Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

Russia is trying to put a buffer between themselves and our weapons now that we've foolishly dismantled the arms control framework that wiser leaders took decades to establish. If they succeed it will make all of us safer.

---

LOL no vatnik.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need….

---

It's hard because the pro-intervention side has to make two arguments at once.

1. Russia is a basket-case country with a bad conscript army of old rusting out Soviet equipment junk…filled with soldiers (many from jails) that don't want to serve and a corrupt political class that steals from the military spending. A country with 25% of its citizens not having indoor toilets which can not even impose its will on a weak neighbor.


2. Russia is a powerful threat to the 700,000,000 NATO alliance of 30 plus nations…many of whom are the most advanced & economically powerful nations on earth.


Obviously, argument 1 is closer to the truth…but you need argument number 2 so that people keep funding the proxy war and be afraid of the Russian military menace

---

You always bring up population numbers. It's irrelevant in an age where technology and human efficiency outpace declining birth rates by a factor of at least 10. As a stark example, perhaps 3 humans are required to launch a weapon that will take out millions. More friendly examples would be farming and production ratios.

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

This may come as a shock to you, but Russia, China, and some Middle Eastern countries have advanced economies with healthy middle classes.

I have met lots of Russians and seen videos of Youtubers visiting Russia and exploring some of the "poorer" areas of the country. It is Russia's poor who support Putin more than anyone else in the country. Which makes sense in the context that they had little to lose from international sanctions in the first place.

I used to live in the same fantasy world you do and believe the America good, Russia/China/Middle East bad... but with age comes wisdom and acknowledging that the world isn't so black and white and America seems to have gone from pearly white when I was a kid to midnight black today where the uniparty corruption is becoming more clumsy and dangerous.

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc nailed the key ingredient.

There will be either a peace treaty or semi permanent ceasefire.

And Ukraine will have to cede some of its territory to Russia.


Billions spent and hundreds of thousands of lives lost due to the biggest US foreign policy blunder since WW2.

Thank you president Biden.

---

Russia was coming regardless of the idiots verbal gaffes.

---

Repeatedly calling for Ukraine to join NATO, directly meddling in Ukrainian elections and money laundering millions of dollars utilizing joint U.S.-Ukrainian business concerns is not a mere verbal gaffe.

The US was actively pulling Ukraine out of the Russian sphere of influence. A Russian -Ukrainian relationship that had existed for centuries.

Biden simply miscalculated. Despite numerous warnings from Putin; that the situation was completely intolerable to Russian security concerns; Biden kept pushing for Ukrainian membership into NATO.

Even when Putin finally moved 200 000 troops to the Ukrainian border to make his point perfectly clear………Harris, while in Europe again publicly called for Ukrainian membership into NATO.

The only reasonable conclusion is the Biden administration thought Putin was bluffing and was willing to risk a proxy war with Russia utilizing the blood of Ukrainians as pawns.

Well obviously Putin wasn't bluffing and now hundreds of thousands of people are dead.

Easily the most catastrophic blunder in the history of US foreign policy.

---

Ukraine had been trying for decades to get out of the Russian sphere with Russia torpedoing it at every turn. Does anyone remember Russia poisoning Ukraine's President? Does anyone realize the Russian puppet Yanukovych took ownership of a swanky mansion for himself that's literally a corruption museum, and when they ousted him he was having a second one built in Crimea. That he imprisoned his opposition leader (a woman no less)? Are you familiar with the oligarch game of thrones that has been happening for 30 years in the region? Do you remember that part of Putin's demands were for NATO to pull back troops and weapons in Eastern Europe (not Ukraine)? This administration is an idiocracy, but no one thought Putin was bluffing. He already had invaded Crimea when he didn't get his way.

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Doc nailed the key ingredient.

There will be either a peace treaty or semi permanent ceasefire.

And Ukraine will have to cede some of its territory to Russia.


Billions spent and hundreds of thousands of lives lost due to the biggest US foreign policy blunder since WW2.

Thank you president Biden.

---

Russia was coming regardless of the idiots verbal gaffes.

---

Repeatedly calling for Ukraine to join NATO, directly meddling in Ukrainian elections and money laundering millions of dollars utilizing joint U.S.-Ukrainian business concerns is not a mere verbal gaffe.

The US was actively pulling Ukraine out of the Russian sphere of influence. A Russian -Ukrainian relationship that had existed for centuries.

Biden simply miscalculated. Despite numerous warnings from Putin; that the situation was completely intolerable to Russian security concerns; Biden kept pushing for Ukrainian membership into NATO.

Even when Putin finally moved 200 000 troops to the Ukrainian border to make his point perfectly clear………Harris, while in Europe again publicly called for Ukrainian membership into NATO.

The only reasonable conclusion is the Biden administration thought Putin was bluffing and was willing to risk a proxy war with Russia utilizing the blood of Ukrainians as pawns.

Well obviously Putin wasn't bluffing and now hundreds of thousands of people are dead.

Easily the most catastrophic blunder in the history of US foreign policy.

---

Ukraine had been trying for decades to get out of the Russian sphere with Russia torpedoing it at every turn. Does anyone remember Russia poisoning Ukraine's President? Does anyone realize the Russian puppet Yanukovych took ownership of a swanky mansion for himself that's literally a corruption museum, and when they ousted him he was having a second one built in Crimea. That he imprisoned his opposition leader (a woman no less)? Are you familiar with the oligarch game of thrones that has been happening for 30 years in the region? Do you remember that part of Putin's demands were for NATO to pull back troops and weapons in Eastern Europe (not Ukraine)? This administration is an idiocracy, but no one thought Putin was bluffing. He already had invaded Crimea when he didn't get his way.

---

And already had large army units in the Donbas since 2014.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need….

---

It's hard because the pro-intervention side has to make two arguments at once.

1. Russia is a basket-case country with a bad conscript army of old rusting out Soviet equipment junk…filled with soldiers (many from jails) that don't want to serve and a corrupt political class that steals from the military spending. A country with 25% of its citizens not having indoor toilets which can not even impose its will on a weak neighbor.


2. Russia is a powerful threat to the 700,000,000 NATO alliance of 30 plus nations…many of whom are the most advanced & economically powerful nations on earth.


Obviously, argument 1 is closer to the truth…but you need argument number 2 so that people keep funding the proxy war and be afraid of the Russian military menace

---

You always bring up population numbers. It's irrelevant in an age where technology and human efficiency outpace declining birth rates by a factor of at least 10. As a stark example, perhaps 3 humans are required to launch a weapon that will take out millions. More friendly examples would be farming and production ratios.

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Mexico isn't the worlds 2nd most powerful military, its #31. The article below may explain.


2024 Military Strength Ranking (globalfirepower.com)

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need….

---

It's hard because the pro-intervention side has to make two arguments at once.

1. Russia is a basket-case country with a bad conscript army of old rusting out Soviet equipment junk…filled with soldiers (many from jails) that don't want to serve and a corrupt political class that steals from the military spending. A country with 25% of its citizens not having indoor toilets which can not even impose its will on a weak neighbor.


2. Russia is a powerful threat to the 700,000,000 NATO alliance of 30 plus nations…many of whom are the most advanced & economically powerful nations on earth.


Obviously, argument 1 is closer to the truth…but you need argument number 2 so that people keep funding the proxy war and be afraid of the Russian military menace

---

You always bring up population numbers. It's irrelevant in an age where technology and human efficiency outpace declining birth rates by a factor of at least 10. As a stark example, perhaps 3 humans are required to launch a weapon that will take out millions. More friendly examples would be farming and production ratios.

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Mexico isn't the worlds 2nd most powerful military, its #31. The article below may explain.


2024 Military Strength Ranking (globalfirepower.com)

---

And Russia is not the worlds 2nd most powerful military (in truth that would be China)

What's your point?

Lets not even begin to go into how russia military strength is over blown....counting rusting out soviet tanks and old fighter jets that can't get off the ground as force factors.

The russian campaign in ukraine should have laid those arguments to rest.

They are literally having to buy ammo from North Korea and other equipment from Iran lol


p.s.

Lets check in on Russia's only Aircraft carrier (a major part of projecting naval strength)....while the USA is building 8 new nuclear powered Aircraft carriers that cost $13.5 billion each....Russia can't even keep the one it has in active duty. (just looked it up and we are actually building 10 of those new carriers and not just 8)

[The Admiral has been tied up in repairs & retrofits since about 2018. On Halloween in 2018, the Admiral was damaged when Russia's biggest floating drydock, PD-50, sank, causing one of its 70-ton cranes to crash onto the ship's flight deck, leaving behind a 200 sq ft hole]

https://wesodonnell.medium.com/the-slow-death-of-russias-only-aircraft-carrier-admiral-kuznetsov-b34999c22999#:~:text=The%20Admiral%20has%20been%20tied,a%20200%20sq%20ft%20hole.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need….

---

It's hard because the pro-intervention side has to make two arguments at once.

1. Russia is a basket-case country with a bad conscript army of old rusting out Soviet equipment junk…filled with soldiers (many from jails) that don't want to serve and a corrupt political class that steals from the military spending. A country with 25% of its citizens not having indoor toilets which can not even impose its will on a weak neighbor.


2. Russia is a powerful threat to the 700,000,000 NATO alliance of 30 plus nations…many of whom are the most advanced & economically powerful nations on earth.


Obviously, argument 1 is closer to the truth…but you need argument number 2 so that people keep funding the proxy war and be afraid of the Russian military menace

---

You always bring up population numbers. It's irrelevant in an age where technology and human efficiency outpace declining birth rates by a factor of at least 10. As a stark example, perhaps 3 humans are required to launch a weapon that will take out millions. More friendly examples would be farming and production ratios.

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Mexico isn't the worlds 2nd most powerful military, its #31. The article below may explain.


2024 Military Strength Ranking (globalfirepower.com)

---

And Russia is not the worlds 2nd most powerful military (in truth that would be China)

What's your point?

Lets not even begin to go into how russia military strength is over blown....counting rusting out soviet tanks and old fighter jets that can't get off the ground as force factors.

The russian campaign in ukraine should have laid those arguments to rest.

They are literally having to buy ammo from North Korea and other equipment from Iran lol


p.s.

Lets check in on Russia's only Aircraft carrier (a major part of projecting naval strength)....while the USA is building 8 new nuclear powered Aircraft carriers that cost $13.5 billion each....Russia can't even keep the one it has in active duty. (just looked it up and we are actually building 10 of those new carriers and not just 8)

[The Admiral has been tied up in repairs & retrofits since about 2018. On Halloween in 2018, the Admiral was damaged when Russia's biggest floating drydock, PD-50, sank, causing one of its 70-ton cranes to crash onto the ship's flight deck, leaving behind a 200 sq ft hole]

https://wesodonnell.medium.com/the-slow-death-of-russias-only-aircraft-carrier-admiral-kuznetsov-b34999c22999#:~:text=The%20Admiral%20has%20been%20tied,a%20200%20sq%20ft%20hole.

---

You didn't even look at the article. Russia and China are close, but Russia edges them out.

The point is that Russia is a threat that needs to be taken seriously. They may have Russian inefficiencies, but they are much more of a threat than you let on.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need….

---

It's hard because the pro-intervention side has to make two arguments at once.

1. Russia is a basket-case country with a bad conscript army of old rusting out Soviet equipment junk…filled with soldiers (many from jails) that don't want to serve and a corrupt political class that steals from the military spending. A country with 25% of its citizens not having indoor toilets which can not even impose its will on a weak neighbor.


2. Russia is a powerful threat to the 700,000,000 NATO alliance of 30 plus nations…many of whom are the most advanced & economically powerful nations on earth.


Obviously, argument 1 is closer to the truth…but you need argument number 2 so that people keep funding the proxy war and be afraid of the Russian military menace

---

You always bring up population numbers. It's irrelevant in an age where technology and human efficiency outpace declining birth rates by a factor of at least 10. As a stark example, perhaps 3 humans are required to launch a weapon that will take out millions. More friendly examples would be farming and production ratios.

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Mexico isn't the worlds 2nd most powerful military, its #31. The article below may explain.


2024 Military Strength Ranking (globalfirepower.com)

---

And Russia is not the worlds 2nd most powerful military (in truth that would be China)

What's your point?

Lets not even begin to go into how russia military strength is over blown....counting rusting out soviet tanks and old fighter jets that can't get off the ground as force factors.

The russian campaign in ukraine should have laid those arguments to rest.

They are literally having to buy ammo from North Korea and other equipment from Iran lol


p.s.

Lets check in on Russia's only Aircraft carrier (a major part of projecting naval strength)....while the USA is building 8 new nuclear powered Aircraft carriers that cost $13.5 billion each....Russia can't even keep the one it has in active duty. (just looked it up and we are actually building 10 of those new carriers and not just 8)

[The Admiral has been tied up in repairs & retrofits since about 2018. On Halloween in 2018, the Admiral was damaged when Russia's biggest floating drydock, PD-50, sank, causing one of its 70-ton cranes to crash onto the ship's flight deck, leaving behind a 200 sq ft hole]

https://wesodonnell.medium.com/the-slow-death-of-russias-only-aircraft-carrier-admiral-kuznetsov-b34999c22999#:~:text=The%20Admiral%20has%20been%20tied,a%20200%20sq%20ft%20hole.

---

You didn't even look at the article. Russia and China are close, but Russia edges them out.

---

I read the article.

What you did is NOT read my response.

russian military abilities are wildly over inflated...by them and us....China is certainly the 2nd most powerful military by all reasonable standards.

Again, just take ships....China has two active carriers, the Liaoning and Shandong, with the third, Fujian, being fitted out. While Russia can not keep the only 1 they have in service on active duty.

This kind of thing is replicated all the way down the military system of russia and china....russia can barely keep anything functioning and counts anything they have in a junkyard somewhere as equipment.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE310.html
[Russia Is a Rogue, Not a Peer; China Is a Peer, Not a Rogue]

The russkies want our border open to endless 3rd world invaders….or the russkies want to stop us from experiencing the joys of diversity?


I'm so confused

🚨New: Republican Senator Mike Rounds says Russia is behind the attacks on the border deal, “I suspect that a lot of the internet rumors are very well coming from overseas, where they would love to see this shut down because some people would rather not see funding for Ukraine.” pic.twitter.com/7a11EKPuCd

— The Calvin Coolidge Project (@TheCalvinCooli1) January 31, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need….

---

It's hard because the pro-intervention side has to make two arguments at once.

1. Russia is a basket-case country with a bad conscript army of old rusting out Soviet equipment junk…filled with soldiers (many from jails) that don't want to serve and a corrupt political class that steals from the military spending. A country with 25% of its citizens not having indoor toilets which can not even impose its will on a weak neighbor.


2. Russia is a powerful threat to the 700,000,000 NATO alliance of 30 plus nations…many of whom are the most advanced & economically powerful nations on earth.


Obviously, argument 1 is closer to the truth…but you need argument number 2 so that people keep funding the proxy war and be afraid of the Russian military menace

---

You always bring up population numbers. It's irrelevant in an age where technology and human efficiency outpace declining birth rates by a factor of at least 10. As a stark example, perhaps 3 humans are required to launch a weapon that will take out millions. More friendly examples would be farming and production ratios.

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Societal equilibriums eventually show up unless you do forced unnatural influences like China's one child policy. And human efficiencies are benchmarked to the advanced nature of a country, so Mexico and Russia aren't good parallels.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need….

---

It's hard because the pro-intervention side has to make two arguments at once.

1. Russia is a basket-case country with a bad conscript army of old rusting out Soviet equipment junk…filled with soldiers (many from jails) that don't want to serve and a corrupt political class that steals from the military spending. A country with 25% of its citizens not having indoor toilets which can not even impose its will on a weak neighbor.


2. Russia is a powerful threat to the 700,000,000 NATO alliance of 30 plus nations…many of whom are the most advanced & economically powerful nations on earth.


Obviously, argument 1 is closer to the truth…but you need argument number 2 so that people keep funding the proxy war and be afraid of the Russian military menace

---

You always bring up population numbers. It's irrelevant in an age where technology and human efficiency outpace declining birth rates by a factor of at least 10. As a stark example, perhaps 3 humans are required to launch a weapon that will take out millions. More friendly examples would be farming and production ratios.

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Societal equilibriums eventually show up unless you do forced unnatural influences like China's one child policy. And human efficiencies are benchmarked to the advanced nature of a country, so Mexico and Russia aren't good parallels.

---

Interesting…even so

Human efficiencies aside.

Mexico will be a growing country for at least another 25 years or more.

While Russia is already a demographically declining nation.










While Mexico should be ok until the 2050s or even 2060s:

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need of military assistance and they're somehow going to be a threat in the future while western military will be vastly more unstoppable in the future.

If US officials won't accept a peace treaty and Ukraine is exhausted then they move to a hot war and both sides start dropping small nukes and the death toll skyrockets. Thats how that would go down.

---

I have explained that multi-level false dilemma many times.

Ignoring an adversary as too weak to do anything is exactly how World Wars are started. All they have to do is create scenarios like they did in Ukraine (Donbas first, Crimea second) to test your resolve.....nibble nibble nibble, then work to create political instability, then take a step that dares NATO to directly engage a nuclear capable adversary over some small country in an ambiguous scenario. Russia WILL do that. How do we know? If they can nibble off pieces of Ukraine....directly invade Ukraine knowing that the US had written guarantees to protect Ukraine......how can we blithely assume (as you are doing) that Russia would never test us.

You don't know Russians very well. They are consummate bullies who think NATO is a bunch of ******* who are always looking to avoid a fight with someone who can take a punch.Doesn't matter how much stronger Nato is than Russia. Matters whether France and Paris are willing to trade Berlin and Paris for Riga and Tallinn. Russia can and will miscalculate on that. (and depending on who's in power in those cities, they might be correct).

It's not like Russia is incapable of miscalculating. They usually do. Because they are arrogant asssholes.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Societal equilibriums eventually show up unless you do forced unnatural influences like China's one child policy. And human efficiencies are benchmarked to the advanced nature of a country, so Mexico and Russia aren't good parallels.

---

Interesting…even so

Human efficiencies aside.

Mexico will be a growing country for at least another 25 years or more.

While Russia is already a demographically declining nation.










While Mexico should be ok until the 2050s or even 2060s:

---

mother of all false dilemmas.

Mexico has never paraded its army down the streets of Washington D.C.
Russia, on the other hand, has indeed paraded armies thru the streets of Paris.

My God you are truly ignorant of history.

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

You don't know Russians very well. They are consummate bullies who think NATO is a bunch of ******* who are always looking to avoid a fight with someone who can take a punch.Doesn't matter how much stronger Nato is than Russia. Matters whether France and Paris are willing to trade Berlin and Paris for Riga and Tallinn. Russia can and will miscalculate on that. (and depending on who's in power in those cities, they might be correct).

It's not like Russia is incapable of miscalculating. They usually do. Because they are arrogant asssholes.

---

These fever dreams aside, the Russians are openly telling the world what their goals are.

"Today Putin openly said likely for the first time, in such an overt and public mannerthat the entire contact line will have to be pushed back to such a distance as to keep Russian territories from being reached by NATO's most advanced weaponry given to Ukraine:

Given the announcement that GLSDBs are allegedly now en route, this is essentially confirmation that Kharkov and more will have to be retaken. Kharkov is only 30km from the Russian border while weapons like GLSDB have 140km+ range."

The only thing we have to do to get the bear to go back into hibernation is quit poking it. Victoria Nuland and Tony Blinken are bigger threats to our way of life than the Kim family in North Korea. The Russian goal isn't to "annex" Ukraine or anywhere else in Europe. This isn't the third Reich looking for lebensraum. They simply seek to establish a DMZ.

It would be the height of stupidity to launch a third world war in our state department's effort to make the world safe for homosexuality.

---

Speaking of vatnik fever dreams and stupidity....

Take the tinfoil hat off.

Bear8084 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

You don't know Russians very well. They are consummate bullies who think NATO is a bunch of ******* who are always looking to avoid a fight with someone who can take a punch.Doesn't matter how much stronger Nato is than Russia. Matters whether France and Paris are willing to trade Berlin and Paris for Riga and Tallinn. Russia can and will miscalculate on that. (and depending on who's in power in those cities, they might be correct).

It's not like Russia is incapable of miscalculating. They usually do. Because they are arrogant asssholes.

---

These fever dreams aside, the Russians are openly telling the world what their goals are.

"Today Putin openly said likely for the first time, in such an overt and public mannerthat the entire contact line will have to be pushed back to such a distance as to keep Russian territories from being reached by NATO's most advanced weaponry given to Ukraine:

Given the announcement that GLSDBs are allegedly now en route, this is essentially confirmation that Kharkov and more will have to be retaken. Kharkov is only 30km from the Russian border while weapons like GLSDB have 140km+ range."

The only thing we have to do to get the bear to go back into hibernation is quit poking it. Victoria Nuland and Tony Blinken are bigger threats to our way of life than the Kim family in North Korea. The Russian goal isn't to "annex" Ukraine or anywhere else in Europe. This isn't the third Reich looking for lebensraum. They simply seek to establish a DMZ.

It would be the height of stupidity to launch a third world war in our state department's effort to make the world safe for homosexuality.

---

Speaking of vatnik fever dreams and stupidity....

Take the tinfoil hat off.

---

I mean, on one hand, they say that Nato will never have a buffer against Russia if it keeps expanding eastward (even though there's no chance Ukraine in its current state could ever get enough votes to enter Nato), then on the other they they insist that all Russia needs is to keep Ukrainian weaponry from threating Russian territory (which, of course means, Ukraine cannot exist at all.)

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Hungary is using NATO positions as part of its effort to stop EU cultural agendas.

And perhaps he's looking further down the road, calculating what he believes is most likely to happen (Russia outlasting Nato in Ukraine) and making appropriate recalibrations (a dynamic I have repeatedly pointed out to you....)

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

If that were possible I don't think Ukraine would have been using cluster bombs against hardened Russian defenses. NYT reports that Russia is producing seven times more artillery ammo than the US and Europe combined. So best of luck with that.

---

IF they were producing that much ammo, they wouldn't have to be taking ammo from North Korea.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

By that logic if Russia dropped down to being a tiny 5 million person country you would then still be calling them a threat.

As it is Russia has less people than Mexico.

Other than crime & fentanyl no one seriously makes an argument that Mexico is a military threat to the USA.

So it's also rather foolish to imply that Russia could be a serious military threat against the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Finland, etc……


And manpower matters….not just on in the battlefield but back at home keeping the economy going.

Already Russia is having problems on that end with sacrificing workers by making them soldiers….a reason why they are now using prisoners

While the NATO alliance could put millions of men into the military and still have high functioning economies

---

Societal equilibriums eventually show up unless you do forced unnatural influences like China's one child policy. And human efficiencies are benchmarked to the advanced nature of a country, so Mexico and Russia aren't good parallels.

---

Interesting…even so

Human efficiencies aside.

Mexico will be a growing country for at least another 25 years or more.

While Russia is already a demographically declining nation.










While Mexico should be ok until the 2050s or even 2060s:

---

mother of all false dilemmas.

Mexico has never paraded its army down the streets of Washington D.C.
Russia, on the other hand, has indeed paraded armies thru the streets of Paris.

My God you are truly ignorant of history.

---

Uh the last time Russian troops were in Paris it was part of a large coalition of allies and the enemy was Napoleon (who had previously invaded Russia and taken Moscow)


You realize that right Mr Historian?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Sixth_Coalition

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Well I'm glad to see that you're finally admitting what killing a half million people was all about.

Just like Obiden's Medusa is admitting why our soldiers are dying.

"3 US Troops Died Fighting For 'This Administration'"

As autocrats go, Zelensky cancelled elections in Ukraine, Putin did not cancel elections in Russia.

---

This cannot be a serious comment. I mean, I feel for your family if this is a serious comment.

---

Hey look it's my old buddy Trey!

Hey Trey remember how you and Crash used to call me racist all the time when I complained about all the 3rd world immigration during the Trump years?

Well you guys won the day and we our living in your ideal version of America now!

Look at all the diversity and economic benefits we are experiencing! Who needs a shared culture or sense of community? Those were relics of those 20th century neanderthals.

I'm sure you've alrdy volunteered your home to some of our wonderful new neighbors. You probably even took a paycut so your company could employ some of these fine upstanding military aged men!

Everynight the 3rd world illegals and I get together to say our prayers to saint Zelensky! I tell all those african, asian, and south american migrants that Zelensky needs all these new mansions and yachts for the holy war he is fighting against the enemies of democracy!

Ukraine's borders must remain strong and impenetrable while our own southern border must remain open and porous for America to project strength and democracy around the world!

Slava Urkaini Trey!

---

Oh look!!! Another infantile rant from our good buddy BarBearian. Hope there aren't too many brown people moving close to you. You may smell them cooking their food in the backyard and develop an even bigger gut.

---

Doubling down on the race baiting! Well done Trey! You are so shameless you might even make Gavin Newsome blush!

Anyway, thanks for your concern!

I feel so culturally enriched by all the greasy, unsanitary street food, crime, homelessness, strained infrastructure, and overburdened public services! Looking back now I still can't believe I was able to survive in a country with borders for so many years!

And white people! Dont even get me started on white people! If I never see a white person another day in my life it will be too soon!

I love what you've done to my country! I hope I can be as destruc-... I mean devoted to the new world order as you are!

Being able to share the same country as you is so delightful!

The_barBEARian said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Well I'm glad to see that you're finally admitting what killing a half million people was all about.

Just like Obiden's Medusa is admitting why our soldiers are dying.

"3 US Troops Died Fighting For 'This Administration'"

As autocrats go, Zelensky cancelled elections in Ukraine, Putin did not cancel elections in Russia.

---

This cannot be a serious comment. I mean, I feel for your family if this is a serious comment.

---

Hey look it's my old buddy Trey!

Hey Trey remember how you and Crash used to call me racist all the time when I complained about all the 3rd world immigration during the Trump years?

Well you guys won the day and we our living in your ideal version of America now!

Look at all the diversity and economic benefits we are experiencing! Who needs a shared culture or sense of community? Those were relics of those 20th century neanderthals.

I'm sure you've alrdy volunteered your home to some of our wonderful new neighbors. You probably even took a paycut so your company could employ some of these fine upstanding military aged men!

Everynight the 3rd world illegals and I get together to say our prayers to saint Zelensky! I tell all those african, asian, and south american migrants that Zelensky needs all these new mansions and yachts for the holy war he is fighting against the enemies of democracy!

Ukraine's borders must remain strong and impenetrable while our own southern border must remain open and porous for America to project strength and democracy around the world!

Slava Urkaini Trey!

---

Oh look!!! Another infantile rant from our good buddy BarBearian. Hope there aren't too many brown people moving close to you. You may smell them cooking their food in the backyard and develop an even bigger gut.

---

Doubling down on the race baiting! Well done Trey! You are so shameless you might even make Gavin Newsome blush!

Anyway, thanks for your concern!

I feel so culturally enriched by all the greasy, unsanitary street food, crime, homelessness, strained infrastructure, and overburdened public services! Looking back now I still can't believe I was able to survive in a country with borders for so many years!

And white people! Dont even get me started on white people! If I never see a white person another day in my life it will be too soon!

I love what you've done to my country! I hope I can be as destruc-... I mean devoted to the new world order as you are!

Being able to share the same country as you is so delightful!

---

I'm not devoted to any order, especially one of Deviated Frontal Lobe that you so purport. The only thing you actually support is your own brand of autocratic idiocy, and you lap it up like an ignorant puppy.

If you naively thought Russia has real elections, Vladimir Solovyov is here to disabuse you of this notion. He is telling Boris Nadezhdin that he will be either poisoned or imprisoned (or both), predicting he will meet the fate of Navalny and Kara-Murza.https://t.co/Qjw2aHt5yu

— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) January 31, 2024

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need of military assistance and they're somehow going to be a threat in the future while western military will be vastly more unstoppable in the future.

If US officials won't accept a peace treaty and Ukraine is exhausted then they move to a hot war and both sides start dropping small nukes and the death toll skyrockets. Thats how that would go down.

---

If they can nibble off pieces of Ukraine....directly invade Ukraine knowing that the US had written guarantees to protect Ukraine......how can we blithely assume (as you are doing) that Russia would never test us.

---

Because we and NATO would wipe them off them map. It would be a suicide mission. Russia taking a step that dares NATO to directly engage a nuclear capable adversary over some small country in an ambiguous scenario equals Russia getting absolutely destroyed.

The narrative is that Ukraine is manhandling Russia. There's no way they go from being that weak to being strong enough to be a major threat.

NATO is looking for a fight. The US is pro war. There's trillions in profit to make off war with lobbyists BEGGING DC to cause chaos.

I think you're looking at this from a pro uniparty POV instead of a financial POV. You're trusting the same asshats that are globohomo NWO sycophants. We're nowhere close to being the same country we were last century: its a complete 180.

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Well I'm glad to see that you're finally admitting what killing a half million people was all about.

Just like Obiden's Medusa is admitting why our soldiers are dying.

"3 US Troops Died Fighting For 'This Administration'"

As autocrats go, Zelensky cancelled elections in Ukraine, Putin did not cancel elections in Russia.

---

This cannot be a serious comment. I mean, I feel for your family if this is a serious comment.

---

Hey look it's my old buddy Trey!

Hey Trey remember how you and Crash used to call me racist all the time when I complained about all the 3rd world immigration during the Trump years?

Well you guys won the day and we our living in your ideal version of America now!

Look at all the diversity and economic benefits we are experiencing! Who needs a shared culture or sense of community? Those were relics of those 20th century neanderthals.

I'm sure you've alrdy volunteered your home to some of our wonderful new neighbors. You probably even took a paycut so your company could employ some of these fine upstanding military aged men!

Everynight the 3rd world illegals and I get together to say our prayers to saint Zelensky! I tell all those african, asian, and south american migrants that Zelensky needs all these new mansions and yachts for the holy war he is fighting against the enemies of democracy!

Ukraine's borders must remain strong and impenetrable while our own southern border must remain open and porous for America to project strength and democracy around the world!

Slava Urkaini Trey!

---

Oh look!!! Another infantile rant from our good buddy BarBearian. Hope there aren't too many brown people moving close to you. You may smell them cooking their food in the backyard and develop an even bigger gut.

---

Doubling down on the race baiting! Well done Trey! You are so shameless you might even make Gavin Newsome blush!

Anyway, thanks for your concern!

I feel so culturally enriched by all the greasy, unsanitary street food, crime, homelessness, strained infrastructure, and overburdened public services! Looking back now I still can't believe I was able to survive in a country with borders for so many years!

And white people! Dont even get me started on white people! If I never see a white person another day in my life it will be too soon!

I love what you've done to my country! I hope I can be as destruc-... I mean devoted to the new world order as you are!

Being able to share the same country as you is so delightful!

---

I'm not devoted to any order, especially one of Deviated Frontal Lobe that you so purport. The only thing you actually support is your own brand of autocratic idiocy, and you lap it up like an ignorant puppy.

---

Of course you arent... the fact that you simultaneously fly a Ukrainian and Rainbow flag and still wear your N95 mask is mere coincidence.

You are as omniscient as always.

I'm just a fat, ignorant, animal who is stupidly supports his own self-interests.

I'm a lesser lifeform than you Trey.

My evolutionary development is lagging thousands of years behind yours.

I am fortunate....nay blessed! to soak in your wisdom and experience the fruits of the real world application of your ideas.

Why do we send such ugly satraps?

NULAND SPEAKS FROM KIEV pic.twitter.com/Z0LcuxYd46

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) January 31, 2024

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need of military assistance and they're somehow going to be a threat in the future while western military will be vastly more unstoppable in the future.

If US officials won't accept a peace treaty and Ukraine is exhausted then they move to a hot war and both sides start dropping small nukes and the death toll skyrockets. Thats how that would go down.

---

If they can nibble off pieces of Ukraine....directly invade Ukraine knowing that the US had written guarantees to protect Ukraine......how can we blithely assume (as you are doing) that Russia would never test us.

---

Because we and NATO would wipe them off them map. It would be a suicide mission. Russia taking a step that dares NATO to directly engage a nuclear capable adversary over some small country in an ambiguous scenario equals Russia getting absolutely destroyed.

The narrative is that Ukraine is manhandling Russia. There's no way they go from being that weak to being strong enough to be a major threat.

NATO is looking for a fight. The US is pro war. There's trillions in profit to make off war with lobbyists BEGGING DC to cause chaos.

I think you're looking at this from a pro uniparty POV instead of a financial POV. You're trusting the same asshats that are globohomo NWO sycophants. We're nowhere close to being the same country we were last century: it's a complete 180.

---

NATO hasn't participated in anything since Libya in 2011, and that was minimal.

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need of military assistance and they're somehow going to be a threat in the future while western military will be vastly more unstoppable in the future.

If US officials won't accept a peace treaty and Ukraine is exhausted then they move to a hot war and both sides start dropping small nukes and the death toll skyrockets. Thats how that would go down.

---

If they can nibble off pieces of Ukraine....directly invade Ukraine knowing that the US had written guarantees to protect Ukraine......how can we blithely assume (as you are doing) that Russia would never test us.

---

Because we and NATO would wipe them off them map. It would be a suicide mission. Russia taking a step that dares NATO to directly engage a nuclear capable adversary over some small country in an ambiguous scenario equals Russia getting absolutely destroyed.

The narrative is that Ukraine is manhandling Russia. There's no way they go from being that weak to being strong enough to be a major threat.

NATO is looking for a fight. The US is pro war. There's trillions in profit to make off war with lobbyists BEGGING DC to cause chaos.

I think you're looking at this from a pro uniparty POV instead of a financial POV. You're trusting the same asshats that are globohomo NWO sycophants. We're nowhere close to being the same country we were last century: it's a complete 180.

---

NATO hasn't participated in anything since Libya in 2011, and that was minimal.

---

Still interesting that NATO got involved in Libya and Serbia when neither were attacking NATO members….

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need of military assistance and they're somehow going to be a threat in the future while western military will be vastly more unstoppable in the future.

If US officials won't accept a peace treaty and Ukraine is exhausted then they move to a hot war and both sides start dropping small nukes and the death toll skyrockets. Thats how that would go down.

---

If they can nibble off pieces of Ukraine....directly invade Ukraine knowing that the US had written guarantees to protect Ukraine......how can we blithely assume (as you are doing) that Russia would never test us.

---

Because we and NATO would wipe them off them map. It would be a suicide mission. Russia taking a step that dares NATO to directly engage a nuclear capable adversary over some small country in an ambiguous scenario equals Russia getting absolutely destroyed.

The narrative is that Ukraine is manhandling Russia. There's no way they go from being that weak to being strong enough to be a major threat.

NATO is looking for a fight. The US is pro war. There's trillions in profit to make off war with lobbyists BEGGING DC to cause chaos.

I think you're looking at this from a pro uniparty POV instead of a financial POV. You're trusting the same asshats that are globohomo NWO sycophants. We're nowhere close to being the same country we were last century: it's a complete 180.

---

NATO hasn't participated in anything since Libya in 2011, and that was minimal.

---

Still interesting that NATO got involved in Libya and Serbia when neither were attacking NATO members….

---

Not as interesting as NATO never engaging Russia yet they use it as a precursor to invade Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need of military assistance and they're somehow going to be a threat in the future while western military will be vastly more unstoppable in the future.

If US officials won't accept a peace treaty and Ukraine is exhausted then they move to a hot war and both sides start dropping small nukes and the death toll skyrockets. Thats how that would go down.

---

If they can nibble off pieces of Ukraine....directly invade Ukraine knowing that the US had written guarantees to protect Ukraine......how can we blithely assume (as you are doing) that Russia would never test us.

---

Because we and NATO would wipe them off them map. It would be a suicide mission. Russia taking a step that dares NATO to directly engage a nuclear capable adversary over some small country in an ambiguous scenario equals Russia getting absolutely destroyed.

The narrative is that Ukraine is manhandling Russia. There's no way they go from being that weak to being strong enough to be a major threat.

NATO is looking for a fight. The US is pro war. There's trillions in profit to make off war with lobbyists BEGGING DC to cause chaos.

I think you're looking at this from a pro uniparty POV instead of a financial POV. You're trusting the same asshats that are globohomo NWO sycophants. We're nowhere close to being the same country we were last century: it's a complete 180.

---

NATO hasn't participated in anything since Libya in 2011, and that was minimal.

---

Still interesting that NATO got involved in Libya and Serbia when neither were attacking NATO members….

---

Not as interesting as NATO never engaging Russia yet they use it as a precursor to invade Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine.

---

Yea Russia should wait until there are NATO bases in Georgia, Ukraine, and in Crimea (their former Black Sea base) before they complain.

Do you even hear yourself?

What rational country would wait to be surrounded by a hostile military alliance?

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need of military assistance and they're somehow going to be a threat in the future while western military will be vastly more unstoppable in the future.

If US officials won't accept a peace treaty and Ukraine is exhausted then they move to a hot war and both sides start dropping small nukes and the death toll skyrockets. Thats how that would go down.

---

If they can nibble off pieces of Ukraine....directly invade Ukraine knowing that the US had written guarantees to protect Ukraine......how can we blithely assume (as you are doing) that Russia would never test us.

---

Because we and NATO would wipe them off them map. It would be a suicide mission. Russia taking a step that dares NATO to directly engage a nuclear capable adversary over some small country in an ambiguous scenario equals Russia getting absolutely destroyed.

The narrative is that Ukraine is manhandling Russia. There's no way they go from being that weak to being strong enough to be a major threat.

NATO is looking for a fight. The US is pro war. There's trillions in profit to make off war with lobbyists BEGGING DC to cause chaos.

I think you're looking at this from a pro uniparty POV instead of a financial POV. You're trusting the same asshats that are globohomo NWO sycophants. We're nowhere close to being the same country we were last century: it's a complete 180.

---

NATO hasn't participated in anything since Libya in 2011, and that was minimal.

---

Still interesting that NATO got involved in Libya and Serbia when neither were attacking NATO members….

---

Not as interesting as NATO never engaging Russia yet they use it as a precursor to invade Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine.

---

Yea Russia should wait until there are NATO bases in Georgia, Ukraine, and in Crimea (their former Black Sea base) before they complain.

Do you even hear yourself?

What rational country would wait to be surrounded by a hostile military alliance?

---

How is something hostile that has never engaged you? Maybe it is you and Putin still stuck in the Cold War.

Besides, it never even gets to the phase of serious NATO discussions, it just starts with a Western friendly government looking at closer economic ties.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bookmarking this for the next time the "Russia couldn't/wouldn't invade, is no threat to anyone" tossed out

---

Nice day for a stroll out to the bailey?

---

I can show it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Sentiments like the ones noted exist in every country, including ours. Their resonance will wax & wane. The resonate most when Russian armies are right across the border.

Are you watching what's going on in Sweden right now? Govt. is using "war footing" type statements, telling the country they must prepare for war. They realize that if Hungary does torpedo Sweden's membership application, Russia will likely invade. Nato might just respond by tossing out Hungary. (and Slovakia might even follow them.)

The prospect of Russian invasion of Nato is not the paramount risk. Rather, the #1 risk to Nato is division and collapse in the face of Russian posturing for war. I'm guessing that would probably make you happy.

---

Hungary is trying to take a stand for what NATO and the West used to represent. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked out already. I'll have mixed feelings about NATO's collapse, but it's probably beyond reform at this point.

---

Keep Ukraine ass-deep in ammo and this will all turn out fine.

---

For tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians……more ammo won't mean a thing .

Biden / Harris bleating about Ukrainian membership into NATO with 200,000 Russian troops positioned along the border is the biggest U.S. foreign policy miscalculation since WW2.

---

why on earth would we deny ammo to Ukrainians willing to die to defend their own country against an autocratic regime dead-set on destroying the liberal order (our business model).

---

Our business model is going to be NWO globalist WEF nonsense and will wreak tyranny across the planet at some point…just sayin

---

None of those acronyms are a part of the Ukrainian problem.

If "tyranny across the globe" is your concern, and it should be, I'd suggest that the best way to deal with such to to focus first and foremost on the autocratic regimes in the world which invade democratically elected governments. Helping the latter shatter the armies of the former is a logical A-to-B solution to the most urgent part of the problem.

---

I get your motivation, but I'm trying to be realistic.

Three things:

No end in sight after more than 22 months of war
Ukrainians highly dependent on mostly US military aid
Ukrainian counteroffensives have brought no big breakthrough

It's the second winter of full-scale war with a resource-rich, nuclear-armed superpower that has more than triple Ukraine's population. If this was going according to plan it would have already been winding down.

Either we epically failed at providing military aid or we're delusional about capabilities.

The only conclusion I can come to is Ukraine is going to continue to fight for years, we're going to spend well over a trillion dollars and it's going to end with Ukraine being forced to give up territory. All to temporarily weaken Russia.

If that's unacceptable then you'll need a hot war with the US and the death toll will grow tenfold.

---

Temporarily for a few decades is money well spent if it keeps Russia hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

You have not yet explained how letting Russia have whatever it wants in Ukraine reduces the odds of "a hot war with the US and (a) death toll (that) will grow tendfold."

---

If Russia is super weak right now using duct tape on their fighter jets and NATO grows and gets stronger over the next few decades…there's no way they'd consider targeting a NATO country.

I don't understand how in your opinion they're getting manhandled by a small neighboring country that's in dire need of military assistance and they're somehow going to be a threat in the future while western military will be vastly more unstoppable in the future.

If US officials won't accept a peace treaty and Ukraine is exhausted then they move to a hot war and both sides start dropping small nukes and the death toll skyrockets. Thats how that would go down.

---

If they can nibble off pieces of Ukraine....directly invade Ukraine knowing that the US had written guarantees to protect Ukraine......how can we blithely assume (as you are doing) that Russia would never test us.

---

Because we and NATO would wipe them off them map. It would be a suicide mission. Russia taking a step that dares NATO to directly engage a nuclear capable adversary over some small country in an ambiguous scenario equals Russia getting absolutely destroyed.

The narrative is that Ukraine is manhandling Russia. There's no way they go from being that weak to being strong enough to be a major threat.

NATO is looking for a fight. The US is pro war. There's trillions in profit to make off war with lobbyists BEGGING DC to cause chaos.

I think you're looking at this from a pro uniparty POV instead of a financial POV. You're trusting the same asshats that are globohomo NWO sycophants. We're nowhere close to being the same country we were last century: it's a complete 180.

---

NATO hasn't participated in anything since Libya in 2011, and that was minimal.

---

Still interesting that NATO got involved in Libya and Serbia when neither were attacking NATO members….

---

Not as interesting as NATO never engaging Russia yet they use it as a precursor to invade Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine.

---

Yea Russia should wait until there are NATO bases in Georgia, Ukraine, and in Crimea (their former Black Sea base) before they complain.

Do you even hear yourself?

What rational country would wait to be surrounded by a hostile military alliance?

---

How is something hostile that has never engaged you? Maybe it is you and Putin still stuck in the Cold War.

---

I assume you would feel the same way if the Warsaw pact was around and expanding into Canada & Mexico.

I mean how could it be hostile if it has not engaged us?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact