Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't know which textbook you're reciting from, but Russian doctrine has developed since then. Some of your assumptions are three or four decades out of date. For one thing, Russians are much more aware of the need for flexibility and responsiveness to the tactical situation at any given point. While you're waiting for them to blindly counterattack in order to retake a defensive position, they're more likely to retreat and saturate you with drone-guided artillery.

And there's more to winning than GDP. Supply chains, labor, and politics all come into play. The fact remains that Ukraine is using ammo a lot faster than we can produce it. It takes time to get on a war footing, and so far our manufacturers aren't meeting demand. You seem to think the shortage of 155mm rounds is just a pretext that Sullivan is using to justify sending cluster bombs, but it's not new and it hasn't gone unnoticed.

---

So the outcome of the war is pretty easy to assess = as long as Nato keeps supplying Ukraine with arms and ammo, Russia cannot win a war of attrition. It's just a matter of how long they choose to suffer before they have to sue for peace.

---

I have a very hard time believing the same as sholes in DC that don't give a sh it about our border, child trafficking and other domestic problems are helping Ukraine out of moral obligation. GOP won't even help it's constituents when they have power to do so.

---

Post of the Month

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

You really think have border states being part of a stronger, more capable security organization promotes weakness?? That having one Nation not being in NATO, makes that Nation safer and prevents aggressive actions?

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

Talk about saving lives, but that is more rhetoric than real with you. After all the only people allowed to comment HAVE to have a Combat Infantry Badges... The rest of the military are at no risk and REMFs, right? Those truck drivers getting blown up with IEDs and clerks in the bomb shelters during the SCUD attacks were putting on a show, they aren't eligible for CIBs. Hell, many got nothing but a SW Asia Campaign Badge, but that isn't enough is it KaiBear?

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't know which textbook you're reciting from, but Russian doctrine has developed since then. Some of your assumptions are three or four decades out of date. For one thing, Russians are much more aware of the need for flexibility and responsiveness to the tactical situation at any given point. While you're waiting for them to blindly counterattack in order to retake a defensive position, they're more likely to retreat and saturate you with drone-guided artillery.

And there's more to winning than GDP. Supply chains, labor, and politics all come into play. The fact remains that Ukraine is using ammo a lot faster than we can produce it. It takes time to get on a war footing, and so far our manufacturers aren't meeting demand. You seem to think the shortage of 155mm rounds is just a pretext that Sullivan is using to justify sending cluster bombs, but it's not new and it hasn't gone unnoticed.

---

being aware of the need for flexibility and actually putting that into action are 2 completely different things. They have not shown the ability to commit to their awareness that they need to change. Hence their horrific losses of men and equipment thus far.

---

Losses not nearly as horrific as Ukraine's. Much has been written about Russia's adaptability, but it's mostly ignored. They mount a maneuver defense, and all we see is a forced retreat. While they're busy maximizing Ukrainian losses, all we see is a failure to gain ground.

---

No doubt Ukraine has substantial losses, but not near the amount of Russia. Not even close. Not to mention that Ukraine has shown to actually care about their own troops. Their deaths as a percentage of total casualty rate is much lower than Russia's, strictly because they actually want to save their own people's lives and have the medical supplies to do so. Russia doesn't care about the quality of care their troops receive, the quality of food they eat, the quality of weaponry they fight with…they care about acting and maintaining the position of bully on the block, but their pulpit is now a Scooby van rather than a marathon of tanks.

---

Sadly, not true. Ukraine is reportedly now using human wave tactics as a last resort.

---

Link please ?

---

Pravda....

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't know which textbook you're reciting from, but Russian doctrine has developed since then. Some of your assumptions are three or four decades out of date. For one thing, Russians are much more aware of the need for flexibility and responsiveness to the tactical situation at any given point. While you're waiting for them to blindly counterattack in order to retake a defensive position, they're more likely to retreat and saturate you with drone-guided artillery.

And there's more to winning than GDP. Supply chains, labor, and politics all come into play. The fact remains that Ukraine is using ammo a lot faster than we can produce it. It takes time to get on a war footing, and so far our manufacturers aren't meeting demand. You seem to think the shortage of 155mm rounds is just a pretext that Sullivan is using to justify sending cluster bombs, but it's not new and it hasn't gone unnoticed.

---

So the outcome of the war is pretty easy to assess = as long as Nato keeps supplying Ukraine with arms and ammo, Russia cannot win a war of attrition. It's just a matter of how long they choose to suffer before they have to sue for peace.

---

I have a very hard time believing the same as sholes in DC that don't give a sh it about our border, child trafficking and other domestic problems are helping Ukraine out of moral obligation. GOP won't even help it's constituents when they have power to do so.

---

Post of the Month

---

Voting records clearly suggest that is overwhelmingly true for Democrats, but generally not for Republicans.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't know which textbook you're reciting from, but Russian doctrine has developed since then. Some of your assumptions are three or four decades out of date. For one thing, Russians are much more aware of the need for flexibility and responsiveness to the tactical situation at any given point. While you're waiting for them to blindly counterattack in order to retake a defensive position, they're more likely to retreat and saturate you with drone-guided artillery.

And there's more to winning than GDP. Supply chains, labor, and politics all come into play. The fact remains that Ukraine is using ammo a lot faster than we can produce it. It takes time to get on a war footing, and so far our manufacturers aren't meeting demand. You seem to think the shortage of 155mm rounds is just a pretext that Sullivan is using to justify sending cluster bombs, but it's not new and it hasn't gone unnoticed.

---

So the outcome of the war is pretty easy to assess = as long as Nato keeps supplying Ukraine with arms and ammo, Russia cannot win a war of attrition. It's just a matter of how long they choose to suffer before they have to sue for peace.

---

I have a very hard time believing the same as sholes in DC that don't give a sh it about our border, child trafficking and other domestic problems are helping Ukraine out of moral obligation. GOP won't even help it's constituents when they have power to do so.

---

Post of the Month

---

Voting records clearly suggest that is overwhelmingly true for Democrats, but generally not for Republicans.

---

I don't see how isolating several Nations that want to align West (Nations that bigger Countries want) makes the situation more stable?

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't know which textbook you're reciting from, but Russian doctrine has developed since then. Some of your assumptions are three or four decades out of date. For one thing, Russians are much more aware of the need for flexibility and responsiveness to the tactical situation at any given point. While you're waiting for them to blindly counterattack in order to retake a defensive position, they're more likely to retreat and saturate you with drone-guided artillery.

And there's more to winning than GDP. Supply chains, labor, and politics all come into play. The fact remains that Ukraine is using ammo a lot faster than we can produce it. It takes time to get on a war footing, and so far our manufacturers aren't meeting demand. You seem to think the shortage of 155mm rounds is just a pretext that Sullivan is using to justify sending cluster bombs, but it's not new and it hasn't gone unnoticed.

---

So the outcome of the war is pretty easy to assess = as long as Nato keeps supplying Ukraine with arms and ammo, Russia cannot win a war of attrition. It's just a matter of how long they choose to suffer before they have to sue for peace.

---

I have a very hard time believing the same as sholes in DC that don't give a sh it about our border, child trafficking and other domestic problems are helping Ukraine out of moral obligation. GOP won't even help it's constituents when they have power to do so.

---

Post of the Month

---

Voting records clearly suggest that is overwhelmingly true for Democrats, but generally not for Republicans.

---

I don't see how isolating several Nations that want to align West (Nations that bigger Countries want) makes the situation more stable?

---

I'm looking at the domestic side of the assertion. That's pretty much true. It's the left that is ignoring all the real problems facing ordinary people.

Just because death and profit always happen in war does not mean that war is not necessary from time to time. This one certainly is. Russia started it. We're gonna finish it.

For decades, gulf war 1 and so on, I heard “we must save the Kurds” “we cannot abandon the Kurds” and now all that goes out the war window and it’s “give the Kurds to turkey so that they can be killed” so that we can advance NATO and genocide more Ukrainians

— Adam Townsend (@adamscrabble) July 11, 2023

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

Actually, Ukraine had more Nukes and if they didn't follow our lead in Bucharest they would not be in this mess, We were supposed to defend them. Not binding, I know. Your word is you bond, right.

As for Taiwan, there were decades that the West could have secured Taiwan and China would do nothing.

---

1. Ukraine was/is broke...they could not afford to maintain those nukes...nor did they have operational control of the nukes to begin with (Moscow did). Its also one of the most corrupt nations on earth. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Those nukes also "belonged" to the Soviet Union....and the Russian Federation is the successor to the USSR in terms of legal agreements...so a case could be made they belong to Russian anyway.

"With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States considered the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR"

"The Russian Federation succeeded to the Soviet Union's seat, including its permanent membership on the Security Council in the United Nations after the 1991..."

https://www.gmfus.org/news/despite-threat-it-faces-ukraine-was-right-give-its-nuclear-weapons

[It is not simply a matter of Ukraine not being safe today because it did not keep its nuclear weapons. At the time it took the decision, not only did it not have operational control of its nuclear arsenal, it also lacked any experience in controlling it and the budget to operate even the TU-160 bomber jets it inherited. Ukraine had inherited not a traditional army, but an enormously powerful military without, as James Sherr writes, "a Ministry of Defense, without a General Staff and without central organs of command-and-control." Without a capable military imbued with the knowledge of its own nuclear program, its stockpile would have constituted not a deterrent or safeguard for newly independent Ukraine but a large danger to itself and the world.

Thus, newly independent Ukraine could have become a target for bad actors or other states intent on obtaining nuclear materiel or weapons. It is even not inconceivable that Russia would have at some point attempted to retake the Soviet arsenal that had been left in the country.]

2. If this was the case than it would run contrary to the policy advice that every American President from Truman to Trump has been given.....keep the status quo in Taiwan (that benefits us)....don't antagonize China over Taiwan...something that might make them invade.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

Actually, Ukraine had more Nukes and if they didn't follow our lead in Bucharest they would not be in this mess, We were supposed to defend them. Not binding, I know. Your word is you bond, right.

As for Taiwan, there were decades that the West could have secured Taiwan and China would do nothing.

---

1. Ukraine was/is broke...they could not afford to maintain those nukes...nor did they have operational control of the nukes to begin with (Moscow did). Its also one of the most corrupt nations on earth. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Those nukes also "belonged" to the Soviet Union....and the Russian Federation is the successor to the USSR in terms of legal agreements...so a case could be made they belong to Russian anyway.

"With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States considered the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR"

"The Russian Federation succeeded to the Soviet Union's seat, including its permanent membership on the Security Council in the United Nations after the 1991..."

https://www.gmfus.org/news/despite-threat-it-faces-ukraine-was-right-give-its-nuclear-weapons

[It is not simply a matter of Ukraine not being safe today because it did not keep its nuclear weapons. At the time it took the decision, not only did it not have operational control of its nuclear arsenal, it also lacked any experience in controlling it and the budget to operate even the TU-160 bomber jets it inherited. Ukraine had inherited not a traditional army, but an enormously powerful military without, as James Sherr writes, "a Ministry of Defense, without a General Staff and without central organs of command-and-control." Without a capable military imbued with the knowledge of its own nuclear program, its stockpile would have constituted not a deterrent or safeguard for newly independent Ukraine but a large danger to itself and the world.

Thus, newly independent Ukraine could have become a target for bad actors or other states intent on obtaining nuclear materiel or weapons. It is even not inconceivable that Russia would have at some point attempted to retake the Soviet arsenal that had been left in the country.]

2. If this was the case than it would run contrary to the policy advice that every American President from Truman to Trump has been given.....keep the status quo in Taiwan (that benefits us)....don't antagonize China over Taiwan...something that might make them invade.

---

They wouldn't be if they were allowed in and went Capitalist like Poland, Baltics, and others. They would be much better off.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

Actually, Ukraine had more Nukes and if they didn't follow our lead in Bucharest they would not be in this mess, We were supposed to defend them. Not binding, I know. Your word is you bond, right.

As for Taiwan, there were decades that the West could have secured Taiwan and China would do nothing.

---

1. Ukraine was/is broke...they could not afford to maintain those nukes...nor did they have operational control of the nukes to begin with (Moscow did). Its also one of the most corrupt nations on earth. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Those nukes also "belonged" to the Soviet Union....and the Russian Federation is the successor to the USSR in terms of legal agreements...so a case could be made they belong to Russian anyway.

"With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States considered the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR"

"The Russian Federation succeeded to the Soviet Union's seat, including its permanent membership on the Security Council in the United Nations after the 1991..."

https://www.gmfus.org/news/despite-threat-it-faces-ukraine-was-right-give-its-nuclear-weapons

[It is not simply a matter of Ukraine not being safe today because it did not keep its nuclear weapons. At the time it took the decision, not only did it not have operational control of its nuclear arsenal, it also lacked any experience in controlling it and the budget to operate even the TU-160 bomber jets it inherited. Ukraine had inherited not a traditional army, but an enormously powerful military without, as James Sherr writes, "a Ministry of Defense, without a General Staff and without central organs of command-and-control." Without a capable military imbued with the knowledge of its own nuclear program, its stockpile would have constituted not a deterrent or safeguard for newly independent Ukraine but a large danger to itself and the world.

Thus, newly independent Ukraine could have become a target for bad actors or other states intent on obtaining nuclear materiel or weapons. It is even not inconceivable that Russia would have at some point attempted to retake the Soviet arsenal that had been left in the country.]

2. If this was the case than it would run contrary to the policy advice that every American President from Truman to Trump has been given.....keep the status quo in Taiwan (that benefits us)....don't antagonize China over Taiwan...something that might make them invade.

---

They wouldn't be if they were allowed in and went Capitalist like Poland, Baltics, and others. They would be much better off.

---

Being in NATO (a military alliance) is going to magically transform their economy and get rid of their massive corruption problem?

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

Actually, Ukraine had more Nukes and if they didn't follow our lead in Bucharest they would not be in this mess, We were supposed to defend them. Not binding, I know. Your word is you bond, right.

As for Taiwan, there were decades that the West could have secured Taiwan and China would do nothing.

---

1. Ukraine was/is broke...they could not afford to maintain those nukes...nor did they have operational control of the nukes to begin with (Moscow did). Its also one of the most corrupt nations on earth. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Those nukes also "belonged" to the Soviet Union....and the Russian Federation is the successor to the USSR in terms of legal agreements...so a case could be made they belong to Russian anyway.

"With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States considered the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR"

"The Russian Federation succeeded to the Soviet Union's seat, including its permanent membership on the Security Council in the United Nations after the 1991..."

https://www.gmfus.org/news/despite-threat-it-faces-ukraine-was-right-give-its-nuclear-weapons

[It is not simply a matter of Ukraine not being safe today because it did not keep its nuclear weapons. At the time it took the decision, not only did it not have operational control of its nuclear arsenal, it also lacked any experience in controlling it and the budget to operate even the TU-160 bomber jets it inherited. Ukraine had inherited not a traditional army, but an enormously powerful military without, as James Sherr writes, "a Ministry of Defense, without a General Staff and without central organs of command-and-control." Without a capable military imbued with the knowledge of its own nuclear program, its stockpile would have constituted not a deterrent or safeguard for newly independent Ukraine but a large danger to itself and the world.

Thus, newly independent Ukraine could have become a target for bad actors or other states intent on obtaining nuclear materiel or weapons. It is even not inconceivable that Russia would have at some point attempted to retake the Soviet arsenal that had been left in the country.]

2. If this was the case than it would run contrary to the policy advice that every American President from Truman to Trump has been given.....keep the status quo in Taiwan (that benefits us)....don't antagonize China over Taiwan...something that might make them invade.

---

They wouldn't be if they were allowed in and went Capitalist like Poland, Baltics, and others. They would be much better off.

---

Being in NATO (a military alliance) is going to magically transform their economy and get rid of their massive corruption problem?

---

Secure borders, access to the EU and international trade will do that.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

Actually, Ukraine had more Nukes and if they didn't follow our lead in Bucharest they would not be in this mess, We were supposed to defend them. Not binding, I know. Your word is you bond, right.

As for Taiwan, there were decades that the West could have secured Taiwan and China would do nothing.

---

1. Ukraine was/is broke...they could not afford to maintain those nukes...nor did they have operational control of the nukes to begin with (Moscow did). Its also one of the most corrupt nations on earth. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Those nukes also "belonged" to the Soviet Union....and the Russian Federation is the successor to the USSR in terms of legal agreements...so a case could be made they belong to Russian anyway.

"With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States considered the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR"

"The Russian Federation succeeded to the Soviet Union's seat, including its permanent membership on the Security Council in the United Nations after the 1991..."

https://www.gmfus.org/news/despite-threat-it-faces-ukraine-was-right-give-its-nuclear-weapons

[It is not simply a matter of Ukraine not being safe today because it did not keep its nuclear weapons. At the time it took the decision, not only did it not have operational control of its nuclear arsenal, it also lacked any experience in controlling it and the budget to operate even the TU-160 bomber jets it inherited. Ukraine had inherited not a traditional army, but an enormously powerful military without, as James Sherr writes, "a Ministry of Defense, without a General Staff and without central organs of command-and-control." Without a capable military imbued with the knowledge of its own nuclear program, its stockpile would have constituted not a deterrent or safeguard for newly independent Ukraine but a large danger to itself and the world.

Thus, newly independent Ukraine could have become a target for bad actors or other states intent on obtaining nuclear materiel or weapons. It is even not inconceivable that Russia would have at some point attempted to retake the Soviet arsenal that had been left in the country.]

2. If this was the case than it would run contrary to the policy advice that every American President from Truman to Trump has been given.....keep the status quo in Taiwan (that benefits us)....don't antagonize China over Taiwan...something that might make them invade.

---

They wouldn't be if they were allowed in and went Capitalist like Poland, Baltics, and others. They would be much better off.

---

Being in NATO (a military alliance) is going to magically transform their economy and get rid of their massive corruption problem?

---

Secure borders, access to the EU and international trade will do that.

---

The possible expansion of NATO and the previous Ukrainian government is what has destroyed the borders of Ukraine....they will never get Crimea or Donbas back now.

And NATO does not offer them the prosperity of the EU or international trade. Membership in the EU would...but that is of course not the same as NATO memebership.

The short sighted obsession of NATO membership is the Don Quixote quest that is destroying Urkaine.

They have lost millions of citizens....lost trillions of dollars....and there is no end to this war in sight.

"More than 5,914,000 people have left for neighboring countries, while eight million people are still thought to be displaced inside Ukraine itself."

"Ukraine saw a 30% contraction in its economy in 2022....The cost of rebuilding will be dramatically higher.
In September the World Bank estimated rebuilding the country would cost nearly a trillion dollars."

Ukraine could have been Austria....now they get to be Afghanistan.

And on top of that the country is literally demographically dying out.

What makes the prospects of ever rebuilding Ukraine worse...is that most of the young people already want to move to Western Europe...not stay in cold, corrupt, wartorn eastern Europe...and many who have left are never coming back.


[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/however-war-ends-ukraines-diminished-population-will-hit-economy-years-2023-07-07/
Ukrainian refugees: how will the economy recover with a diminished population?

Natalka Korzh, 52, a TV director and mother-of-two, left behind a newly-built dream house when she escaped the rockets falling on Kyiv in the early days of the war. She is only just finding her feet in Portugal, and doesn't plan on packing up her life again even when fighting stops in Ukraine.


"We need to somehow try to return them to Ukraine, because we already see that the longer people are abroad, the less they want to return", said Kostiuk, whose company relocated its research lab and staff to Kyiv, from close to the front line.]

Why? American taxpayers have the right to know how their money is spent.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 13, 2023

"If they can pump billions of dollars into Ukraine, they can create opportunity in Baltimore or Detroit." - Joe Rogan pic.twitter.com/rbXqAyJmfU

— Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸 (@jacksonhinklle) July 13, 2023

Zelensky should be furious. His country has now taken all the downside from Russia of aligning with the West, but the West refuses to give him the upside that would make sense of those sacrifices and decisions. (Of course this was foreseeable...but that's for another day.)…

— Michael Brendan Dougherty (@michaelbd) July 13, 2023

My guess is that he has somewhere between 500 million and 1 billion USD squirreled away and receives regular shipments of bulk cash from the US government, plus whatever tribute he gets from domestic oligarchs.
This may temper his displeasure.

— Richard Keppler🗯️@RichardKeppler@econtw*tter.net (@RichardKeppler1) July 13, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

---

Where to start.

Should we start with the past being an indicator of the future?

Ukraine not wanting to be under Russia's thumb and be aligned with the west.

No Americans are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

It is the same distance as Honolulu, distance is not everything. Unless you want the US to be a regional Nation.

You were pretty much wrong on all of those, I have pulled that off once in a while, but it takes work.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

---

Where to start.

Should we start with the past being an indicator of the future?

Ukraine not wanting to be under Russia's thumb and be aligned with the west.

No Americans are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

It is the same distance as Honolulu, distance is not everything. Unless you want the US to be a regional Nation.

You were pretty much wrong on all of those, I have pulled that off once in a while, but it takes work.

---

The USA spans a continent and exists in multiple time zones...and has the largest economy and military on earth...along with a massive two ocean navy.

It could not be a regional nation even if it wanted to at this point...but it can avoid stupid costly conflicts that are of no vital concern to its interests and its citizens.

You (and others) keep making arguments for Ukraine and military conflict that could be made for any area of the world.

How and when did Ukraine become a key US ally? Or key strategic concern of the USA that was worth risking large scale war over?

You also mention how Hawaii (A U.S. STATE IN OUR UNION) is the far away from the continental Homeland....so how is this relevant to a corrupt foreign nation in eastern Europe that is not a U.S. State? Talk about non-non-sequitur argument.

Syria is about the same distance....are we supposed to fund proxy wars there as well? Oh wait we are.....

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

---

Where to start.

Should we start with the past being an indicator of the future?

Ukraine not wanting to be under Russia's thumb and be aligned with the west.

No Americans are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

---

1. The past is always a good indicator of the future...it not a 100% accurate guide. Learning from the past helps us analyze the present and make informed decisions.

2. Ukraine's concerns and desires are secondary to our interests and to the interests of the American people. Some Ukrainian fanatics want a NATO to declare war on Russian and invade and conquer Moscow. I hope you can see how this would not be in our interests but a disaster in the making....possibly sparking off WWIII. Not to mention Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea have interests as well...and they don't line up with the regime in Kyiv.

3. For what its worth....this is almost certainly not true.

My good buddy (who is a Major in the Army) stationed in Tennessee says that we most certainly have special forces in country engaged in the conflict.

We won't know until many years into the future what the role of the U.S. military truly is/was in Ukraine because much of it is classified right now.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

---

Where to start.

Should we start with the past being an indicator of the future?

Ukraine not wanting to be under Russia's thumb and be aligned with the west.

No Americans are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

---

1. The past is always a good indicator of the future...it not a 100% accurate guide. Learning from the past helps us analyze the present and make informed decisions.

2. Ukraine's concerns and desires are secondary to our interests and to the interests of the American people. Some Ukrainian fanatics want a NATO to declare war on Russian and invade and conquer Moscow. I hope you can see how this would not be in our interests but a disaster in the making....possibly sparking off WWIII. Not to mention Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea have interests as well...and they don't line up with the regime in Kyiv.

3. For what its worth....this is almost certainly not true.

My good buddy (who is a Major in the Army) stationed in Tennessee says that we most certainly have special forces in country engaged in the conflict.

We won't know until many years into the future what the role of the U.S. military truly is/was in Ukraine because much of it is classified right now.

---

No it isn't. Try using the past to look at the future and you will not be very accurate. There is much better data for the future than the past.


We know, you don't give a crap about Ukraine and believe there is no interest for the US. Up to you, we will be a regional power with no influence beyond our neighbors and the ability to only repel an invasion. Everything else is a waste of money. Got it. I and most other world and former American leaders don't agree with you.

If there are advisors, SF is there. It is what they do. Whether they are involved in the actual fighting I doubt. Why? Russia would love parading a Green Beret around the new cameras. I have no doubt SF is there and training, that is their specialty.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

---

Where to start.

Should we start with the past being an indicator of the future?

Ukraine not wanting to be under Russia's thumb and be aligned with the west.

No Americans are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

---

1. The past is always a good indicator of the future...it not a 100% accurate guide. Learning from the past helps us analyze the present and make informed decisions.

2. Ukraine's concerns and desires are secondary to our interests and to the interests of the American people. Some Ukrainian fanatics want a NATO to declare war on Russian and invade and conquer Moscow. I hope you can see how this would not be in our interests but a disaster in the making....possibly sparking off WWIII. Not to mention Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea have interests as well...and they don't line up with the regime in Kyiv.

3. For what its worth....this is almost certainly not true.

My good buddy (who is a Major in the Army) stationed in Tennessee says that we most certainly have special forces in country engaged in the conflict.

We won't know until many years into the future what the role of the U.S. military truly is/was in Ukraine because much of it is classified right now.

---

No it isn't. Try using the past to look at the future and you will not be very accurate. There is much better data for the future than the past.


We know, you don't give a crap about Ukraine and believe there is no interest for the US. Up to you, we will be a regional power with no influence beyond our neighbors and the ability to only repel an invasion. Everything else is a waste of money. Got it. I and most other world and former American leaders don't agree with you.

If there are advisors, SF is there. It is what they do. Whether they are involved in the actual fighting I doubt. Why? Russia would love parading a Green Beret around the new cameras. I have no doubt SF is there and training, that is their specialty.

---

Be serious....I have explained to you in detail that the USA is a global super power...the only global super power on earth.... the largest military and economy on earth...the only power with a two ocean navy.

Not getting involved in a war in Ukraine no more makes the USA a "regional power with no influence" than does the USA getting out of a bloody Afghan conflict or refusing to send troops to Syria.

You must work for a military contractor who has a pay check that depends on endless foreign conflict....the very idea that if the USA does not jump into every conflict on earth then its some how a "regional isolated power" is so laughable I can't believe someone would make that argument.

Did Great Britain refusal to get involved in the US "civil war" in 1861 somehow mean Great Britain was no longer a world power? The massive British empire would go on for another 80+ years. But make no mistake there were newspapers and politicians in London making that argument.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

---

Where to start.

Should we start with the past being an indicator of the future?

Ukraine not wanting to be under Russia's thumb and be aligned with the west.

No Americans are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

---

1. The past is always a good indicator of the future...it not a 100% accurate guide. Learning from the past helps us analyze the present and make informed decisions.

2. Ukraine's concerns and desires are secondary to our interests and to the interests of the American people. Some Ukrainian fanatics want a NATO to declare war on Russian and invade and conquer Moscow. I hope you can see how this would not be in our interests but a disaster in the making....possibly sparking off WWIII. Not to mention Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea have interests as well...and they don't line up with the regime in Kyiv.

3. For what its worth....this is almost certainly not true.

My good buddy (who is a Major in the Army) stationed in Tennessee says that we most certainly have special forces in country engaged in the conflict.

We won't know until many years into the future what the role of the U.S. military truly is/was in Ukraine because much of it is classified right now.

---

No it isn't. Try using the past to look at the future and you will not be very accurate. There is much better data for the future than the past.


We know, you don't give a crap about Ukraine and believe there is no interest for the US. Up to you, we will be a regional power with no influence beyond our neighbors and the ability to only repel an invasion. Everything else is a waste of money. Got it. I and most other world and former American leaders don't agree with you.

If there are advisors, SF is there. It is what they do. Whether they are involved in the actual fighting I doubt. Why? Russia would love parading a Green Beret around the new cameras. I have no doubt SF is there and training, that is their specialty.

---

Some of yall to a refresher course on how we got pulled by politicians, corporate interests, and media into a bloody conflict on the other side of the world that eventually cost 60,000 US lives, Billions of dollars, and torn the country apart.

And the whole time we were told it was necessary and that the "police action" would not escalate.

"a country with little to no strategic value to the United States, with no economic value to the United States, suddenly became important"

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

---

Where to start.

Should we start with the past being an indicator of the future?

Ukraine not wanting to be under Russia's thumb and be aligned with the west.

No Americans are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

---

1. The past is always a good indicator of the future...it not a 100% accurate guide. Learning from the past helps us analyze the present and make informed decisions.

2. Ukraine's concerns and desires are secondary to our interests and to the interests of the American people. Some Ukrainian fanatics want a NATO to declare war on Russian and invade and conquer Moscow. I hope you can see how this would not be in our interests but a disaster in the making....possibly sparking off WWIII. Not to mention Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea have interests as well...and they don't line up with the regime in Kyiv.

3. For what its worth....this is almost certainly not true.

My good buddy (who is a Major in the Army) stationed in Tennessee says that we most certainly have special forces in country engaged in the conflict.

We won't know until many years into the future what the role of the U.S. military truly is/was in Ukraine because much of it is classified right now.

---

No it isn't. Try using the past to look at the future and you will not be very accurate. There is much better data for the future than the past.


We know, you don't give a crap about Ukraine and believe there is no interest for the US. Up to you, we will be a regional power with no influence beyond our neighbors and the ability to only repel an invasion. Everything else is a waste of money. Got it. I and most other world and former American leaders don't agree with you.

If there are advisors, SF is there. It is what they do. Whether they are involved in the actual fighting I doubt. Why? Russia would love parading a Green Beret around the new cameras. I have no doubt SF is there and training, that is their specialty.

---

Be serious....I have explained to you in detail that the USA is a global super power...the only global super power on earth.... the largest military and economy on earth...the only power with a two ocean navy.

Not getting involved in a war in Ukraine no more makes the USA a "regional power with no influence" than does the USA getting out of a bloody Afghan conflict or refusing to send troops to Syria.

You must work for a military contractor who has a pay check that depends on endless foreign conflict....the very idea that if the USA does not jump into every conflict on earth then its some how a "regional isolated power" is so laughable I can't believe someone would make that argument.

Did Great Britain refusal to get involved in the US "civil war" in 1861 somehow mean Great Britain was no longer a world power? The massive British empire would go on for another 80+ years. But make no mistake there were newspapers and politicians in London making that argument.

---

We are part of NATO. NATO is supporting Ukraine. US should be supporting NATO, it goes with being the Super Power. In reality, US is the only Nation that can make a difference against a Chinese supported Russia.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

---

Where to start.

Should we start with the past being an indicator of the future?

Ukraine not wanting to be under Russia's thumb and be aligned with the west.

No Americans are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

---

1. The past is always a good indicator of the future...it not a 100% accurate guide. Learning from the past helps us analyze the present and make informed decisions.

2. Ukraine's concerns and desires are secondary to our interests and to the interests of the American people. Some Ukrainian fanatics want a NATO to declare war on Russian and invade and conquer Moscow. I hope you can see how this would not be in our interests but a disaster in the making....possibly sparking off WWIII. Not to mention Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea have interests as well...and they don't line up with the regime in Kyiv.

3. For what its worth....this is almost certainly not true.

My good buddy (who is a Major in the Army) stationed in Tennessee says that we most certainly have special forces in country engaged in the conflict.

We won't know until many years into the future what the role of the U.S. military truly is/was in Ukraine because much of it is classified right now.

---

No it isn't. Try using the past to look at the future and you will not be very accurate. There is much better data for the future than the past.


We know, you don't give a crap about Ukraine and believe there is no interest for the US. Up to you, we will be a regional power with no influence beyond our neighbors and the ability to only repel an invasion. Everything else is a waste of money. Got it. I and most other world and former American leaders don't agree with you.

If there are advisors, SF is there. It is what they do. Whether they are involved in the actual fighting I doubt. Why? Russia would love parading a Green Beret around the new cameras. I have no doubt SF is there and training, that is their specialty.

---

Be serious....I have explained to you in detail that the USA is a global super power...the only global super power on earth.... the largest military and economy on earth...the only power with a two ocean navy.

Not getting involved in a war in Ukraine no more makes the USA a "regional power with no influence" than does the USA getting out of a bloody Afghan conflict or refusing to send troops to Syria.

You must work for a military contractor who has a pay check that depends on endless foreign conflict....the very idea that if the USA does not jump into every conflict on earth then its some how a "regional isolated power" is so laughable I can't believe someone would make that argument.

Did Great Britain refusal to get involved in the US "civil war" in 1861 somehow mean Great Britain was no longer a world power? The massive British empire would go on for another 80+ years. But make no mistake there were newspapers and politicians in London making that argument.

---

We are part of NATO. NATO is supporting Ukraine. US should be supporting NATO, it goes with being the Super Power. In reality, US is the only Nation that can make a difference against a Chinese supported Russia.

---

Why is NATO "supporting" a non-NATO member in a war that does not involve NATO and to whom it has no treaty obligations?

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't know which textbook you're reciting from, but Russian doctrine has developed since then. Some of your assumptions are three or four decades out of date. For one thing, Russians are much more aware of the need for flexibility and responsiveness to the tactical situation at any given point. While you're waiting for them to blindly counterattack in order to retake a defensive position, they're more likely to retreat and saturate you with drone-guided artillery.

And there's more to winning than GDP. Supply chains, labor, and politics all come into play. The fact remains that Ukraine is using ammo a lot faster than we can produce it. It takes time to get on a war footing, and so far our manufacturers aren't meeting demand. You seem to think the shortage of 155mm rounds is just a pretext that Sullivan is using to justify sending cluster bombs, but it's not new and it hasn't gone unnoticed.

---

being aware of the need for flexibility and actually putting that into action are 2 completely different things. They have not shown the ability to commit to their awareness that they need to change. Hence their horrific losses of men and equipment thus far.

---

Losses not nearly as horrific as Ukraine's. Much has been written about Russia's adaptability, but it's mostly ignored. They mount a maneuver defense, and all we see is a forced retreat. While they're busy maximizing Ukrainian losses, all we see is a failure to gain ground.

---

No doubt Ukraine has substantial losses, but not near the amount of Russia. Not even close. Not to mention that Ukraine has shown to actually care about their own troops. Their deaths as a percentage of total casualty rate is much lower than Russia's, strictly because they actually want to save their own people's lives and have the medical supplies to do so. Russia doesn't care about the quality of care their troops receive, the quality of food they eat, the quality of weaponry they fight with…they care about acting and maintaining the position of bully on the block, but their pulpit is now a Scooby van rather than a marathon of tanks.

---

Sadly, not true. Ukraine is reportedly now using human wave tactics as a last resort.

---

Link please ?

---

This is from an Austrian general, Markus Reisner (translated by Google):

Quote:

---

In my view, the first phase of the Ukrainian offensive has failed. Attempts have been made to push forward like something straight out of a US Army textbook. In principle similar to the Russians at the beginning of the war, that is, with tank columns that quickly advanced. Then the Ukrainians realized that the Russians were too well prepared to achieve such a breakthrough. And they lacked the necessary support for such a mass attack. Ukraine then went on operational hiatus, consolidated and is now trying to change its tactics and combat technique. And that's the good news, now they have. They try to attack with small assault groups. This tactic is very, very slow, but it works. Because compared to a tank column, which is relatively easy to attack in open terrain - for example with attack helicopters - they are much more difficult to hit and attack when protected by the windbreak belt. That speaks for Ukraine, which manages to achieve success in this way. But the offensive is progressing very slowly.

(Interviewer): And with very high losses.

That is the dilemma of this fighting technique. However, the Battle of Severodonetsk in 2022 and Bakhmut in May of this year showed that this tactic can be quite successful. It should also not be forgotten that the Russians positioned themselves very differently after their fiasco at the beginning than they did during the Kharkiv and Cherson offensives. According to estimates by the US Commander-in-Chief in Europe, General Cavoli, around 350,000 to 400,000 men are fighting on the Russian side, double the number since the beginning of the war. Of course they prepared accordingly. So now we have a situation like at an American football game. Both sides stand in a starting position, then players from both teams run towards each other and either you break through or you're shoulder to shoulder and trying to be stronger than the other. The question is, who has the staying power?

https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Die-erste-Phase-der-Offensive-ist-gescheitert-article24233594.html

---

It's also been described as mosquito tactics, which may be a better term. This is from a German military officer (not sure if current or former) and blogger:

Quote:

---

Ukraine SitRep: 'Mosquito' Tactics - S-200 Land Attacks

The U.S./NATO doctrine, as it had been taught to the Ukrainian units that were prepared for the counter-offensive, has failed.

As a comment allegedly made on a forum of veterans of the West Point Academy describes it:

Quote:

---

Classic attacks under our combat regulations involve the preliminary suppression and destruction of enemy defensive positions by artillery and aircraft, as well as the simultaneous destruction of its combat controls to the depth of the defense zone and the prevention of the approaches of its reserves. Since Ukrainians have almost no aviation and they are significantly inferior to the Russians in the amount of artillery, classic attacks lead to nothing but a massive loss of expensive military equipment on the way to Russian positions, disorganization and demoralization of attackers with subsequent retreat. Almost three weeks of such attacks could not break through the Russian support band, in addition, as I was told by the G-3 from USAR EUR-AF in Stuttgart, they lost up to a quarter of our Bradleys, and they are now forced to urgently send two companies of Bradleys and a large quantity of other equipment to replenish and restore the combat readiness of two brigades of the Ukrainian strike unit.

---

When I was in officer school, pre-1991, NATO was less dependent on air-superiority than it is today. We also had some good air defense systems. Our artillery was not superior to the Soviet one but was well layered - from short, medium to long ranged systems - and would have created very significant damages. We also had good pioneer equipment that allowed for the crossing rivers and ditches as well as serious mine fields.

All this changed after the 1991 Gulf war in which U.S. air superiority and tank fist destroyed the Iraqi defense forces. That war was misconstrued as a big win when it in fact was simply the effect of a by far superior professional force over a unmotivated conscript army with old and often defunct weapons.

As an effect of the first Gulf war and later operations in Serbia, Afghanistan and again in Iraq the believe in NATO air-land doctrine was reinforced. Air superiority was the holy grail while the strong land force capabilities atrophied. An emphasis on guerilla suppression and on vehicles that could withstand simple improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan further unbalanced the force.

It explains why the Ukrainian troops were miss-trained and miss-equipped for a counter-offensive even when the opposing force was a much harder to crack one than some goat herders from Helmand, Afghanistan.

The Ukrainian combined-arms-warfare units, without air-support and little artillery, were defeated. Western mining equipment failed to clear real 20 kilogram anti-tank mines from the heavy Ukrainian grounds. Armored Ukrainian troops were destroyed in mine fields (video) well before they could reach their targets.

Seeing that the tank heavy concept was failing the Ukrainians switched to a much older and more bloody technic:

Quote:

---

In these conditions, our guys, together with Ukrainian commanders, developed tactics of "mosquito" promotion: continuous attacks of Russian positions by small tactical groups of Ukrainian infantry. The Russians, who are much more sensitive to losses in manpower, try to prevent close ("contact") battles and retreat when Ukrainians reach their trenches, allowing artillery to destroy the enemy. This usually succeeds: Ukrainians die or retreat. But this tactic has a positive effect. Several such attacks almost completely destroy the Russian position, most often with their own fire, after which the Russians are forced to retreat to a new line, where this tactic is repeated. That's how in two weeks the Russians were pushed back three miles from Makarov's strategically important position. And this tactic is constantly improving. Our side believe that, at the continuing pace of such progress, in two weeks Ukrainians will be able to overcome the Russian support band and start storming their main line of defense, while maintaining the offensive potential of their strongest brigades. Perhaps that's what General Milley meant yesterday about the ten weeks of the Ukrainian offensive.

This tactical technique has another important effect. Russians are forced to spend more artillery shells to repel such "mosquito" attacks, the stocks of which they replenish more slowly than they spend. And in two weeks of such battles, they may well approach the depletion of their stocks. Of course, this leads to great losses of Ukrainians but, as I said at the beginning, they are not sensitive to the death of their soldiers. In addition, advances however small are a better justification for their death than unsuccessful attacks. And here, we must admit that the Russians today are much closer to the armies of Western countries than the Ukrainians are in this respect: the Russians take care of their soldiers ...

---

The "mosquito" technic replaces losses in armored vehicles will more heavy losses of infantry. The 128th Mountain Assault Brigade, which had led the fight on the western part of the Zaporozhia front, has just been pull back from the front line because it had lost too many of its soldiers.

After the Russian lost a few trenches to storming Ukrainian troops that did not care for their own losses they modified their own tactic. Its troops still leave the forward trenches when under pressure but they now booby-trap those before taking off. These videos show how Ukrainian troops jump into an empty Russian trench only to be blown up by several small explosions. The Russian's need no artillery to do that. The trenches are kept intact but for a number Ukrainian corpses that can easily be moved aside.

A few days ago the Austrian Colonel Markus Reisner said in an interview (in German) that Ukraine had deployed all but four of its twelve reserve brigades that were supposed to be the armored counter-offensive fist that would defeat Russian defenses. Since than the 116th, 117th, and 118th Mechanized Brigades, part of last reserve, have been deployed near the Zaparozhia front. They will replace the 128th and other units that were mostly destroyed while gaining only a few kilometer in the sparsely inhabited countryside. Half of Milley's ten weeks of counter-offensive operations have passed with no relevant gains for the Ukrainian side. The next five weeks will likely destroy the rest of the battle ready Ukrainian forces.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/07/ukraine-sitrep-mosquito-tactics-s-200-land-attacks.html#more

---

Notice the statement from Reisner, which I've never seen reported in English-speaking media -- the Ukrainians have already committed 8 of the 12 brigades they had available for the counter-offensive. This means they are all in and will have little left in reserve if they do break the Russian line.

Wow. @TuckerCarlson’s first question in the first presidential forum for the Republican primary was about Ukraine, exposing Tim Scott as a hawk.

After, Tucker continued to drill on the issue of cluster bombs and whether the US should push for peace.

You would not see this in… pic.twitter.com/L60BF7M7Kn

— Liam McCollum (@MLiamMcCollum) July 14, 2023

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

---

Where to start.

Should we start with the past being an indicator of the future?

Ukraine not wanting to be under Russia's thumb and be aligned with the west.

No Americans are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

---

1. The past is always a good indicator of the future...it not a 100% accurate guide. Learning from the past helps us analyze the present and make informed decisions.

2. Ukraine's concerns and desires are secondary to our interests and to the interests of the American people. Some Ukrainian fanatics want a NATO to declare war on Russian and invade and conquer Moscow. I hope you can see how this would not be in our interests but a disaster in the making....possibly sparking off WWIII. Not to mention Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea have interests as well...and they don't line up with the regime in Kyiv.

3. For what its worth....this is almost certainly not true.

My good buddy (who is a Major in the Army) stationed in Tennessee says that we most certainly have special forces in country engaged in the conflict.

We won't know until many years into the future what the role of the U.S. military truly is/was in Ukraine because much of it is classified right now.

---

No it isn't. Try using the past to look at the future and you will not be very accurate. There is much better data for the future than the past.

---

Does that mean the 500,000 or so Neville Chamberlain references we've seen in the last year are no longer relevant?

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

---

Where to start.

Should we start with the past being an indicator of the future?

Ukraine not wanting to be under Russia's thumb and be aligned with the west.

No Americans are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

---

1. The past is always a good indicator of the future...it not a 100% accurate guide. Learning from the past helps us analyze the present and make informed decisions.

2. Ukraine's concerns and desires are secondary to our interests and to the interests of the American people. Some Ukrainian fanatics want a NATO to declare war on Russian and invade and conquer Moscow. I hope you can see how this would not be in our interests but a disaster in the making....possibly sparking off WWIII. Not to mention Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea have interests as well...and they don't line up with the regime in Kyiv.

3. For what its worth....this is almost certainly not true.

My good buddy (who is a Major in the Army) stationed in Tennessee says that we most certainly have special forces in country engaged in the conflict.

We won't know until many years into the future what the role of the U.S. military truly is/was in Ukraine because much of it is classified right now.

---

No it isn't. Try using the past to look at the future and you will not be very accurate. There is much better data for the future than the past.

---

Does that mean the 500,000 or so Neville Chamberlain references we've seen in the last year are no longer relevant?

---

Nope...with FLbear and his buddies its always "Hitler, Munich, 1938"....and that and only that historical reference can be used at all times and in all situations.

I'm just in my 30s and have seen them cast no less than 7 world leaders in the "its the new Hitler!" role.

President Biden just called up 3,000 reservists to augment U.S. troops in Europe as part of "Operation Atlantic Resolve." I want people to understand what this troop mobilization is about. It's about preparing for a ground war with Russia.https://t.co/YCzL0UWoo0

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 14, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

They want WW3

I will be working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to pass a resolution urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO.

The best way to prevent future wars and promote peace is to create security guarantees that make aggressor nations think twice before starting wars.…

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 7, 2023

---

Only because they believe they won't be doing the dying .

---

The reason Ukraine and Taiwan are vulnerable and in the positions they are in is because they are isolated, to be picked off at Russia and China's convenience. If Taiwan was included in with S Korea, Japan, Singapore and Australia they would be in a safer position. Same with Ukraine, if they were admitted in the 90's with Poland and the Baltics all this would not have happened.

---

A counter argument would be that Taiwan and Ukraine are so vial to China/Russia that if Taiwan had been included in a "Pacific NATO" and if Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO in the late 90s it would have set off a war much sooner. These adversaries being of course nuclear armed

Just as the USA has a sphere of influence (one of the largest on earth...or that the earth has ever had) other nations have spheres of influence as well.

China has long said that Taiwan is a redline for them (status quo must remain, no USA troops on Taiwan, no military alliance)... And Russia has said the same about places like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia.

They have shown that they will fight for these areas.

The question of course for us is.....what does this matter to the American people?

These places are not vital to the USA. We can make semiconductors in S. Korea, Japan, or here at home as easily as we can in Taiwan (small island of barely 23 million people). And Ukraine's rusting out factories and farmlands are not of vital importance to the USA. Not while we have the American Midwest (greatest farm belt on earth) and the Canadian farming prairie provinces.

---

What an incredibly limited understanding of foreign affairs.....

---

The USA has survived for 250 years without Ukraine being in our sphere of influence.

Ukraine on the other hand has been under Russian control since the 1600s....in one form or another.

Americans will be just fine without fighting a war over Ukraine...or having much to do with the place in general.

Now the USA elite might be a different story....they seem strangely obsessed with this corrupt rotting out and depopulating ex-soviet State thousands of miles away.

(D.C is 5,000 miles away from Ukraine)

---

Where to start.

Should we start with the past being an indicator of the future?

Ukraine not wanting to be under Russia's thumb and be aligned with the west.

No Americans are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

---

1. The past is always a good indicator of the future...it not a 100% accurate guide. Learning from the past helps us analyze the present and make informed decisions.

2. Ukraine's concerns and desires are secondary to our interests and to the interests of the American people. Some Ukrainian fanatics want a NATO to declare war on Russian and invade and conquer Moscow. I hope you can see how this would not be in our interests but a disaster in the making....possibly sparking off WWIII. Not to mention Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea have interests as well...and they don't line up with the regime in Kyiv.

3. For what its worth....this is almost certainly not true.

My good buddy (who is a Major in the Army) stationed in Tennessee says that we most certainly have special forces in country engaged in the conflict.

We won't know until many years into the future what the role of the U.S. military truly is/was in Ukraine because much of it is classified right now.

---

No it isn't. Try using the past to look at the future and you will not be very accurate. There is much better data for the future than the past.


We know, you don't give a crap about Ukraine and believe there is no interest for the US. Up to you, we will be a regional power with no influence beyond our neighbors and the ability to only repel an invasion. Everything else is a waste of money. Got it. I and most other world and former American leaders don't agree with you.

If there are advisors, SF is there. It is what they do. Whether they are involved in the actual fighting I doubt. Why? Russia would love parading a Green Beret around the new cameras. I have no doubt SF is there and training, that is their specialty.

---

Be serious....I have explained to you in detail that the USA is a global super power...the only global super power on earth.... the largest military and economy on earth...the only power with a two ocean navy.

Not getting involved in a war in Ukraine no more makes the USA a "regional power with no influence" than does the USA getting out of a bloody Afghan conflict or refusing to send troops to Syria.

You must work for a military contractor who has a pay check that depends on endless foreign conflict....the very idea that if the USA does not jump into every conflict on earth then its some how a "regional isolated power" is so laughable I can't believe someone would make that argument.

Did Great Britain refusal to get involved in the US "civil war" in 1861 somehow mean Great Britain was no longer a world power? The massive British empire would go on for another 80+ years. But make no mistake there were newspapers and politicians in London making that argument.

---

We are part of NATO. NATO is supporting Ukraine. US should be supporting NATO, it goes with being the Super Power. In reality, US is the only Nation that can make a difference against a Chinese supported Russia.

---

Why is NATO "supporting" a non-NATO member in a war that does not involve NATO and to whom it has no treaty obligations?

---

It is on their border.

Ukraine asked for help and democracies support others trying to attain freedom, a very Reagan-esqe & Churchill type stance. Not sure you see them as great Statesman based on your comments. You would be more in the "all for us and us for none" camp.

Because they remember that NATO promised to support Ukraine when they gave up the nukes and Ukraine were scared this would happen.

I know to you non-binding, talk them into doing what Russia wants and turn your back. But, some feel they have some culpability in letting Russia do this. Is MREs and blankets too much?