ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I don't disagree that we have certain ideological similarities with the Russians. But I don't think you can discount all of the bad because we and the Russians agree on certain things.

Hell, I am probably closer aligned with an Islamic Jihadist on LGBTQ issues than I am with a radical leftist. Doesn't mean I want them to take over the ME.

---

Those are good points but Russia is not going to take over the entirety of Europe.

That is why we have NATO (and not one has said we should disband the military alliance)

No country in Europe wants to be tied to Moscow (not even Serbia anymore).

So the Russian threat is overstated.

Ukraine (like Belarus, Georgia, and Kazakhstan) falls into a different category of states already in the Russian sphere of orbit.

---

There are many states formerly in the Russian sphere that moved away. The question is should they be able to move out of it without a threat of invasion? Which ironically is why so many want to participate in a defense alliance in conjunction with an economic one.

---

Yes

But Moscow has made it perfectly clear which countries (in the sphere of influence they used to control) that they will fight for.

(Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Kazakhstan) countries right on there border and with significant russian ethnic minority populations.

They have already accepted the "loss" of the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), Finland, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, the entire Balkans, etc.

DC seems to think it can drive the NATO alliance right up to the borders of the Russian Federation...and pull out from its orbit all neighboring states....and that this is the recipe for peace.

Our policy in Europe (and elsewhere) should be maintaining the status quo and keeping the peace.

The USA as globally Hegemon is helped by peace and the status quo

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I don't disagree that we have certain ideological similarities with the Russians. But I don't think you can discount all of the bad because we and the Russians agree on certain things.

Hell, I am probably closer aligned with an Islamic Jihadist on LGBTQ issues than I am with a radical leftist. Doesn't mean I want them to take over the ME.

---

Those are good points but Russia is not going to take over the entirety of Europe.

That is why we have NATO (and not one has said we should disband the military alliance)

No country in Europe wants to be tied to Moscow (not even Serbia anymore).

So the Russian threat is overstated.

Ukraine (like Belarus, Georgia, and Kazakhstan) falls into a different category of states already in the Russian sphere of orbit.

---

There are many states formerly in the Russian sphere that moved away. The question is should they be able to move out of it without a threat of invasion? Which ironically is why so many want to participate in a defense alliance in conjunction with an economic one.

---

Yes

But Moscow has made it perfectly clear which countries (in the sphere of influence they used to control) that they will fight for.

(Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Kazakhstan) countries right on there border and with significant russian ethnic minority populations.

They have already accepted the "loss" of the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), Finland, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, the entire Balkans, etc.

DC seems to think it can drive the NATO alliance right up to the borders of the Russian Federation...and pull out from its orbit all neighboring states....and that this is the recipe for peace.

Our policy in Europe (and elsewhere) should be maintaining the status quo and keeping the peace.

The USA as globally Hegemon is helped by peace and the status quo

---

Except they never made that clear until they invaded.

---

Come on now....they have been warning the USA of what they consider inference in Ukraine for decades.

They don't want the USA in Belarus, Ukraine, or Georgia.

What do you think the 2008 war in Georgia was about....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You can have your wars…but this BS has got to stop:

Waltz: How much do you think the Air Force pays for this bag of bushings?

Sec. Kendall: I don't know.

Waltz: $90,000.

pic.twitter.com/9WwmkP3MVr

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 17, 2024

---

add this to the stories of four-digit hammers and five-digit toilet seats...... It's what happens when you place cost controls on the big-ticket parts of the program. It causes allocation of expenses into the margins.

If this was a case of garden-variety bilking, we would not be seeing steady trends of consolidation in our defense industrial base.

---

If global hegemony domination means we turn into a quasi socialist country made of wage slaves forking over financial freedom…then what is the point of global hegemony?

---

Great point

---

Thanks

I kind of see it like selling our soul. We're willing to drop trillions on Ukraine and any other war/s in order to supposedly dominate Russia or other countries that pose a threat to western dominance and in process of doing so we print trillions further devaluing the dollar by creating insane inflation.

We "succeed" in war efforts at the cost of destroying our middle class, in effect it's like we're becoming that which we're fighting against.

---

You guys are distracted. In 2022 we spent $4.5 Trillion on medical services of which 90% was paid for by private insurance (highly subsidized/regulated industry) or the preponderance by Medicare and Medicaid. A number that rises at a 4-8% clip annually regardless of inflation. Check it out. How much of your income goes toward Ukraine versus the healthcare costs of others from your private insurance to your Medicare tax to your income tax that gets allocated to Medicaid? If there's a "MIC" you're a wage slave to it's the Medical/Healthcare Industrial Complex.

That is if we want to have an honest conversation about fiscal concerns.

---

Entitlement programs are absolutely the worst fiscal drain we have. No argument there.

It's the hypocrisy I'm trying to point out.

This was a $77B slush fund in the Ukrainian supplemental ($61B in budget outlays + $16B blank check for drawdowns & loans for any foreign country or intl organization), only $13.8B - somewhat direct military aid. That while we can't get border funding or immigration solved because "it costs too much".

America last is the status quo. Y'all are completely fine with it, and you're in lockstep with the establishment whose responsible for our fiscal disaster of a country.

Look at these psychopaths:

🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/N1bYNnRMYx

— 🇺🇦Ukrainian Front (@front_ukrainian) April 20, 2024

---

I never considered Russia first as America last, but given some of the opines around here, I may have to reconsider. I view America first as to be a leader in the world. You surrender guys flinging around the coward label has to be one of the more ironic things I've witnessed.

---

I agree with you. America needs to lead the way and we are the shining City on the hill. If we won't step up, who will?
.
It appears the only way to be Patriotic or pro-America is to hate on the US and our institutions. How we think, doesn't seem to exist anymore.

---

Come on. Being an arms supplier and financier isn't leadership in any really meaning of the word.

Leadership is about risk taking and sacrifice. If our way of life is truly at risk here, real leadership would be putting troops at risk. And we all KNOW this admin and Congress will never do that. So either the risk is not real or we are not leading the way.

---

The risk can be real without the requirement of American blood. We fight risks daily that don't require blood of our own. But this new found cowardice for the smallest of sacrifice has me confounded, especially when the justifications seem to have an air of favoritism to the things and entities we used to find abhorrent.

---

Many don't find this persuasive. We're told we must run up the bill to fund the Ukrainian fight and prop them up in what increasing looks like an unwinnable confrontation because nothing less than the entire West is as stake in this fight. Meanwhile, Ukraine is clearly being restrained in its fight for its very existence (see Anthony Blinken scared to death in front of cameras when Ukraine recently started attacking refineries inside of Russia).

Yes, threats run along a spectrum. Finance and arms may be appropriate leadership when allies are dealing with internal insurrection, terrorism or drug cartels. But for what we are told is an existential fight in the Ukraine where nothing less than America's status as a unipolar leader and the entire West is at stake . . . money and ammo? Kinda makes it hard to believe that this is an existential war with super high stakes when nobody in leadership positions in the west is governing like it. Instead western leaders are acting like their respective next election is more important. Does that sound existential to you?

---

I would parse the domestic political war from the actual war, because politicians are always looking out for their next election.

Of course Russia invading Ukraine to stop it from joining the EU and aligning with the West is an existential threat. Its military campaign began in 2014 and obviously escalated tremendously in 2022. Prior to that it was a soft war with attempts to assassinate rivals to favored candidates (both a Kuchma rival and the better known Yushchenko poisoning), acts of suppression inter Ukraine, and the black hand of Russian and Putin aligned oligarchs for decades. Ukraine has been boxed in from breaking away from Russia, unlike other former Soviet satellites, pretty much since the USSR collapse. But I don't believe the threat was considered that great until Russia moved on Crimea followed by their escalation in Donbas, and even then we were caught sleepwalking and unprepared for the escalation to the full invasion.

Russia has proven to be a poor partner with little economic upside and an equally poor partner as a defense alliance (see Armenia now). They now have to be considered someone who cannot compete heads up, and will act militarily to get their way.

Does the success of Russia in this war mean the collapse of Europe or Western order? Of course not. But it has now established a pattern and practice of Russian existential threats (Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine) that could raise the risk factor if it does not feel we have the political will collectively even with such a minimal ask to commit to supporting the defense of sovereign nations looking to partner with the West.

There's also the risk of not acting that signals whether that existential threat approach they are taking calculates into areas that could raise the risk factor of direct American military action. This is where that risk matrix comes into play. (Let's all hope nothing happens with Transnistria and the economic squeeze Russia is putting on Moldova)

This is likely a generational outcome for Ukraine, which regardless of how one feels about our level of commitment, you have to feel bad for the Ukrainian people, at least the majority. Maybe our dollars won't save all of Ukraine from Russian victory, but perhaps it will result in a thwarting of a future plan or better terms for Ukraine that could benefit the U.S. and region in the future.

---

Yerp...paranoia and miscommunication.

And no tears for the Russian-speaking minority? Since we're supposed to believe there was never a real civil war and the people of the Donbas were just innocent victims of Russian aggression, I would think they'd be due for some sympathy too. Very interesting comment there.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You can have your wars…but this BS has got to stop:

Waltz: How much do you think the Air Force pays for this bag of bushings?

Sec. Kendall: I don't know.

Waltz: $90,000.

pic.twitter.com/9WwmkP3MVr

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 17, 2024

---

add this to the stories of four-digit hammers and five-digit toilet seats...... It's what happens when you place cost controls on the big-ticket parts of the program. It causes allocation of expenses into the margins.

If this was a case of garden-variety bilking, we would not be seeing steady trends of consolidation in our defense industrial base.

---

If global hegemony domination means we turn into a quasi socialist country made of wage slaves forking over financial freedom…then what is the point of global hegemony?

---

Great point

---

Thanks

I kind of see it like selling our soul. We're willing to drop trillions on Ukraine and any other war/s in order to supposedly dominate Russia or other countries that pose a threat to western dominance and in process of doing so we print trillions further devaluing the dollar by creating insane inflation.

We "succeed" in war efforts at the cost of destroying our middle class, in effect it's like we're becoming that which we're fighting against.

---

You guys are distracted. In 2022 we spent $4.5 Trillion on medical services of which 90% was paid for by private insurance (highly subsidized/regulated industry) or the preponderance by Medicare and Medicaid. A number that rises at a 4-8% clip annually regardless of inflation. Check it out. How much of your income goes toward Ukraine versus the healthcare costs of others from your private insurance to your Medicare tax to your income tax that gets allocated to Medicaid? If there's a "MIC" you're a wage slave to it's the Medical/Healthcare Industrial Complex.

That is if we want to have an honest conversation about fiscal concerns.

---

Entitlement programs are absolutely the worst fiscal drain we have. No argument there.

It's the hypocrisy I'm trying to point out.

This was a $77B slush fund in the Ukrainian supplemental ($61B in budget outlays + $16B blank check for drawdowns & loans for any foreign country or intl organization), only $13.8B - somewhat direct military aid. That while we can't get border funding or immigration solved because "it costs too much".

America last is the status quo. Y'all are completely fine with it, and you're in lockstep with the establishment whose responsible for our fiscal disaster of a country.

Look at these psychopaths:

🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/N1bYNnRMYx

— 🇺🇦Ukrainian Front (@front_ukrainian) April 20, 2024

---

I never considered Russia first as America last, but given some of the opines around here, I may have to reconsider. I view America first as to be a leader in the world. You surrender guys flinging around the coward label has to be one of the more ironic things I've witnessed.

---

I agree with you. America needs to lead the way and we are the shining City on the hill. If we won't step up, who will?
.
It appears the only way to be Patriotic or pro-America is to hate on the US and our institutions. How we think, doesn't seem to exist anymore.

---

Come on. Being an arms supplier and financier isn't leadership in any really meaning of the word.

Leadership is about risk taking and sacrifice. If our way of life is truly at risk here, real leadership would be putting troops at risk. And we all KNOW this admin and Congress will never do that. So either the risk is not real or we are not leading the way.

---

The risk can be real without the requirement of American blood. We fight risks daily that don't require blood of our own. But this new found cowardice for the smallest of sacrifice has me confounded, especially when the justifications seem to have an air of favoritism to the things and entities we used to find abhorrent.

---

Many don't find this persuasive. We're told we must run up the bill to fund the Ukrainian fight and prop them up in what increasing looks like an unwinnable confrontation because nothing less than the entire West is as stake in this fight. Meanwhile, Ukraine is clearly being restrained in its fight for its very existence (see Anthony Blinken scared to death in front of cameras when Ukraine recently started attacking refineries inside of Russia).

Yes, threats run along a spectrum. Finance and arms may be appropriate leadership when allies are dealing with internal insurrection, terrorism or drug cartels. But for what we are told is an existential fight in the Ukraine where nothing less than America's status as a unipolar leader and the entire West is at stake . . . money and ammo? Kinda makes it hard to believe that this is an existential war with super high stakes when nobody in leadership positions in the west is governing like it. Instead western leaders are acting like their respective next election is more important. Does that sound existential to you?

---

I would parse the domestic political war from the actual war, because politicians are always looking out for their next election.

Of course Russia invading Ukraine to stop it from joining the EU and aligning with the West is an existential threat. Its military campaign began in 2014 and obviously escalated tremendously in 2022. Prior to that it was a soft war with attempts to assassinate rivals to favored candidates (both a Kuchma rival and the better known Yushchenko poisoning), acts of suppression inter Ukraine, and the black hand of Russian and Putin aligned oligarchs for decades. Ukraine has been boxed in from breaking away from Russia, unlike other former Soviet satellites, pretty much since the USSR collapse. But I don't believe the threat was considered that great until Russia moved on Crimea followed by their escalation in Donbas, and even then we were caught sleepwalking and unprepared for the escalation to the full invasion.

Russia has proven to be a poor partner with little economic upside and an equally poor partner as a defense alliance (see Armenia now). They now have to be considered someone who cannot compete heads up, and will act militarily to get their way.

Does the success of Russia in this war mean the collapse of Europe or Western order? Of course not. But it has now established a pattern and practice of Russian existential threats (Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine) that could raise the risk factor if it does not feel we have the political will collectively even with such a minimal ask to commit to supporting the defense of sovereign nations looking to partner with the West.

There's also the risk of not acting that signals whether that existential threat approach they are taking calculates into areas that could raise the risk factor of direct American military action. This is where that risk matrix comes into play. (Let's all hope nothing happens with Transnistria and the economic squeeze Russia is putting on Moldova)

This is likely a generational outcome for Ukraine, which regardless of how one feels about our level of commitment, you have to feel bad for the Ukrainian people, at least the majority. Maybe our dollars won't save all of Ukraine from Russian victory, but perhaps it will result in a thwarting of a future plan or better terms for Ukraine that could benefit the U.S. and region in the future.

---

Yerp...paranoia and miscommunication.

And no tears for the Russian-speaking minority? Since we're supposed to believe there was never a real civil war and the people of the Donbas were just innocent victims of Russian aggression, I would think they'd be due for some sympathy too. Very interesting comment there.

---

You're such a Russian disinformation bot now it's a shame really. When I said "a majority of them", I was referencing the majority don't want to be under Russia's thumb while there's a minority that will be okay with it. See what I did there? Acknowledge the existence of those who wanted to separate, especially after a decade plus of Russian infiltration in the East.

Porteroso said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Everyone in this thread has the ability to fly to Ukraine and join the fight.

But these Ukrainian/Globalist supporters just sit on their asses spending other people's money while other men are dying.

The real evil scumbags are all the "Americans" (I don't consider these ppl American) who cheer on and support this waste of blood and treasure.

---

Have you fought all battles you believe in with money, bullets, and your life

---

Would NEVER ask anyone to risk getting crippled or killed for this president, Congress or cancel culture. .

The US and our actions, words and policy since 1941 has been to help those that want freedom and protect those that are being attacked by aggression, in the majority of cases it is Communist/Socialist. Not divy up the world with Russia. What you describe makes the US party to enslaving people, no better that Putin. (I and many believe we are better and push for that standard). People we have beckoned to join the West for 75 years. As I said before, who will believe anything we say if you abandon Ukraine?

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Everyone in this thread has the ability to fly to Ukraine and join the fight.

But these Ukrainian/Globalist supporters just sit on their asses spending other people's money while other men are dying.

The real evil scumbags are all the "Americans" (I don't consider these ppl American) who cheer on and support this waste of blood and treasure.

---

Have you fought all battles you believe in with money, bullets, and your life

---

Would NEVER ask anyone to risk getting crippled or killed for this president, Congress or cancel culture. .

---

Cancelled your country, eh?

My dissent from NR’s praise of Mike Johnson and the aid bills. Republicans are throwing more good money after bad strategically, threw away their leverage, and ended up funding the NGOs making the border crisis worse in the end. https://t.co/usSaFFtscs

— Michael Brendan Dougherty (@michaelbd) April 22, 2024

Today, I welcomed a bipartisan delegation of the United States Congress. I am grateful for this visit following a very powerful and critically important decision for us. The people of Ukraine were counting on this decision. We are glad that the United States remains with Ukraine,… pic.twitter.com/wCSbYIjqi9

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) April 22, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Everyone in this thread has the ability to fly to Ukraine and join the fight.

But these Ukrainian/Globalist supporters just sit on their asses spending other people's money while other men are dying.

The real evil scumbags are all the "Americans" (I don't consider these ppl American) who cheer on and support this waste of blood and treasure.

---

Have you fought all battles you believe in with money, bullets, and your life

---

Would NEVER ask anyone to risk getting crippled or killed for this president, Congress or cancel culture. .

---

Cancelled your country, eh?

---

The political system is the country?

Easy there leftist…a real conservative supports the Nation over the State

---

A communist criticizing democracy is a bit cliche don't you think?

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You can have your wars…but this BS has got to stop:

Waltz: How much do you think the Air Force pays for this bag of bushings?

Sec. Kendall: I don't know.

Waltz: $90,000.

pic.twitter.com/9WwmkP3MVr

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 17, 2024

---

add this to the stories of four-digit hammers and five-digit toilet seats...... It's what happens when you place cost controls on the big-ticket parts of the program. It causes allocation of expenses into the margins.

If this was a case of garden-variety bilking, we would not be seeing steady trends of consolidation in our defense industrial base.

---

If global hegemony domination means we turn into a quasi socialist country made of wage slaves forking over financial freedom…then what is the point of global hegemony?

---

Great point

---

Thanks

I kind of see it like selling our soul. We're willing to drop trillions on Ukraine and any other war/s in order to supposedly dominate Russia or other countries that pose a threat to western dominance and in process of doing so we print trillions further devaluing the dollar by creating insane inflation.

We "succeed" in war efforts at the cost of destroying our middle class, in effect it's like we're becoming that which we're fighting against.

---

You guys are distracted. In 2022 we spent $4.5 Trillion on medical services of which 90% was paid for by private insurance (highly subsidized/regulated industry) or the preponderance by Medicare and Medicaid. A number that rises at a 4-8% clip annually regardless of inflation. Check it out. How much of your income goes toward Ukraine versus the healthcare costs of others from your private insurance to your Medicare tax to your income tax that gets allocated to Medicaid? If there's a "MIC" you're a wage slave to it's the Medical/Healthcare Industrial Complex.

That is if we want to have an honest conversation about fiscal concerns.

---

Entitlement programs are absolutely the worst fiscal drain we have. No argument there.

It's the hypocrisy I'm trying to point out.

This was a $77B slush fund in the Ukrainian supplemental ($61B in budget outlays + $16B blank check for drawdowns & loans for any foreign country or intl organization), only $13.8B - somewhat direct military aid. That while we can't get border funding or immigration solved because "it costs too much".

America last is the status quo. Y'all are completely fine with it, and you're in lockstep with the establishment whose responsible for our fiscal disaster of a country.

Look at these psychopaths:

🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/N1bYNnRMYx

— 🇺🇦Ukrainian Front (@front_ukrainian) April 20, 2024

---

I never considered Russia first as America last, but given some of the opines around here, I may have to reconsider. I view America first as to be a leader in the world. You surrender guys flinging around the coward label has to be one of the more ironic things I've witnessed.

---

I agree with you. America needs to lead the way and we are the shining City on the hill. If we won't step up, who will?
.
It appears the only way to be Patriotic or pro-America is to hate on the US and our institutions. How we think, doesn't seem to exist anymore.

---

Come on. Being an arms supplier and financier isn't leadership in any really meaning of the word.

Leadership is about risk taking and sacrifice. If our way of life is truly at risk here, real leadership would be putting troops at risk. And we all KNOW this admin and Congress will never do that. So either the risk is not real or we are not leading the way.

---

The risk can be real without the requirement of American blood. We fight risks daily that don't require blood of our own. But this new found cowardice for the smallest of sacrifice has me confounded, especially when the justifications seem to have an air of favoritism to the things and entities we used to find abhorrent.

---

Many don't find this persuasive. We're told we must run up the bill to fund the Ukrainian fight and prop them up in what increasing looks like an unwinnable confrontation because nothing less than the entire West is as stake in this fight. Meanwhile, Ukraine is clearly being restrained in its fight for its very existence (see Anthony Blinken scared to death in front of cameras when Ukraine recently started attacking refineries inside of Russia).

Yes, threats run along a spectrum. Finance and arms may be appropriate leadership when allies are dealing with internal insurrection, terrorism or drug cartels. But for what we are told is an existential fight in the Ukraine where nothing less than America's status as a unipolar leader and the entire West is at stake . . . money and ammo? Kinda makes it hard to believe that this is an existential war with super high stakes when nobody in leadership positions in the west is governing like it. Instead western leaders are acting like their respective next election is more important. Does that sound existential to you?

---

I would parse the domestic political war from the actual war, because politicians are always looking out for their next election.

Of course Russia invading Ukraine to stop it from joining the EU and aligning with the West is an existential threat. Its military campaign began in 2014 and obviously escalated tremendously in 2022. Prior to that it was a soft war with attempts to assassinate rivals to favored candidates (both a Kuchma rival and the better known Yushchenko poisoning), acts of suppression inter Ukraine, and the black hand of Russian and Putin aligned oligarchs for decades. Ukraine has been boxed in from breaking away from Russia, unlike other former Soviet satellites, pretty much since the USSR collapse. But I don't believe the threat was considered that great until Russia moved on Crimea followed by their escalation in Donbas, and even then we were caught sleepwalking and unprepared for the escalation to the full invasion.

Russia has proven to be a poor partner with little economic upside and an equally poor partner as a defense alliance (see Armenia now). They now have to be considered someone who cannot compete heads up, and will act militarily to get their way.

Does the success of Russia in this war mean the collapse of Europe or Western order? Of course not. But it has now established a pattern and practice of Russian existential threats (Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine) that could raise the risk factor if it does not feel we have the political will collectively even with such a minimal ask to commit to supporting the defense of sovereign nations looking to partner with the West.

There's also the risk of not acting that signals whether that existential threat approach they are taking calculates into areas that could raise the risk factor of direct American military action. This is where that risk matrix comes into play. (Let's all hope nothing happens with Transnistria and the economic squeeze Russia is putting on Moldova)

This is likely a generational outcome for Ukraine, which regardless of how one feels about our level of commitment, you have to feel bad for the Ukrainian people, at least the majority. Maybe our dollars won't save all of Ukraine from Russian victory, but perhaps it will result in a thwarting of a future plan or better terms for Ukraine that could benefit the U.S. and region in the future.

---

1. You can't parse the domestic political war from the actual war. The two are linked. If the politicians aren't willing to risk their political hides then we shouldn't be stuck with the bill and we need to be very honest about asking Ukraine to sacrifice its young men and women at least in part to send Russia a message about western unity.

2. Ukraine has clearly been fighting for its survival with a hand tied behind its back. Asymmetrical warfare and guerrilla warfare tactics are not new. Just two very obvious examples:

(a) through last year Russian natural gas had continued to flow to eastern Europe THROUGH Ukraine. Even a first grader would understand blowing up those transmission pipelines from Russia to Europe. An outside observer could reasonably conclude that Ukraine has been instructed not to touch those pipelines because their destruction would be crippling to Western Europe. Now either Russia or western leaders have made that call and I know where I'm betting.

(b) after Ukraine recently hit oil refineries deep in Russian territory, the WaPo reported that the Biden admin saw it as reckless and risked raising energy prices while Blinken's comments can be read as distancing the USA from it.

For those keeping track, Ukraine is supposed to fight for its very existence against a larger aggressor who is a threat to the world order with its hands tied behind its back. I ask again, does this sound existential to you?

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Everyone in this thread has the ability to fly to Ukraine and join the fight.

But these Ukrainian/Globalist supporters just sit on their asses spending other people's money while other men are dying.

The real evil scumbags are all the "Americans" (I don't consider these ppl American) who cheer on and support this waste of blood and treasure.

---

Have you fought all battles you believe in with money, bullets, and your life

---

Would NEVER ask anyone to risk getting crippled or killed for this president, Congress or cancel culture. .

---

Cancelled your country, eh?

---

The political system is the country?

Easy there leftist…a real conservative supports the Nation over the State

---

A communist criticizing democracy is a bit cliche don't you think?

---

You're the only war mongering Leftist on this thread…you tell us.

Seriously,

The elite would not fight for America 60 years ago.

Now these same guys who dogged the draft want us to fight Russia?

A 1966 poll found that among Yale students only 10% favored withdrawal from Vietnam. When the Johnson Administration restricted draft deferments the following year, however, support for withdrawal surged, and the anti-war movement at Yale ballooned.

It's often overlooked that in… pic.twitter.com/Y9600nusGZ

— Lafayette Lee (@Partisan_O) April 22, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

Seriously,

The elite would not fight for America 60 years ago.

Now these same guys who dogged the draft want us to fight Russia?

A 1966 poll found that among Yale students only 10% favored withdrawal from Vietnam. When the Johnson Administration restricted draft deferments the following year, however, support for withdrawal surged, and the anti-war movement at Yale ballooned.

It's often overlooked that in… pic.twitter.com/Y9600nusGZ

— Lafayette Lee (@Partisan_O) April 22, 2024

---

Just imagine how quickly the tune would change with imposters like Ron if for any reason he became eligible for a Biden imposed draft.

Would be epic.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You can have your wars…but this BS has got to stop:

Waltz: How much do you think the Air Force pays for this bag of bushings?

Sec. Kendall: I don't know.

Waltz: $90,000.

pic.twitter.com/9WwmkP3MVr

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 17, 2024

---

add this to the stories of four-digit hammers and five-digit toilet seats...... It's what happens when you place cost controls on the big-ticket parts of the program. It causes allocation of expenses into the margins.

If this was a case of garden-variety bilking, we would not be seeing steady trends of consolidation in our defense industrial base.

---

If global hegemony domination means we turn into a quasi socialist country made of wage slaves forking over financial freedom…then what is the point of global hegemony?

---

Great point

---

Thanks

I kind of see it like selling our soul. We're willing to drop trillions on Ukraine and any other war/s in order to supposedly dominate Russia or other countries that pose a threat to western dominance and in process of doing so we print trillions further devaluing the dollar by creating insane inflation.

We "succeed" in war efforts at the cost of destroying our middle class, in effect it's like we're becoming that which we're fighting against.

---

You guys are distracted. In 2022 we spent $4.5 Trillion on medical services of which 90% was paid for by private insurance (highly subsidized/regulated industry) or the preponderance by Medicare and Medicaid. A number that rises at a 4-8% clip annually regardless of inflation. Check it out. How much of your income goes toward Ukraine versus the healthcare costs of others from your private insurance to your Medicare tax to your income tax that gets allocated to Medicaid? If there's a "MIC" you're a wage slave to it's the Medical/Healthcare Industrial Complex.

That is if we want to have an honest conversation about fiscal concerns.

---

Entitlement programs are absolutely the worst fiscal drain we have. No argument there.

It's the hypocrisy I'm trying to point out.

This was a $77B slush fund in the Ukrainian supplemental ($61B in budget outlays + $16B blank check for drawdowns & loans for any foreign country or intl organization), only $13.8B - somewhat direct military aid. That while we can't get border funding or immigration solved because "it costs too much".

America last is the status quo. Y'all are completely fine with it, and you're in lockstep with the establishment whose responsible for our fiscal disaster of a country.

Look at these psychopaths:

🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/N1bYNnRMYx

— 🇺🇦Ukrainian Front (@front_ukrainian) April 20, 2024

---

I never considered Russia first as America last, but given some of the opines around here, I may have to reconsider. I view America first as to be a leader in the world. You surrender guys flinging around the coward label has to be one of the more ironic things I've witnessed.

---

I agree with you. America needs to lead the way and we are the shining City on the hill. If we won't step up, who will?
.
It appears the only way to be Patriotic or pro-America is to hate on the US and our institutions. How we think, doesn't seem to exist anymore.

---

Come on. Being an arms supplier and financier isn't leadership in any really meaning of the word.

Leadership is about risk taking and sacrifice. If our way of life is truly at risk here, real leadership would be putting troops at risk. And we all KNOW this admin and Congress will never do that. So either the risk is not real or we are not leading the way.

---

The risk can be real without the requirement of American blood. We fight risks daily that don't require blood of our own. But this new found cowardice for the smallest of sacrifice has me confounded, especially when the justifications seem to have an air of favoritism to the things and entities we used to find abhorrent.

---

Many don't find this persuasive. We're told we must run up the bill to fund the Ukrainian fight and prop them up in what increasing looks like an unwinnable confrontation because nothing less than the entire West is as stake in this fight. Meanwhile, Ukraine is clearly being restrained in its fight for its very existence (see Anthony Blinken scared to death in front of cameras when Ukraine recently started attacking refineries inside of Russia).

Yes, threats run along a spectrum. Finance and arms may be appropriate leadership when allies are dealing with internal insurrection, terrorism or drug cartels. But for what we are told is an existential fight in the Ukraine where nothing less than America's status as a unipolar leader and the entire West is at stake . . . money and ammo? Kinda makes it hard to believe that this is an existential war with super high stakes when nobody in leadership positions in the west is governing like it. Instead western leaders are acting like their respective next election is more important. Does that sound existential to you?

---

I would parse the domestic political war from the actual war, because politicians are always looking out for their next election.

Of course Russia invading Ukraine to stop it from joining the EU and aligning with the West is an existential threat. Its military campaign began in 2014 and obviously escalated tremendously in 2022. Prior to that it was a soft war with attempts to assassinate rivals to favored candidates (both a Kuchma rival and the better known Yushchenko poisoning), acts of suppression inter Ukraine, and the black hand of Russian and Putin aligned oligarchs for decades. Ukraine has been boxed in from breaking away from Russia, unlike other former Soviet satellites, pretty much since the USSR collapse. But I don't believe the threat was considered that great until Russia moved on Crimea followed by their escalation in Donbas, and even then we were caught sleepwalking and unprepared for the escalation to the full invasion.

Russia has proven to be a poor partner with little economic upside and an equally poor partner as a defense alliance (see Armenia now). They now have to be considered someone who cannot compete heads up, and will act militarily to get their way.

Does the success of Russia in this war mean the collapse of Europe or Western order? Of course not. But it has now established a pattern and practice of Russian existential threats (Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine) that could raise the risk factor if it does not feel we have the political will collectively even with such a minimal ask to commit to supporting the defense of sovereign nations looking to partner with the West.

There's also the risk of not acting that signals whether that existential threat approach they are taking calculates into areas that could raise the risk factor of direct American military action. This is where that risk matrix comes into play. (Let's all hope nothing happens with Transnistria and the economic squeeze Russia is putting on Moldova)

This is likely a generational outcome for Ukraine, which regardless of how one feels about our level of commitment, you have to feel bad for the Ukrainian people, at least the majority. Maybe our dollars won't save all of Ukraine from Russian victory, but perhaps it will result in a thwarting of a future plan or better terms for Ukraine that could benefit the U.S. and region in the future.

---

1. You can't parse the domestic political war from the actual war. The two are linked. If the politicians aren't willing to risk their political hides then we shouldn't be stuck with the bill and we need to be very honest about asking Ukraine to sacrifice its young men and women at least in part to send Russia a message about western unity.

2. Ukraine has clearly been fighting for its survival with a hand tied behind its back. Asymmetrical warfare and guerrilla warfare tactics are not new. Just two very obvious examples:

(a) through last year Russian natural gas had continued to flow to eastern Europe THROUGH Ukraine. Even a first grader would understand blowing up those transmission pipelines from Russia to Europe. An outside observer could reasonably conclude that Ukraine has been instructed not to touch those pipelines because their destruction would be crippling to Western Europe. Now either Russia or western leaders have made that call and I know where I'm betting.

(b) after Ukraine recently hit oil refineries deep in Russian territory, the WaPo reported that the Biden admin saw it as reckless and risked raising energy prices while Blinken's comments can be read as distancing the USA from it.

For those keeping track, Ukraine is supposed to fight for its very existence against a larger aggressor who is a threat to the world order with its hands tied behind its back. I ask again, does this sound existential to you?

---

1. Politicians don't risk their hides for existential threats. Occasionally they get bold in principle, but even then it's at minimal risk. Resistance to and support of the Ukraine war falls into this latter category. And if you need an example of an existential threat that gets lots of words and no action from politicians just take the debt crisis into consideration.

2. Of course all sides are managing this threat with Ukraine in the middle. You don't even have to consider the management of targets as an example. The fact neither U.S. or Europe are providing real destructive offensive weapons that could actually turn the tide in the war, but would signal a significant escalation was the first clue. That's the calculus of the conflict with a multitude of global players in the mix. It's why China isn't providing direct weapons to Russia. It's why there aren't real long range missiles in the Ukrainian military. Etc. etc.

But make no mistake, the Ukranians were going to fight the invasion regardless, and this was a bold, aggressive, and overt violation by Russia that needs to be resisted. But all sides outside of some rhetoric have refrained from the escalation that could bring about the existential outcome we're all concerned about. If this is the cost of preventing that for the future it will have been a cost worth paying.

"We live in a very different America than the one we grew up in. Biden's White House has led our country down a dark and sinister path. Today, the U.S. is the main sponsor of Ukrainian terrorism. I do not say this lightly and I say it with much regret. These are not mere policy mistakes by a demented president. Our ruling class willingly embraces all that is hideous, heinous and unholy.

And so, I never had any doubt that Congress would approve Biden's $61 billion for Zelensky's regime. While 112 Republican Congressmen heroically resisted and voted against the aid, some 101 Republicans voted in favor. I wonder were those 101 blackmailed or bribed, or might they be true believers in the globalist cause?

As far as the Democrats, just look at the video below. Absolutely sickening. They put the interests of Ukraine's corrupt ruling class far ahead of the American people. These are truly America's darkest days."

https://john365.substack.com/p/more-than-just-war-profiteering-the?publication_id=486263&post_id=143796417&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMDI5NzAzNDUsInBvc3RfaWQiOjE0Mzc5NjQxNywiaWF0IjoxNzEzNzkxNzkyLCJleHAiOjE3MTYzODM3OTIsImlzcyI6InB1Yi00ODYyNjMiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.xtU_nUA2exVOy_CUraEHQosx6jrExX_GeaG1aNwuOG4&r=1pb0fd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

sombear said:

---

It's pretty straightforward, he believes (1) we do not have a strong enough interest in Ukraine, and (2) our $ will not help Ukraine win.

He did NOT:
* Blame the U.S. for Russia's invasion or defend Putin
* Blame NATO or Nazis.
* Lie about Russia being a Christian nation and that the invasion is at least partially about defending Christianity.
* Blame Nuland or the Donbas War.
* Criticize Zelensky or the Ukrainian people for wanting to defend their country.

Importantly, he admits that any settlement will involve Ukraine losing its sovereignty. He does not pretend Putin just wants to control the East.

---

While there is a very strong fiscal case for not supporting Ukraine (or any other foreign government) given our current level of indebtedness, there is an equally strong moral case against the Zelensky regime. Those bullet points you mention are all objectively true. Pretending that this situation erupted without cause and without warning when Russian forces began their police action in Donbass and Lugansk does not lead to rational conclusions.

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

It's pretty straightforward, he believes (1) we do not have a strong enough interest in Ukraine, and (2) our $ will not help Ukraine win.

He did NOT:
* Blame the U.S. for Russia's invasion or defend Putin
* Blame NATO or Nazis.
* Lie about Russia being a Christian nation and that the invasion is at least partially about defending Christianity.
* Blame Nuland or the Donbas War.
* Criticize Zelensky or the Ukrainian people for wanting to defend their country.

Importantly, he admits that any settlement will involve Ukraine losing its sovereignty. He does not pretend Putin just wants to control the East.

---

While there is a very strong fiscal case for not supporting Ukraine (or any other foreign government) given our current level of indebtedness, there is an equally strong moral case against the Zelensky regime. Those bullet points you mention are all objectively true. Pretending that this situation erupted without cause and without warning when Russian forces began their police action in Donbass and Lugansk does not lead to rational conclusions.

---

Not really.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Making war is also a legitimate function of government. We sent an expeditionary force to Africa in our earliest days to defend our interests.

---

By "interests", you mean when the Barbary Coast Pirates were intercepting US flagged merchant vessels and killing or capturing US citizens as slaves. Point out where that is occurring on earth right now, and we can have a discussion about declaring war and invading that country. Maybe Somalia?
So you would wait and let people take our stuff for a while before responding, rather than establishing a footprint that deters people from ever doing it. Got it.

50, not 40, typo. Nothing else you've said really contradicts my point. At a time when most Americans don't have access to 1,000 for an emergency, Federal .gov retirements are unbelievable rich.
I have heard the trope "the average American is living paycheck to paycheck" my whole life. In no small part, that's because it's the way the world works. Few people make enough (or live frugally enough) to generate significant wealth. Always has been so. Always will be. Only wild-eyed liberals think we can end poverty once & for all.

Civil service retirement was a good deal 40 years ago, too. It was defined benefit back then. No longer is..... The justification for it was...."well, we don't pay them much, so it's the benefits that allow us to recruit & retain? Problem is, now the civil service pay has become quite competitive with the private sector.

whiterock said:

---

Degrading the Russian war machine is necessary because Russia has pointedly not joined the modern age

---

In other words, a nuclear armed traditional Christian nation that doesnt embrace the vision of Soros/the WEF/the Democrats and won't fly the freak flag at its embassies or embrace third wave feminism.

At least Democrats (the same ones who feted the USSR for decades, remember?) have a philosophical antipathy behind their hatred of modern Russia. GOP neocons are just doing the bidding of their lobbyists.
You're sputtering incoherently. Russia and China both see democratic systems as a threat, and will use military force to end them. We have to be prepared. We have to deter them. Because deterrence is considerably cheaper than war.

Quote:

---

continues to send its armies across borders with its neighbors, with a stated intent of reconstituting the footprint of the former USSR, which of course involves a number of Nato members with whom we trade and are obligated to defend. Just mind-numbingly stupid to say Russia poses no threat to us, or that we have zero interest in what happens in Ukraine.

---

You are talking about Lugansk, Donbass, and Ossetia here. Not rolling into Berlin. Modern Russia has no desire to rule Poles or Germans.
LOL Except they have actually done it before, they are talking about the importance of doing it again, and they have taken first steps by invading the largest country in Europe.....

Quote:

---

As a member of Nato, we have the exact same interests as NATO

---

Then we should get out of NATO. But that would really upset the lobbyists at Boeing and Lockheed.
Now you're saying we have no interest in Europe at all. Who exactly do you propose we trade with? We need no democratic systems anywhere else in the world to keep tyrants from allying against us?

---

Harrumph rarely leads to coherent thinking.

Realitybites said:

---

"We live in a very different America than the one we grew up in. Biden's White House has led our country down a dark and sinister path. Today, the U.S. is the main sponsor of Ukrainian terrorism. I do not say this lightly and I say it with much regret. These are not mere policy mistakes by a demented president. Our ruling class willingly embraces all that is hideous, heinous and unholy.

And so, I never had any doubt that Congress would approve Biden's $61 billion for Zelensky's regime. While 112 Republican Congressmen heroically resisted and voted against the aid, some 101 Republicans voted in favor. I wonder were those 101 blackmailed or bribed, or might they be true believers in the globalist cause?

As far as the Democrats, just look at the video below. Absolutely sickening. They put the interests of Ukraine's corrupt ruling class far ahead of the American people. These are truly America's darkest days."

https://john365.substack.com/p/more-than-just-war-profiteering-the?publication_id=486263&post_id=143796417&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMDI5NzAzNDUsInBvc3RfaWQiOjE0Mzc5NjQxNywiaWF0IjoxNzEzNzkxNzkyLCJleHAiOjE3MTYzODM3OTIsImlzcyI6InB1Yi00ODYyNjMiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.xtU_nUA2exVOy_CUraEHQosx6jrExX_GeaG1aNwuOG4&r=1pb0fd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

---

that is nutjob thinking. Hopefully you are not paying subscription on such drivel.

whiterock said:

---

Harrumph rarely leads to coherent thinking.

---

"It is well that war is so terrible. Otherwise, we would fall in love with it."
-Robert E. Lee

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You can have your wars…but this BS has got to stop:

Waltz: How much do you think the Air Force pays for this bag of bushings?

Sec. Kendall: I don't know.

Waltz: $90,000.

pic.twitter.com/9WwmkP3MVr

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 17, 2024

---

add this to the stories of four-digit hammers and five-digit toilet seats...... It's what happens when you place cost controls on the big-ticket parts of the program. It causes allocation of expenses into the margins.

If this was a case of garden-variety bilking, we would not be seeing steady trends of consolidation in our defense industrial base.

---

If global hegemony domination means we turn into a quasi socialist country made of wage slaves forking over financial freedom…then what is the point of global hegemony?

---

Great point

---

Thanks

I kind of see it like selling our soul. We're willing to drop trillions on Ukraine and any other war/s in order to supposedly dominate Russia or other countries that pose a threat to western dominance and in process of doing so we print trillions further devaluing the dollar by creating insane inflation.

We "succeed" in war efforts at the cost of destroying our middle class, in effect it's like we're becoming that which we're fighting against.

---

You guys are distracted. In 2022 we spent $4.5 Trillion on medical services of which 90% was paid for by private insurance (highly subsidized/regulated industry) or the preponderance by Medicare and Medicaid. A number that rises at a 4-8% clip annually regardless of inflation. Check it out. How much of your income goes toward Ukraine versus the healthcare costs of others from your private insurance to your Medicare tax to your income tax that gets allocated to Medicaid? If there's a "MIC" you're a wage slave to it's the Medical/Healthcare Industrial Complex.

That is if we want to have an honest conversation about fiscal concerns.

---

While I agree in principle, at least Medicare has a direct benefit on actual Americans.

Foreign aid has a negligible benefit to Americans and is the most obvious and insulting waste of tax dollars.

Especially in the case of Ukraine, where supporting them turns a Christian Orthodox Russia into an unnecessary enemy.

Putin already said multiple times he is ready to take a peace deal. Was Hitler offering peace deals after he annexed Austria?

It is you psychopaths who support Biden who are perpetrating this war but ofc you are too cowardly and pathetic to actually go fight it yourselves.

---

Unhinged tripe. Why do you keep bringing religion into this? I can understand some of the arguments for/against supporting Ukraine, but I don't see God anywhere around this. Both sides use the church for propoganda, especially Russia who has co-opted the church as a political tool. The parallels with Islamist regimes is uncanny.

---

Uh, no. There is a political "Orthodox Church" tied to the Ukrainian state, and an actual Orthodox Church recognized by Orthodoxy worldwide yet persecuted by the Ukrainian regime.There's no wiggle room on this. Your parallel is between the co-opted Ukrainian church and the state-controlled church in China.

---

LOL!! Do you even know what Patriarch Kirill has done in Russia? I won't even get into the outlawing of other denominations in Russia they pushed or the loyalty requirements they place upon many that run in politics, but if this isn't a quote you'd see straight out of Islamic jihad rhetoric I don't know what is.

Patriarch Kirill: "Sacrifice in the course of carrying out your military duty washes away all sins."

Even Patriarch Bartholomew has chastised his position on the war, and Pope Francis has advised him not to become Putin's "altar boy".

---

Actually it sounds like something straight out of the First Crusade:

"Whoever for devotion alone, not to gain honor or money, goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God can substitute this journey for all penance." (Council of Clermont, 1095)

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Roads are a legitimate function of government. In general, the maintenance of domestic public infrastructure is. Water supply, sewage, etc also are.

Running up 35 trillion in debt heading on its way to 50 trillion within a decade as the standard of living of citizens is continually degraded and then shipping another 60 billion to country halfway around the world that's involved in an unnecessary war is not.

It is your *opinion* that degrading the Russian military is necessary. You have consistently failed to make a case that the modern Russian state poses any military threat to the west. The majority of the country disagrees with you.

Whiterock is part of - or at least a defender of - that government-american class who can go to the CIA, go on an overseas posting for 5 years, and retire at 40 with a full pension while the majority of Americans have no access to a pension period. He is as big a part of the problem we face as Biden, BLM, and woke academics.

---

Russia has pointedly not joined the modern age and continues to send its armies across borders with its neighbors, with a stated intent of reconstituting the footprint of the former USSR

---

Just a reminder that this is still a lie, no matter how many times it's repeated.

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

It's pretty straightforward, he believes (1) we do not have a strong enough interest in Ukraine, and (2) our $ will not help Ukraine win.

He did NOT:
* Blame the U.S. for Russia's invasion or defend Putin
* Blame NATO or Nazis.
* Lie about Russia being a Christian nation and that the invasion is at least partially about defending Christianity.
* Blame Nuland or the Donbas War.
* Criticize Zelensky or the Ukrainian people for wanting to defend their country.

Importantly, he admits that any settlement will involve Ukraine losing its sovereignty. He does not pretend Putin just wants to control the East.

---

While there is a very strong fiscal case for not supporting Ukraine (or any other foreign government) given our current level of indebtedness, there is an equally strong moral case against the Zelensky regime. Those bullet points you mention are all objectively true. Pretending that this situation erupted without cause and without warning when Russian forces began their police action in Donbass and Lugansk does not lead to rational conclusions.

---

You lose people with those false arguments. No doubt in my mind the public would turn strongly against Ukraine support if folks on your side stuck to the truth. Instead, they see far too many on the anti-Ukraine side as pro-Putin. And if there is one thing polls have consistently shown it's that Americans know Putin is a very bad actor.

Redbrickbear said:

---

The impact of the sanctions really has been something else. Most people now understand they failed, but they do not understand the depth of the failure. https://t.co/DSsrB6b0ry

— Philip Pilkington (@philippilk) April 7, 2024

---

That graphic and data diarrhea is hilariously fascinating.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


Thomas Fazi writes in UnHerd that Western leaders are sleepwalking towards nuclear war. Excerpt:

Quote:

---

But perhaps the real question should be: how did we come to legitimise and even normalise the possibility of a large-scale war with Russia when deep down we all know that it would result in catastrophe, even if it remained limited to purely conventional measures? Our political and military leaders would likely reply that we don't have a choice: that we are faced with an evil enemy bent on destroying us regardless of what we do. The implication is that there is nothing we can do to prevent this outcome; we can only prepare for it.

This deterministic narrative isn't just untethered from reality; it's also incredibly dangerous. As Nina L. Khrushcheva, a Russian-American professor of international affairs at The New School in New York, recently said: "Putin has not shown any desire to wage war on NATO. But, by stoking fear that he would, NATO risks creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Even I a consistent critic of Putin find this thoroughly provocative and foolish."

The implicit message shouldn't be underestimated: that whether Western leaders believe their own propaganda or not is irrelevant what matters is how this is perceived in Russia. If the latter believes that Western countries are serious about the inevitability of war, it's easy to see how it might conclude that Nato could decide to strike first at some point, and might therefore choose to pre-empt such as an attack by making the first move as it did in Ukraine, but on a much larger scale.
This becomes all the more terrifying when we consider that we are dealing with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. In the public debate, the risk of nuclear war is generally treated as an impossible scenario. Some even still maintain nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent against escalation.

Yet, none other than general Cristopher Cavoli, Nato supreme allied commander and head of US European Command, recently cautioned against the danger of thinking in these terms. Among other things, he noted that the US and Russia have virtually no active nuclear hotline, as they had during the Cold War, hugely increasing the risk of accidentally triggering a nuclear conflict, especially given the ongoing escalatory actions and rhetoric on both sides. "How," he asked, "do we go ahead doing all of this and re-establishing our collective defence capability without being threatening and accidentally having the effect we don't want?" The implication was that, by inflating the threat of war, we also risk conjuring it. And yet, only in January, it was reported that the US was planning to station nuclear weapons in the UK for the first time in 15 years.

---

As someone who came of age politically in the 1980s, when everybody was really afraid of nuclear conflict, the idea that very few people nowadays enthusiasts for Western involvement in the Ukraine war seem to think at all about it. It's like the leadership class in government, the military, think tanks, and the media have simply compartmentalized it away.

---

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine. They want it all, and more.

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

It's not like they had to say it, either. History tells the story. Russia doesn't want the whole world; just the parts it touches. That's why the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, all ASKED to join Nato. And now that Russia is invading its neighbors again, Finland and Sweden, the international paragons of neutrality, ASKED to join Nato.

You yahoos alleging that Nato aggression is the cause of Russian expansionism are just regurgitating Kremlin propaganda.

---

When you tell us what Russia is "openly saying," it's a good bet they're saying the opposite. And your history is comically over-simplified if you're suggesting that hostilities between Russia and its neighbors have always been a one-way street.

According to you, one of our goals was to keep the Russian army in Russia. We failed at that. Another goal was to weaken their army. We failed at that too. At some point you have to wonder what the goal really is (or how competent our leadership is).

I'll go back you something you said on the first page of the thread:

Quote:

---

Russia doesn't have to invade and defeat NATO, as your analysis presumes. Russia will try to undermine it from within, facilitated by gunboat diplomacy on NATO borders to make all players in the frontline states be more cautious in their pro-Nato/anti-=Russia policies. Then. One election. One coup. And we will have the prospect of Russia and Nato poised on opposite borders of a Nato state preparing to come to the rescue of a new government calling for help. THAT is something to lose sleep over, friend.

---

Indeed it is. What you're overlooking, or expecting us to overlook, is that pushing NATO right up to Russia's border creates the exact same risk. If you really want to avoid it, the logical way is to maintain a neutral buffer. The only reason to bring Ukraine into NATO is to use it against Russia.

---

More Russian dick sucking propaganda.

---

Your comments always provide such an incredible amount of informative value it's hard to believe you are only 13 years old.


Well done and thank you.

---

You must admit, though, he does know a round mouth when he sees one.

---

Anyone representing themselves as a university graduate who is still so intellectually challenged as to resort to jr high level obscenities ; is not worth a dime in any situation.

On or off a free university message board .

---

Jr. Hi. obscenities outclass the predictably juvenile pro-Russia nonsense we hear on this board.

---

Ironically enough, when I was in junior high my views on foreign policy in general and Russia in particular were nearly identical to yours.

---

Then you saw the amazing light. That sweet sweet oppressed Russian light.

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Seriously,

The elite would not fight for America 60 years ago.

Now these same guys who dogged the draft want us to fight Russia?

A 1966 poll found that among Yale students only 10% favored withdrawal from Vietnam. When the Johnson Administration restricted draft deferments the following year, however, support for withdrawal surged, and the anti-war movement at Yale ballooned.

It's often overlooked that in… pic.twitter.com/Y9600nusGZ

— Lafayette Lee (@Partisan_O) April 22, 2024

---

Just imagine how quickly the tune would change with imposters like Ron if for any reason he became eligible for a Biden imposed draft.

Would be epic.

---

I didn't have to be drafted.

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

Russian forces withdrawing from Nagorno-Karabakh after having been told the get out by Azerbaijan

Soon to be seen repeated in Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia and Moldova pic.twitter.com/AVYDwPbLV2

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 17, 2024

---

They were there to protect the Christian Armenians.

Pure usual the Christians are being completely abandoned as lambs to the slaughter.

There is nothing triumphant about this.

---

The fact that you truly believe Russia is playing "Onward Christian Soldiers" as they faithfully rape and pillage other countries is almost as funny as it is sad.

---

I havent seen any evidence of rape... and what is there to pillage in the eastern backwater provinces of Ukraine?

The only thing of value is the land itself which is now been made barren from years of heavy ordnance.

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

It's pretty straightforward, he believes (1) we do not have a strong enough interest in Ukraine, and (2) our $ will not help Ukraine win.

He did NOT:
* Blame the U.S. for Russia's invasion or defend Putin
* Blame NATO or Nazis.
* Lie about Russia being a Christian nation and that the invasion is at least partially about defending Christianity.
* Blame Nuland or the Donbas War.
* Criticize Zelensky or the Ukrainian people for wanting to defend their country.

Importantly, he admits that any settlement will involve Ukraine losing its sovereignty. He does not pretend Putin just wants to control the East.

---

While there is a very strong fiscal case for not supporting Ukraine (or any other foreign government) given our current level of indebtedness, there is an equally strong moral case against the Zelensky regime. Those bullet points you mention are all objectively true. Pretending that this situation erupted without cause and without warning when Russian forces began their police action in Donbass and Lugansk does not lead to rational conclusions.

---

You lose people with those false arguments. No doubt in my mind the public would turn strongly against Ukraine support if folks on your side stuck to the truth. Instead, they see far too many on the anti-Ukraine side as pro-Putin. And if there is one thing polls have consistently shown it's that Americans know Putin is a very bad actor.

---

MBD does blame the US and Ukraine, at least in part, when he says neutrality only worked for Switzerland because Switzerland was reliable and couldn't be used as a launching pad for a hostile foreign power. The implication is that Ukraine allowed itself to be used and provoked the invasion as a result. If the American public see this as a pro-Putin argument, that is a failure of logic on their part. Looking at the facts realistically doesn't make one pro- or anti-anything.