ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

---

I didn't say it was "not threat"
Stop it with the motte & bailey nonsense. Your entire argument is premised on the notion that Russian ambitions in Belarus and Ukraine are reasonable and will sate their appetite for expansion....that they will pose no threat to anyone else if we merely let them have what they believe they are entitled to have. History scoffs at such.

I said it was not an existential threat and said it was laughable that russia could conquer anyone in NATO….or somehow conquer Berlin or Paris.
Fools argument. Britain "won" WWII. And it hastened the end of their empire.....arguably an example of Pyrrhic victory. Avoiding hot wars wherever possible is an important part of statecraft. Either victory or defeat can slow or stall a rising power. Either victory or defeat can hasten the demise of a declining power.

The kind of low level stupid propaganda you see neo-cons and liberal interventionists pushing all the time.
The irony here is rich.

Russia is beyond a doubt a declining power
And what does Thucydides say about declining powers?

---

It's just astounding how hard you hold on to such shallow reasoning. Russia is a threat to Europe precisely because it is a declining power attempting to offset its mounting problems by adding territory to its polity.

---

My Gosh man....Russia is a threat when its gaining in power...its a threat when its declining in power...its a threat when it sits on the toilet and takes a crap

(the toilet being an outhouse because at least 30% of russian houses don't have indoor plumbing)

Its russia! russia! russia! with you guys nonstop

The place is a corrupt basket case that can't even successfully invade a neighbor and its got a declining population......yet you guys are pissing in your ****ing panties

My God....Just come out and say you will never be happy until we invade Russia and install a new regime in Moscow

At least then we could drop the disingenuous BS excuses

---

Just come out and say you are jealous the Ukrainians can afford a 2014 Mercedes and you can't

---

lol I'm certainly jealous of the top level guys buying expensive properties in Berlin, Paris, and London

🇨🇭💰Zelensky's inner circle is buying up expensive real estate in Switzerland,it looks like that

In Switzerland,anyone can get an extract from the local land registry.

Explaining the frequent trips of Zelensky to Switzerland since 21019 pic.twitter.com/12tE0eERln

— Angelo Giuliano 🇨🇭🇮🇹🔻🔻🔻 (@angeloinchina) June 8, 2022

There's only one warmonger and he resides in Moscow mostly.

Yes the attack in Port Arthur was very similar to the attack on Pearl Harbor. The resulting war was very different. Although they were only 37 years apart, they were in very different worlds. A lot changed in those years.

TexasScientist said:

---

There's only one warmonger and he resides in Moscow mostly.

---

You can be sure there are more warmongers on the globe than just Putin

Each person in America's uniparty who wants never ending wars is a warmonger, by definition.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

---

I didn't say it was "not threat"
Stop it with the motte & bailey nonsense. Your entire argument is premised on the notion that Russian ambitions in Belarus and Ukraine are reasonable and will sate their appetite for expansion....that they will pose no threat to anyone else if we merely let them have what they believe they are entitled to have. History scoffs at such.

I said it was not an existential threat and said it was laughable that russia could conquer anyone in NATO….or somehow conquer Berlin or Paris.
Fools argument. Britain "won" WWII. And it hastened the end of their empire.....arguably an example of Pyrrhic victory. Avoiding hot wars wherever possible is an important part of statecraft. Either victory or defeat can slow or stall a rising power. Either victory or defeat can hasten the demise of a declining power.

The kind of low level stupid propaganda you see neo-cons and liberal interventionists pushing all the time.
The irony here is rich.

Russia is beyond a doubt a declining power
And what does Thucydides say about declining powers?

---

It's just astounding how hard you hold on to such shallow reasoning. Russia is a threat to Europe precisely because it is a declining power attempting to offset its mounting problems by adding territory to its polity.

---

My Gosh man....Russia is a threat when its gaining in power...its a threat when its declining in power...its a threat when it sits on the toilet and takes a crap
They are a threat because they have defined their interests in ways which conflict zero-sum with ours, because they are a nuclear power with conventional capabilities which exceed any other European country individually.

(the toilet being an outhouse because at least 30% of russian houses don't have indoor plumbing)

Its russia! russia! russia! with you guys nonstop.
Pointing out the obvious is not hyperbole.

The place is a corrupt basket case that can't even successfully invade a neighbor and its got a declining population......yet you guys are pissing in your ****ing panties.
They are imposing trillions of dollars of costs on a country they cannot defeat. It is simply astounding that you cannot see the need to prepare sufficiently to deter them from doing that again.

My God....Just come out and say you will never be happy until we invade Russia and install a new regime in Moscow.
Red herring.

At least then we could drop the disingenuous BS excuses

---

The disingenuous excuses are the Russian apologists, who systematically define them as zero threat to anyone no matter how many countries they invade and destabilize.

I mean, seriously, buddy. You are

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

---

I didn't say it was "not threat"
Stop it with the motte & bailey nonsense. Your entire argument is premised on the notion that Russian ambitions in Belarus and Ukraine are reasonable and will sate their appetite for expansion....that they will pose no threat to anyone else if we merely let them have what they believe they are entitled to have. History scoffs at such.

I said it was not an existential threat and said it was laughable that russia could conquer anyone in NATO….or somehow conquer Berlin or Paris.
Fools argument. Britain "won" WWII. And it hastened the end of their empire.....arguably an example of Pyrrhic victory. Avoiding hot wars wherever possible is an important part of statecraft. Either victory or defeat can slow or stall a rising power. Either victory or defeat can hasten the demise of a declining power.

The kind of low level stupid propaganda you see neo-cons and liberal interventionists pushing all the time.
The irony here is rich.

Russia is beyond a doubt a declining power
And what does Thucydides say about declining powers?

---

It's just astounding how hard you hold on to such shallow reasoning. Russia is a threat to Europe precisely because it is a declining power attempting to offset its mounting problems by adding territory to its polity.

---

Just come out and say you will never be happy until we invade Russia and install a new regime in Moscow

At least then we could drop the disingenuous BS excuses

---

They'll never be honest about it because the people would never support it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

---

I didn't say it was "not threat"
Stop it with the motte & bailey nonsense. Your entire argument is premised on the notion that Russian ambitions in Belarus and Ukraine are reasonable and will sate their appetite for expansion....that they will pose no threat to anyone else if we merely let them have what they believe they are entitled to have. History scoffs at such.

I said it was not an existential threat and said it was laughable that russia could conquer anyone in NATO….or somehow conquer Berlin or Paris.
Fools argument. Britain "won" WWII. And it hastened the end of their empire.....arguably an example of Pyrrhic victory. Avoiding hot wars wherever possible is an important part of statecraft. Either victory or defeat can slow or stall a rising power. Either victory or defeat can hasten the demise of a declining power.

The kind of low level stupid propaganda you see neo-cons and liberal interventionists pushing all the time.
The irony here is rich.

Russia is beyond a doubt a declining power
And what does Thucydides say about declining powers?

---

It's just astounding how hard you hold on to such shallow reasoning. Russia is a threat to Europe precisely because it is a declining power attempting to offset its mounting problems by adding territory to its polity.

---

Just come out and say you will never be happy until we invade Russia and install a new regime in Moscow

At least then we could drop the disingenuous BS excuses

---

They'll never be honest about it because the people would never support it.

---

Honest about it? Whiterock and I disagree on a lot of things, but he (and I) have been clear from day 1. No troops. Rather, the tiny fraction of our defense budget that we're spending on Ukraine is a good investment.

All the stuff about "you want troops," "why don't you go fight," and "forever wars" is nonsense.

I don't believe this is true with you Red, but speaking of honesty, I wish more anti-Ukraine folks would just be honest and follow Tucker's lead in admitting they simply are rooting for Russia and Putin. Away with all that utter nonsense, and just admit their true feelings.

And let's also be honest more generally. Trump is every bit a war monger (as y'all say) as any other President. He (smartly) talked a big game on Iraq and Afghanistan, but he's the same old hawk we've had in office for decades.

What kind of moron ever reads "inner circle" and believes it has absolutely anything to do with the person. My inner circle landed on the moon as I have several pictures with him

^ When your argument is so weak you have to make up an imaginary strawman

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

---

I didn't say it was "not threat"
Stop it with the motte & bailey nonsense. Your entire argument is premised on the notion that Russian ambitions in Belarus and Ukraine are reasonable and will sate their appetite for expansion....that they will pose no threat to anyone else if we merely let them have what they believe they are entitled to have. History scoffs at such.

I said it was not an existential threat and said it was laughable that russia could conquer anyone in NATO….or somehow conquer Berlin or Paris.
Fools argument. Britain "won" WWII. And it hastened the end of their empire.....arguably an example of Pyrrhic victory. Avoiding hot wars wherever possible is an important part of statecraft. Either victory or defeat can slow or stall a rising power. Either victory or defeat can hasten the demise of a declining power.

The kind of low level stupid propaganda you see neo-cons and liberal interventionists pushing all the time.
The irony here is rich.

Russia is beyond a doubt a declining power
And what does Thucydides say about declining powers?

---

It's just astounding how hard you hold on to such shallow reasoning. Russia is a threat to Europe precisely because it is a declining power attempting to offset its mounting problems by adding territory to its polity.

---

Just come out and say you will never be happy until we invade Russia and install a new regime in Moscow

At least then we could drop the disingenuous BS excuses

---

They'll never be honest about it because the people would never support it.

---

Honest about it? Whiterock and I disagree on a lot of things, but he (and I) have been clear from day 1. No troops. Rather, the tiny fraction of our defense budget that we're spending on Ukraine is a good investment.

All the stuff about "you want troops," "why don't you go fight," and "forever wars" is nonsense.

I don't believe this is true with you Red, but speaking of honesty, I wish more anti-Ukraine folks would just be honest and follow Tucker's lead in admitting they simply are rooting for Russia and Putin. Away with all that utter nonsense, and just admit their true feelings.

And let's also be honest more generally. Trump is every bit a war monger (as y'all say) as any other President. He (smartly) talked a big game on Iraq and Afghanistan, but he's the same old hawk we've had in office for decades.

---

Speaking for myself (not Red), I've explained why I think it's in our best interest for Russia to prevail in Ukraine. I don't necessarily think of that as rooting for them, but I understand if some see it that way.

If Whiterock has been clear about anything, it's only that we won't need to send troops because Ukraine is going to slice through Russian defenses, recapture Crimea, and leverage its victory in Kursk to negotiate the return of its eastern territories from Russian control. On a similar note, I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm never going to work again once I win the lottery. But unless we get lucky and accomplish regime change without invading (which would be a terrible idea even if it were feasible, by the way) Whiterock fully expects that we will eventually confront Russia, if not in Ukraine then in some other venue. The ultimate goal is and always has been the breakup of the Russian federation and the opening of its resources to the West. If pursued to its logical end, this will lead to nuclear war (which is what I'm rooting against).

As for Trump, I don't claim to know what he'll do. He is finally talking to the Russians, which is an enormously positive step in itself. He is being relatively honest about the status of the conflict and its underlying causes, which no other president has been. He has a record of resisting pressure to escalate conflicts or start new ones. I'm not blind to his faults, which are many, but I have reason to be cautiously optimistic.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

---

I didn't say it was "not threat"
Stop it with the motte & bailey nonsense. Your entire argument is premised on the notion that Russian ambitions in Belarus and Ukraine are reasonable and will sate their appetite for expansion....that they will pose no threat to anyone else if we merely let them have what they believe they are entitled to have. History scoffs at such.

I said it was not an existential threat and said it was laughable that russia could conquer anyone in NATO….or somehow conquer Berlin or Paris.
Fools argument. Britain "won" WWII. And it hastened the end of their empire.....arguably an example of Pyrrhic victory. Avoiding hot wars wherever possible is an important part of statecraft. Either victory or defeat can slow or stall a rising power. Either victory or defeat can hasten the demise of a declining power.

The kind of low level stupid propaganda you see neo-cons and liberal interventionists pushing all the time.
The irony here is rich.

Russia is beyond a doubt a declining power
And what does Thucydides say about declining powers?

---

It's just astounding how hard you hold on to such shallow reasoning. Russia is a threat to Europe precisely because it is a declining power attempting to offset its mounting problems by adding territory to its polity.

---

Just come out and say you will never be happy until we invade Russia and install a new regime in Moscow

At least then we could drop the disingenuous BS excuses

---

They'll never be honest about it because the people would never support it.

---

Honest about it? Whiterock and I disagree on a lot of things, but he (and I) have been clear from day 1. No troops. Rather, the tiny fraction of our defense budget that we're spending on Ukraine is a good investment.

All the stuff about "you want troops," "why don't you go fight," and "forever wars" is nonsense.

I don't believe this is true with you Red, but speaking of honesty, I wish more anti-Ukraine folks would just be honest and follow Tucker's lead in admitting they simply are rooting for Russia and Putin. Away with all that utter nonsense, and just admit their true feelings.

And let's also be honest more generally. Trump is every bit a war monger (as y'all say) as any other President. He (smartly) talked a big game on Iraq and Afghanistan, but he's the same old hawk we've had in office for decades.

---

I wish you would be honest and admit your policies will lead to the complete financial ruin and subsequent destruction of this country. A $1 trillion annual defense budget is unsustainable... especially so in a recession.

Now you people are bombing Yemen and pushing for war with Iran.

We arent cheering for Russia... we just recognize our real enemies are right here at home.

The_barBEARian said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

---

I didn't say it was "not threat"
Stop it with the motte & bailey nonsense. Your entire argument is premised on the notion that Russian ambitions in Belarus and Ukraine are reasonable and will sate their appetite for expansion....that they will pose no threat to anyone else if we merely let them have what they believe they are entitled to have. History scoffs at such.

I said it was not an existential threat and said it was laughable that russia could conquer anyone in NATO….or somehow conquer Berlin or Paris.
Fools argument. Britain "won" WWII. And it hastened the end of their empire.....arguably an example of Pyrrhic victory. Avoiding hot wars wherever possible is an important part of statecraft. Either victory or defeat can slow or stall a rising power. Either victory or defeat can hasten the demise of a declining power.

The kind of low level stupid propaganda you see neo-cons and liberal interventionists pushing all the time.
The irony here is rich.

Russia is beyond a doubt a declining power
And what does Thucydides say about declining powers?

---

It's just astounding how hard you hold on to such shallow reasoning. Russia is a threat to Europe precisely because it is a declining power attempting to offset its mounting problems by adding territory to its polity.

---

Just come out and say you will never be happy until we invade Russia and install a new regime in Moscow

At least then we could drop the disingenuous BS excuses

---

They'll never be honest about it because the people would never support it.

---

Honest about it? Whiterock and I disagree on a lot of things, but he (and I) have been clear from day 1. No troops. Rather, the tiny fraction of our defense budget that we're spending on Ukraine is a good investment.

All the stuff about "you want troops," "why don't you go fight," and "forever wars" is nonsense.

I don't believe this is true with you Red, but speaking of honesty, I wish more anti-Ukraine folks would just be honest and follow Tucker's lead in admitting they simply are rooting for Russia and Putin. Away with all that utter nonsense, and just admit their true feelings.

And let's also be honest more generally. Trump is every bit a war monger (as y'all say) as any other President. He (smartly) talked a big game on Iraq and Afghanistan, but he's the same old hawk we've had in office for decades.

---

I wish you would be honest and admit your policies will lead to the complete financial ruin and subsequent destruction of this country. A $1 trillion annual defense budget is unsustainable... especially so in a recession.

Now you people are bombing Yemen and pushing for war with Iran.

We arent cheering for Russia... we just recognize our real enemies are right here at home.

---

The way it looks here, YOU PEOPLE are bombing Yemen.

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

Agreed

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

---

Massie put out an interesting tweet that the United States isnt even in the top 5 countries who transport the most cargo through the Red Sea.

The top transporter is China. So why are we spending billions of dollars to secure China's shipping lanes?

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

---

Massie put out an interesting tweet that the United States isnt even in the top 5 countries who transport the most cargo through the Red Sea.

The top transporter is China. So why are we spending billions of dollars to secure China's shipping lanes?

---

Because we don't want the Communists in China building a two ocean navy capable of protecting their own shipping lanes (and attacking ours)

Trust me when I say you only want one undisputed Naval juggernaut on earth....and you want it to be the United States

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

---

Massie put out an interesting tweet that the United States isnt even in the top 5 countries who transport the most cargo through the Red Sea.

The top transporter is China. So why are we spending billions of dollars to secure China's shipping lanes?

---

Because we don't want the Communists in China building a two ocean navy capable of protecting their own shipping lanes (and attacking ours)

Trust me when I say you only want one undisputed Naval juggernaut on earth....and you want it to be the United States

---

lol. I'm good with saving the billions of dollars and staying out of the Red Sea.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

---

Massie put out an interesting tweet that the United States isnt even in the top 5 countries who transport the most cargo through the Red Sea.

The top transporter is China. So why are we spending billions of dollars to secure China's shipping lanes?

---

Because we don't want the Communists in China building a two ocean navy capable of protecting their own shipping lanes (and attacking ours)

Trust me when I say you only want one undisputed Naval juggernaut on earth....and you want it to be the United States

---

lol. I'm good with saving the billions of dollars and staying out of the Red Sea.

---

As long as 12% of U.S. bound cargo moves through that area....we will never be able to ignore it.

[Approximately 12% of global trade, including 30% of global container traffic, passes through the Red Sea, a critical route for international trade, and while the situation in the Red Sea is causing significant disruptions, it's important to note that only about 12% of U.S.-bound cargo comes through the Suez Canal. ]

If Trump somehow finds a way to end this war he will get little credit for his efforts.

As many people are just too stubborn to admit they were wrong.

Nobel Prize…..forget about it.


As the organization that gave it to Obama when he had been president for only a few weeks ( and had done absolutely nothing ) sure as hell would never give the award to Donald Trump for any reason .

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

---

Massie put out an interesting tweet that the United States isnt even in the top 5 countries who transport the most cargo through the Red Sea.

The top transporter is China. So why are we spending billions of dollars to secure China's shipping lanes?

---

Because we don't want the Communists in China building a two ocean navy capable of protecting their own shipping lanes (and attacking ours)

Trust me when I say you only want one undisputed Naval juggernaut on earth....and you want it to be the United States

---

lol. I'm good with saving the billions of dollars and staying out of the Red Sea.

---

You must be driving an EV.

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

---

Massie put out an interesting tweet that the United States isnt even in the top 5 countries who transport the most cargo through the Red Sea.

The top transporter is China. So why are we spending billions of dollars to secure China's shipping lanes?

---

Because we don't want the Communists in China building a two ocean navy capable of protecting their own shipping lanes (and attacking ours)

Trust me when I say you only want one undisputed Naval juggernaut on earth....and you want it to be the United States

---

Post of the Month


Well done.

historian said:

---

---

China will continue rising for their strong Christian values

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

---

Massie put out an interesting tweet that the United States isnt even in the top 5 countries who transport the most cargo through the Red Sea.
that is a true but misleading statistic. We are 2% of TOTAL global export shipments by sea (and a slightly larger share of global import shipments by sea).

The top transporter is China. So why are we spending billions of dollars to secure China's shipping lanes?

---

because disruptions in trade to our trade partners have not inconsiderable ripple effects on us.
because maintaining/disrupting trade routes impact the security/stability position of entire regions (where we have interests).
because our navy uses the same trade routes Chinese cargo ships.

The Houthis are Shiites. They are a proxy of Iran, who seeks destabilize the Saudi Arabian peninsula, which:
-- Diminishes Saudi power
-- Shuts down Red Sea trade routes, which diminishes everyone who needs those trade routes
-- Strengthens Iranian soft power (if you defy Teheran, Teheran will deny you transit of the Red Sea)
-- Prevents Iran from being shut out of direct sea routes to the eastern Med (which allows them to pose flanking threats to a number of their geopolitical rivals - chiefly Turkey (with whom they have a land border) but also Israel and Egypt).
--Enables Iranian naval assets in the Med to counter Turkish support of Azerbaijan (who are fellow turks and also have a land border with Iran).
--Enables Iranian naval assets in the Med to have access to the Black Sea, to counter Turkey by supporting Armenia (who exists in constant tension with Turkey and Azerbaijan and typically looks to Iran for support).

And then there's this: 20% of international container shipping transits the Red Sea. Shut off that level of trade, and global recession looms. Global recession is a brake on US economic growth. And Iran is using the Houthis to do exactly that - attempt to shut down Red Sea trade routes. To the extent China is allied with Iran, Iranian support for Houthis is supportive of Chinese policy - to defend Chinese trade thru the Red Sea, or to afford Chinese ability to influence (facilitate or deny) the trade of others thru the Red Sea (Chinese soft power.....)

To the extent one thinks Iran is a problem, then one has an interest in what they are doing in the Red Sea.

Allowing the precedent to stand that a minor power can hold trade routes hostage would encourage other countries to consider such policies to strengthen their power.


(....just for starters....)

Redbrickbear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

---

Massie put out an interesting tweet that the United States isnt even in the top 5 countries who transport the most cargo through the Red Sea.

The top transporter is China. So why are we spending billions of dollars to secure China's shipping lanes?

---

Because we don't want the Communists in China building a two ocean navy capable of protecting their own shipping lanes (and attacking ours)

Trust me when I say you only want one undisputed Naval juggernaut on earth....and you want it to be the United States

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

---

Massie put out an interesting tweet that the United States isnt even in the top 5 countries who transport the most cargo through the Red Sea.
that is a true but misleading statistic. We are 2% of TOTAL global export shipments by sea (and a slightly larger share of global import shipments by sea).

The top transporter is China. So why are we spending billions of dollars to secure China's shipping lanes?

---

because disruptions in trade to our trade partners have not inconsiderable ripple effects on us.
because maintaining/disrupting trade routes impact the security/stability position of entire regions (where we have interests).
because our navy uses the same trade routes Chinese cargo ships.

The Houthis are Shiites. They are a proxy of Iran, who seeks destabilize the Saudi Arabian peninsula, which:
-- Diminishes Saudi power
-- Shuts down Red Sea trade routes, which diminishes everyone who needs those trade routes
-- Strengthens Iranian soft power (if you defy Teheran, Teheran will deny you transit of the Red Sea)
-- Prevents Iran from being shut out of direct sea routes to the eastern Med (which allows them to pose flanking threats to a number of their geopolitical rivals - chiefly Turkey (with whom they have a land border) but also Israel and Egypt).
--Enables Iranian naval assets in the Med to counter Turkish support of Azerbaijan (who are fellow turks and also have a land border with Iran).
--Enables Iranian naval assets in the Med to have access to the Black Sea, to counter Turkey by supporting Armenia (who exists in constant tension with Turkey and Azerbaijan and typically looks to Iran for support).

And then there's this: 20% of international container shipping transits the Red Sea. Shut off that level of trade, and global recession looms. Global recession is a brake on US economic growth. And Iran is using the Houthis to do exactly that - attempt to shut down Red Sea trade routes. To the extent China is allied with Iran, Iranian support for Houthis is supportive of Chinese policy - to defend Chinese trade thru the Red Sea, or to afford Chinese ability to influence (facilitate or deny) the trade of others thru the Red Sea (Chinese soft power.....)

To the extent one thinks Iran is a problem, then one has an interest in what they are doing in the Red Sea.

Allowing the precedent to stand that a minor power can hold trade routes hostage would encourage other countries to consider such policies to strengthen their power.


(....just for starters....)

---

If supporting Iran ensures Armenia, the only remaining Christian country in the middle east, survives then let the houthis and Iran control the Red Sea.

I support the Armenians and all the rest of the scattered and beaten ME Christians.

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

---

Massie put out an interesting tweet that the United States isnt even in the top 5 countries who transport the most cargo through the Red Sea.
that is a true but misleading statistic. We are 2% of TOTAL global export shipments by sea (and a slightly larger share of global import shipments by sea).

The top transporter is China. So why are we spending billions of dollars to secure China's shipping lanes?

---

because disruptions in trade to our trade partners have not inconsiderable ripple effects on us.
because maintaining/disrupting trade routes impact the security/stability position of entire regions (where we have interests).
because our navy uses the same trade routes Chinese cargo ships.

The Houthis are Shiites. They are a proxy of Iran, who seeks destabilize the Saudi Arabian peninsula, which:
-- Diminishes Saudi power
-- Shuts down Red Sea trade routes, which diminishes everyone who needs those trade routes
-- Strengthens Iranian soft power (if you defy Teheran, Teheran will deny you transit of the Red Sea)
-- Prevents Iran from being shut out of direct sea routes to the eastern Med (which allows them to pose flanking threats to a number of their geopolitical rivals - chiefly Turkey (with whom they have a land border) but also Israel and Egypt).
--Enables Iranian naval assets in the Med to counter Turkish support of Azerbaijan (who are fellow turks and also have a land border with Iran).
--Enables Iranian naval assets in the Med to have access to the Black Sea, to counter Turkey by supporting Armenia (who exists in constant tension with Turkey and Azerbaijan and typically looks to Iran for support).

And then there's this: 20% of international container shipping transits the Red Sea. Shut off that level of trade, and global recession looms. Global recession is a brake on US economic growth. And Iran is using the Houthis to do exactly that - attempt to shut down Red Sea trade routes. To the extent China is allied with Iran, Iranian support for Houthis is supportive of Chinese policy - to defend Chinese trade thru the Red Sea, or to afford Chinese ability to influence (facilitate or deny) the trade of others thru the Red Sea (Chinese soft power.....)

To the extent one thinks Iran is a problem, then one has an interest in what they are doing in the Red Sea.

Allowing the precedent to stand that a minor power can hold trade routes hostage would encourage other countries to consider such policies to strengthen their power.


(....just for starters....)

---

If supporting Iran ensures Armenia, the only remaining Christian country in the middle east, survives then let the houthis and Iran control the Red Sea.

I support the Armenians and all the rest of the scattered and beaten ME Christians.

---

It won't

Iran is allied with Azerbaijan (muslim turks) against Armenia and does not care about them.

In fact Iran-Azerbaijan-Russia are building a new shipping corridor through Azerbaijan making it vital to Tehran and Moscow...they wont support Armenia

[The NSTC route through Azerbaijan allows India-Iran-Azerbaijan-Russia-Kazakhstan transport connectivity. Iran started construction work to complete the missing link of the Qazvin-Rasht-Astara railway (205 km; 127 miles) and road including part of the Rasht-Astara section (164 km; 102 miles). It involves construction of 369 km (230 miles) of bridges and railway line to link the southern sections to the northern ones. Once completed, 22 new tunnels and 15 bridges will have been added to the route.]

The_barBEARian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I see no benefit from bombing Yemen. It's like trying to dry up a river with a towel instead of fixing the dam. Most of the ignorant ****s there have such a **** life I can hardly blame them for just wanting to see the world burn

---

"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting "- Curtis LeMay

They will in fact get tired of being bombed and have special forces raids kill lots of them and cost them money

And denying them a long term occupation also denies them easy American targets and internet propaganda videos when they blow up a unlucky army vehicle

---

Massie put out an interesting tweet that the United States isnt even in the top 5 countries who transport the most cargo through the Red Sea.

The top transporter is China. So why are we spending billions of dollars to secure China's shipping lanes?

---

Because China supports Iran and the Houthi's and they're avoiding attacking their ships. So no, we aren't protecting their ships.

Of course. Relative to Ukraine there is only one, the one who won't endorse the ceasefire.

TexasScientist said:

---

Of course. Relative to Ukraine there is only one, the one who won't endorse the ceasefire.

---

Three years we tell the Russians to pound sand, then we make them an offer that's basically a chance to quit winning on the battlefield for 30 days, and we expect them to cave out of sheer gratitude that we did them the favor.

Only in America.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Of course. Relative to Ukraine there is only one, the one who won't endorse the ceasefire.

---

Three years we tell the Russians to pound sand, then we make them an offer that's basically a chance to quit winning on the battlefield for 30 days, and we expect them to cave out of sheer gratitude that we did them the favor.

Only in America.

---

Winning by holding the same ground they held 3 years ago?

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Of course. Relative to Ukraine there is only one, the one who won't endorse the ceasefire.

---

Three years we tell the Russians to pound sand, then we make them an offer that's basically a chance to quit winning on the battlefield for 30 days, and we expect them to cave out of sheer gratitude that we did them the favor.

Only in America.

---

Winning by holding the same ground they held 3 years ago?

---

It's a war of attrition. A lot has happened in three years.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Of course. Relative to Ukraine there is only one, the one who won't endorse the ceasefire.

---

Three years we tell the Russians to pound sand, then we make them an offer that's basically a chance to quit winning on the battlefield for 30 days, and we expect them to cave out of sheer gratitude that we did them the favor.

Only in America.

---

LMAO!