to contain a lot of content I would agree with. I have often posted here about institutional failure.....media establishments, educational establishments, etc...... And there is no question that foreign policy establishments are insensitive to public aversion to expensive long-term and more to the point inconclusive foreign adventures. but that does not mean that free speech, education, and national security are unimportant topics which warrant no policy responses.

Dude. We are party to a defense alliance facing Russian expansionism on its borders. The idea that we have not a nickel to spare to influence events there (because they do not matter to us) is really, really stupid turd-like material. You should quit playing with it.

---

Russia being involved in countries right on its borders is expansionism.

While NATO expanding right up to Russia borders since 1999 is not expansionism.

Interesting way to frame that.....

---

Again, we see flawed understanding of events.

Admitting a sovereign state requesting membership in your alliance WITHOUT extending a concomitant commitment of permanent troop deployments is not remotely in the same universe as invading a neighboring state for the purpose of subsuming it into your own polity. Notably, Nato STILL has no permanently based combat units in ANY of the former WP states. Meanwhile, Russian armies are conducting combat operations on Ukrainian soil.

it's like you're trying to drive without understanding the difference between a clutch and a brake.

---

You are completely discounting the context of that invasion.

The overthrow of the last government in Kyiv (that was friendly to Russia) and its replacement with a Western backed new government.

And of course nearly 20 years of NATO expansion up to the borders of Russia.

Did you think Moscow would sit back and not respond to these developments?

Would the USA if the reverse was happening to us?

[...Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine inadvertently highlights the extent of Washington's military provocations in Ukraine during the period before the outbreak of hostilities. Those measures went well beyond the ill advised political decision on the part of George Bush's administration and its successors to push for Ukraine's admission to NATO.

Earlier warnings from realist scholars that NATO's eastward expansion to Russia's border was poisoning relations with Moscow are finally getting attention in the establishment news media and generating a vigorous debate. A few analysts outside the realism and restraint camp even have conceded that trying to gain NATO membership for Ukraine may have been imprudent. But the magnitude of the aggressive moves taken by the Pentagon and CIA are just now becoming apparent.]

https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-ukraine-war

"don't bring kids into the situation"

Kid? This woman is 25 years old!

NEW: Nikki Haley brings her daughter to an interview to bash Vivek Ramaswamy after he called out the Haley family for their hypocrisy.

Rena Haley said it was “uncalled for” for Vivek to “bring kids into a situation” which ironically is exactly what Nikki Haley did by bringing… pic.twitter.com/eZSgtCN2Np

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) December 12, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Don't Conserve Institutions That Hate You

"The right needs to rethink how it approaches institutions that have been captured by those who seek to radically alter the character of the nation...America's institutions still have an agenda, but it's clear that they no longer serve the interest of the American citizen."

If you're sitting at home watching Fox News and cheering permawar, the cultural revolution happened while you were asleep.

There are only two reasons to hold Whiterock's position: You're stuck in 1985 and simply can't believe how much the world has changed or you're a principle in Blackrock and are profiting from the chaos.

---

No, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The article is paywalled, but the title is intriguing, one I would expect to contain a lot of content I would agree with. I have often posted here about institutional failure.....media establishments, educational establishments, etc...... And there is no question that foreign policy establishments are insensitive to public aversion to expensive long-term and more to the point inconclusive foreign adventures. but that does not mean that free speech, education, and national security are unimportant topics which warrant no policy responses.

Dude. We are party to a defense alliance facing Russian expansionism on its borders. The idea that we have not a nickel to spare to influence events there (because they do not matter to us) is really, really stupid turd-like material. You should quit playing with it.

---

Russia being involved in countries right on its borders is expansionism.

While NATO expanding right up to Russia borders since 1999 is not expansionism.

Interesting way to frame that.....

---

Again, we see flawed understanding of events.

Admitting a sovereign state requesting membership in your alliance WITHOUT extending a concomitant commitment of permanent troop deployments is not remotely in the same universe as invading a neighboring state for the purpose of subsuming it into your own polity. Notably, Nato STILL has no permanently based combat units in ANY of the former WP states. Meanwhile, Russian armies are conducting combat operations on Ukrainian soil.

it's like you're trying to drive without understanding the difference between a clutch and a brake.

---

You are completely discounting the context of that invasion.
Uh, no. See below.

The overthrow of the last government in Kyiv (that was friendly to Russia) and its replacement with a Western backed new government.
Overthrow by the Ukrainian people of a Pro-Russian president who reneged on a campaign promise to continue Ukrainian path to EU membership. Russia should have played the long game, and would have if they had correctly assessed their abilities, Ukrainian abilities, and Western resolve. But they didn't. (as they are wont to do.....)

And of course nearly 20 years of NATO expansion up to the borders of Russia.
not exactly (see below) but certainly superior to Russian advance up to Nato borders (reestablishing the old Cold War demarcation lines.) Fathom the stupidity of winning a war, then just holding ones position for 30 years to await your enemy to rebuild and then reoccupy the old trenches. It's like you WANT to go back to 1990, as though that is better than where we are today.

Did you think Moscow would sit back and not respond to these developments?
That might, if we are to play the hand you insist on playing, justify nibbling Donbas and Crimea off of Ukraine. In no way does it justify an invasion to forcibly return to Russian polity a nation of 50m people against their will. The inability of your argument to think incrementally is a serious limitation.

Would the USA if the reverse was happening to us?
Well, Mexico is on a path to expand its relationship with China (the same path Ukraine was on, just not as far down). Clearly you think we would be justified on sending troops across the Rio Grande any moment now in order to prevent a formal Sino/Mexican alliance some indeterminate number of decades down the road. (the exact analogue to what Russia did in Ukraine.)

[...Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine inadvertently highlights the extent of Washington's military provocations in Ukraine during the period before the outbreak of hostilities. Those measures went well beyond the ill advised political decision on the part of George Bush's administration and its successors to push for Ukraine's admission to NATO.

Earlier warnings from realist scholars that NATO's eastward expansion to Russia's border was poisoning relations with Moscow are finally getting attention in the establishment news media and generating a vigorous debate. A few analysts outside the realism and restraint camp even have conceded that trying to gain NATO membership for Ukraine may have been imprudent. But the magnitude of the aggressive moves taken by the Pentagon and CIA are just now becoming apparent.]

https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-ukraine-war
Yes, we know the Mearsheimer argument. It's fatal flaw is that if we had done nothing, Russia would never, ever, have had the audacity to take a step toward turning all of its former Republics and WP allies into facsimilies of the modern Belarus state. Such is childishly wishful thinking, rejected by all of those entities in question. They KNOW full well, Russia will be back. That's why they pursued Nato membership.

---

At every point, you spin/ignore fact to fit the predetermined conclusion.

Nobody twisted a single arm to get any of the former WP nations to join NATO. They all hiked up their skirts to their chins & begged to be defended against future Russian hegemony. After they joined, and this is a point you studiously ignore, Nato did not permanently station any combat units in any of the former WP nations...solely to avoid antagonizing Moscow. We STILL are not planning to do so. My daughter is going to command a unit at a Western Europe Nato base solely dedicated to logistical support for NATO troops if/when they are forced to deploy into a former WP country to counter Russian aggression. Her position would not exist if we had plans to permanently station troops in Romania, Poland, etc..... Or Ukraine.

We are bending over backwards NOT to antagonize Russia (while taking minimal steps to improve our defensive posture).
And they invaded Ukraine anyway.
That's what they were going to do. It's what Russia does. They play the inside game badly, then play the outside game badly.

Russians are arrogant *******s who can only hear well when their nose is bloody.

whiterock said:

---

In these two swing states, no statistically significant difference between Trump or Haley vs Biden.

🇺🇲 2024 GE: CNN/SSRS

GEORGIA
(R) Trump: 49% (+5)
(D) Biden: 44%
-
(D) Biden: 48% (+3)
(R) DeSantis: 45%
-
(R) Haley: 49% (+6)
(D) Biden: 43%
—
MICHIGAN
(R) Trump: 50% (+10)
(D) Biden: 40%
-
(R) DeSantis: 49% (+7)
(D) Biden: 42%
-
(R) Haley: 50% (+12)
(D) Biden: 38% https://t.co/R3rgYWKaFH pic.twitter.com/h0kz7VFfrV

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 11, 2023

---

Your polls mean nothing because they're not accounting for the other major force in the general election: RFK.

You think that a state that Romney lost by 10% is going to magically vote for Haley 12 years later?

That Whitmer beat Dixon in by 10% last year is going to vote for Haley?

The polls are psyops.

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

In these two swing states, no statistically significant difference between Trump or Haley vs Biden.

🇺🇲 2024 GE: CNN/SSRS

GEORGIA
(R) Trump: 49% (+5)
(D) Biden: 44%
-
(D) Biden: 48% (+3)
(R) DeSantis: 45%
-
(R) Haley: 49% (+6)
(D) Biden: 43%
—
MICHIGAN
(R) Trump: 50% (+10)
(D) Biden: 40%
-
(R) DeSantis: 49% (+7)
(D) Biden: 42%
-
(R) Haley: 50% (+12)
(D) Biden: 38% https://t.co/R3rgYWKaFH pic.twitter.com/h0kz7VFfrV

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 11, 2023

---

Your polls mean nothing because they're not accounting for the other major force in the general election: RFK.

You think that a state that Romney lost by 10% is going to magically vote for Haley 12 years later?

That Whitmer beat Dixon in by 10% last year is going to vote for Haley?

The polls are psyops.

---

Psyops, is the best term. The polls are just giving Trump what he wants...

March 4th 2024: The kangaroo court convenes
March 5th 2024: Super Tuesday
July 15th-18th 2024: Republican National Convention

The democrat plan appears to be to convict and arrest Trump sometime between Super Tuesday and the convention after he has secured the necessary delegates to win the nomination. I'm not entirely sure what the second half of 2024 looks like. Our nation has never had to deal with a blatant political assassination carried out by a corrupt legal system.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

In these two swing states, no statistically significant difference between Trump or Haley vs Biden.

🇺🇲 2024 GE: CNN/SSRS

GEORGIA
(R) Trump: 49% (+5)
(D) Biden: 44%
-
(D) Biden: 48% (+3)
(R) DeSantis: 45%
-
(R) Haley: 49% (+6)
(D) Biden: 43%
—
MICHIGAN
(R) Trump: 50% (+10)
(D) Biden: 40%
-
(R) DeSantis: 49% (+7)
(D) Biden: 42%
-
(R) Haley: 50% (+12)
(D) Biden: 38% https://t.co/R3rgYWKaFH pic.twitter.com/h0kz7VFfrV

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 11, 2023

---

Your polls mean nothing because they're not accounting for the other major force in the general election: RFK.

You think that a state that Romney lost by 10% is going to magically vote for Haley 12 years later?

That Whitmer beat Dixon in by 10% last year is going to vote for Haley?

The polls are psyops.

---

Psyops, is the best term. The polls are just giving Trump what he wants...

---

Every poll I've seen shows that RFK either does no harm to Trump, or actually helps Trump. The vast majority of them show the latter. And that makes complete sense, given dynamics shaping up for the election:
1) two wildly unpopular nominees heading the tickets for both parties
2) the incumbent dealing with a historically bad socio-economic situation, obvious enfeeblement, and an odious VP.
3) the challenger having the larger and far more ardent base of support
4) independents splitting among several 3rd party challengers, etc.......

Here's the big buckets, in order of size: 1) die-hard Trumpers, 2) independents repulsed by both Trump and BIden, and 3) die-hard Biden supporters. Bucket #1 is rock solid behind their guy...nothing, and I mean not even their guy sitting in jail, is going to stop 100% of them from crawling across broken glass to vote for him. Bucket #3 is soft and drifting away, literally able to campaign on nothing about their guy's record, only left with demonizing Bucket #1. Bucket #2 is splitting all across the spectrum - some will hold their nose and vote for one of the two dreadfuls, but a dispositive number of them will throw their vote away on a virtue posture for RFKJr, Jill Stein (Green Party), Cornell West, the as yet unnamed Libertarian Party candidate, or a potential NeverTrumper candidate (Liz Cheny, Mitt Romney, Joe Manchin, eieio....)

That's all before we get to political developments current and looming, all of which seem to work inevitably against the incumbent. The main issues which appear certain to drive the election (economy, border, wokeness) are all things the incumbent cannot fix (given policy predilections). The main issues which could transform are also not helpful: Russian defeat in Ukraine (policies of the incumbent seem purpose driven to avoid that); Hamas/Israel conflict badly (and irreparably) divides the Democrat base, particularly so in a major swing state; lawfare against Trump so far has helped more than harmed, its resolution may not happen before the election, and the impact of resolution is not at all clear.

When ALL of the polls are saying the same thing, it does get you a rough idea where you are on the map. And right now, Trump is on track to win by 2016 numbers. Things could change. Which direction they will break is not at all clear.

look at the magnitude of movement in independents. 26 points toward Trump.

🇺🇲 2024 GE: Independents

Oct. 2020:
(D) Biden: 57% (+21)
(R) Trump: 36%

Dec. 2023:
(R) Trump: 50% (+5)
(D) Biden: 45%

NPR/Marist College (A) https://t.co/PdQ8APGUHg pic.twitter.com/EMhL10bvUc

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 13, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Your assumption is based on the false premise that not to confront Russia is to guarantee a broader European war. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The closer NATO creeps to Russia's borders, the more animosity is generated in the relations between our two nations. Russia and the United States are not (outside of the Bolshevik period) natural enemies. Russia has no desire to march through Paris as Hitler did.

Ukraine is not part of the American portfolio.

The biggest problem in Europe is not Russia, but demographic suicide that will turn the EU into a caliphate in two generations.

---

Good Grief. You are STILL making the argument that it matters not whether Russian armies are stationed in Russia's border with Ukraine, or Ukraine's border with Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland.

Complete and utter dumbassery

---

When I was born the Soviets had 5 million men in the Red army and tank divisions stationed just outside Berlin.

Somehow the USA was still able to defend its NATO allies and be the most powerful nation on earth.

30 something years later and the Red army is long gone and so is the Warsaw pac.

Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland are all in NATO now….and so are the Baltic states (that used to be part of the USSR)

What's laughable is the idea that any of these nations are in danger of poor, broke, rapidly depopulating Russia.

Places like Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan are simply not worth fighting Russia over and are not vital to the security of the United States

---

"Somehow." It just magically happened! No money, no work, no lives lost, no proxy wars, no alliances, no 600-ship navies, no risk, etc....... Just. Somehow. It's like it was a frickin' accident we sent a kid who just finished Baylor grad school all the way to tropical rain forests of Africa to chase Soviet diplomats around trying to recruit them...to recruit the language teachers of those Soviet diplomats....to recruit local bankers to invite those Soviets over for dinner every other week or so.....to get the local government to "collect" against those Soviets.....all so that we could spot one that might be vulnerable to recruitment....so that we'd have a file built on them so if/when they ever did walk into one of our embassies a decade or so down the road after the Soviet system had beat them down......we'd know something about them, we'd have something to work with to vet them, etc.... And with a 4-digit number of people working the problem like that 365 days a year over decades, in a good year, we'd get a small single digit number of successes. Little successes. Which all tied together with all the other stuff the rest of the USG was doing after 50+ years of eyeball-to-eyeball nuclear brinksmanship, finally broke the Russian political order of that day.

Somehow. Geeze you are one obtuse MF'er.

And, somehow, after the USSR did collapse all the way back to Russian borders, you want to just sit and wait while they rebuild. Somehow, you think that is a wise idea.

poor, broke, rapidly depopulating Russia is doing hundreds of billions of dollars of damage in Ukraine in a war they cannot win unless we do what you advocate. WE are not even doing the fighting there. UKrainians are. All we have to do is write a check equivalent to about 5% of our defense budget. This is as cheap as it will ever get to contain one of only two nations on the world who can destroy us, who have never given up trying to destabilize our business model. While you're pondering on that, you should open a history book or three and try to find an answer to this question: What the hell does a poor, broke, rapidly depopulating power do to improve its situation? Let me save you the effort.. The answer is INVADE A NEIGHBOR.

You are doing your damnedest to show us that "somehow" is nothing more than "**** for brains."

Realitybites said:

---

March 4th 2024: The kangaroo court convenes
March 5th 2024: Super Tuesday
July 15th-18th 2024: Republican National Convention

The democrat plan appears to be to convict and arrest Trump sometime between Super Tuesday and the convention after he has secured the necessary delegates to win the nomination. I'm not entirely sure what the second half of 2024 looks like. Our nation has never had to deal with a blatant political assassination carried out by a corrupt legal system.

---

I agree that this sounds like a plan the Democrats would like. But if you think it through, there are a lot of dangers for the Democrats in a plan like that.

Consider the point made about RFK. At this moment he's not really moving the needle with most voters, because I believe most voters don't really like the field of candidates on either side, so what we are seeing in the polls is the sentiment of people who are supporting someone now and intend to vote. The people who are not currently interested in the election but will vote next November, are a mass as yet unknown, and RFK's potential as a wild card may have no effect or great effect, and could benefit or hurt either Trump or Biden.

To see what I mean, consider Houston's recent mayoral election. Seventeen candidates ran to replace outgoing Mayor Sylvester Turner, and they collected between 0.04% and 42.50% of the vote.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/07/houston-mayor-race-2024-results/

What is notable is that in a city with a population of 2,264,876

https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/houston-tx-population

only 251,858 people voted, just about 11% of the population and around 14% of the eligible voting population. Very low participation.

Because no one won more than 49.99% of the vote, there was a run-off election in December between John Whitmire and Sheila Jackson Lee, both long-time politicos with well-known names.

But the December 9th runoff election was a surprise in two ways. First, despite leading Lee by 17,317 votes after the first round (42.5% to 35.6%), Whitmire won the runoff by 57,972 votes (64.4% to 35.6%). Whitmire essentially collected all the support from candidates who did not make the runoff. But the runoff only brought in just over 201 thousand voters, just about a 20 percent drop from the first round. Notably, Whitmire increased his numbers from 107,410 votes in the first round to 129,495 in the runoff, while Lee dropped from 90,093 votes in the first round to 71,523 in the runoff. That is, Lee's support fell when people were asked to repeat their vote.

I would not be surprised to see something like this happen in the Presidential race as well. Both Biden and Trump are well-known by name, and both have their bases of support. But a lot can change between now and next Spring, and even more may change when it comes down to two basic choices.

This could all benefit Biden, but I don't think so. Trump could implode, but I keep thinking back from the 2016 campaign, and how Trump changed his strategy once he had the GOP nomination secured. The man is annoying and noisy, but he also can be canny and clever. If the Democrats proceed with a strategy clearly intended to make Trump the GOP candidate but smear him just as he becomes the official nominee, then I expect Trump will make his own plans on how to deal with that situation.

The point is, expecting Trump to do nothing different between now and next March when his main opponent has made the opposition strategy plain, would be foolish indeed.

whiterock said:

---

look at the magnitude of movement in independents. 26 points toward Trump.

🇺🇲 2024 GE: Independents

Oct. 2020:
(D) Biden: 57% (+21)
(R) Trump: 36%

Dec. 2023:
(R) Trump: 50% (+5)
(D) Biden: 45%

NPR/Marist College (A) https://t.co/PdQ8APGUHg pic.twitter.com/EMhL10bvUc

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 13, 2023

---

So interesting that all of these voters are magically starting to like your boy Trump after hating him for years.

Let's see if that holds true on election day. My money says no way, and Biden is going to pull out another one. But I am glad to see you are keeping the faith. I just hope you're not disappointed.

Again.