Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

The Warsaw Pact isn't around for a reason. Maybe you should think about that instead of a stupid hypothetical. The reason Canada and Mexico aren't aligned with China or Russia is we provide a beneficial partnership in good relations. Russia consistently doesn't.

Furthermore, we already have the proximity and fire power should we ever engage Russia to cause massive destruction. What multiplier of that even occurs with an Ukraine or Georgia? The irony is Russia's actions proving the need for a military alliance for these nations.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

The Warsaw Pact isn't around for a reason. Maybe you should think about that instead of a stupid hypothetical. The reason Canada and Mexico aren't aligned with China or Russia is we provide a beneficial partnership in good relations. Russia consistently doesn't.

Furthermore, we already have the proximity and fire power should we ever engage Russia to cause massive destruction. What multiplier of that even occurs with an Ukraine or Georgia? The irony is Russia's actions proving the need for a military alliance for these nations.

---

No joke.

Here's the funniest thing about a lot of the arguments out of the "way right/Trump worshippers ( when Trump has been a leftie his entire life...lol)/"real conservatives"...

-Conservatives were blasting Obama during his election, and his terms for greatly underestimating Russia, and rightfully so.
-Ukraine has been trying to get away from Russian spheres for decades, even during the Soviet era, for what Russia did to them.
-Obama let Russia walk right into Crimea without lifting a finger
-Trump started arming Ukraine post Maidan
-Ukraine gets invaded again and the US, under Obama's dribble stain Biden, drags its ass in giving them more arms and has consistently been slow to the trigger getting things done when half the crap they need is a few hours away.
-Ukraine, even though historically corrupt, is rooting out a lot of the corruption which is engrained in their society due to.....its ties, which it has been desperate to break for decades, to Russia ( which we can all, other than Sam, admit is an amazingly corrupt regime and has been for centuries)
-The Biden family has a lot of shady business ties with Ukraine, and Russia, and China. A methodical thinker could probably put one and two together and think "Perhaps the Bidens are tied more to the pro-Russian factions of Ukraine rather than the pro-west ukraine, since....you know....they also have ties to China and Russia...who are thumb in ass together on a lot of the world monopoly board".....But NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! If it says Ukraine, it means all of Ukraine!!!!! Until it doesn't!!!! Just read RedBrick's posts!!!!!

-I mean, but what about the yachts and mansions!!!!!????? Well, hate to break it to you, but that shlt has been roundly disproven and exists because those that keep spouting that shlt??? You guessed it. Frank Stall...Friedrich Stalingrad or some other Russian milblogger posted it and ran with it via his fake newspaper with AI generated "former US Military" sources.

Rinse. Repeat.


I support Ukraine wanting to fight to not be part of Russia. I hate Joe Biden and his band of thieves. I wish real conservatives didn't worship at the feet of a known grifter, and act like he is some bastion of conservative ideals. He's sold his soul for far less in this life, and your buying shares of it for some things he is absolutely not going to do for you or anyone else.

God help us all.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

The Warsaw Pact isn't around for a reason. Maybe you should think about that instead of a stupid hypothetical. The reason Canada and Mexico aren't aligned with China or Russia is we provide a beneficial partnership in good relations. Russia consistently doesn't.
.

---

I don't think anyone has argued that Russia is a great economic partner. (Has lot of resources but is a rusting out and corrupt place)

The point remains that if you surrounded them with a hostile military alliance then they will act in a military manner to secure their borderlands.

You can't then claim to be shocked.

DC helped overthrow the last government in Kyiv and you act like that is not an aggressive move.

Not to mention the hypocrisy of rooting ukriane on to war from the sidelines…..a bloody proxy war in which average Ukrainians pay the price for your desire to stick it to the big bad russkies

Seeing "Rich" guy ATL_Bear and "Smart" guy Trey come together in support of Ukraine brings a tear to my eye.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Seeing "Rich" guy ATL_Bear and "Smart" guy Trey come together in support of Ukraine brings a tear to my eye.

---

"I'm not racist, I just don't like people who don't look like me or think like me and I want all my political adversaries jailed!!!"

-barBearian

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Seeing "Rich" guy ATL_Bear and "Smart" guy Trey come together in support of Ukraine brings a tear to my eye.

---

"I'm not racist, I just don't like people who don't look like me….

---

I have noticed that those who throw out the racism line almost always end up living in very nice neighborhoods with majority White populations. (Maybe college educated Asians)

They also often tend to be politically progressive and female

I do wonder how many Somali & Guatemalan immigrants do you have living in your neighborhood Trey?

trey3216 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

The Warsaw Pact isn't around for a reason. Maybe you should think about that instead of a stupid hypothetical. The reason Canada and Mexico aren't aligned with China or Russia is we provide a beneficial partnership in good relations. Russia consistently doesn't.

Furthermore, we already have the proximity and fire power should we ever engage Russia to cause massive destruction. What multiplier of that even occurs with an Ukraine or Georgia? The irony is Russia's actions proving the need for a military alliance for these nations.

---

No joke.

Here's the funniest thing about a lot of the arguments out of the "way right/Trump worshippers ( when Trump has been a leftie his entire life...lol)/"real conservatives"...

-Conservatives were blasting Obama during his election, and his terms for greatly underestimating Russia, and rightfully so.
-Ukraine has been trying to get away from Russian spheres for decades, even during the Soviet era, for what Russia did to them.
-Obama let Russia walk right into Crimea without lifting a finger
-Trump started arming Ukraine post Maidan
-Ukraine gets invaded again and the US, under Obama's dribble stain Biden, drags its ass in giving them more arms and has consistently been slow to the trigger getting things done when half the crap they need is a few hours away.
-Ukraine, even though historically corrupt, is rooting out a lot of the corruption which is engrained in their society due to.....its ties, which it has been desperate to break for decades, to Russia ( which we can all, other than Sam, admit is an amazingly corrupt regime and has been for centuries)
-The Biden family has a lot of shady business ties with Ukraine, and Russia, and China. A methodical thinker could probably put one and two together and think "Perhaps the Bidens are tied more to the pro-Russian factions of Ukraine rather than the pro-west ukraine, since....you know....they also have ties to China and Russia...who are thumb in ass together on a lot of the world monopoly board".....But NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! If it says Ukraine, it means all of Ukraine!!!!! Until it doesn't!!!! Just read RedBrick's posts!!!!!

-I mean, but what about the yachts and mansions!!!!!????? Well, hate to break it to you, but that shlt has been roundly disproven and exists because those that keep spouting that shlt??? You guessed it. Frank Stall...Friedrich Stalingrad or some other Russian milblogger posted it and ran with it via his fake newspaper with AI generated "former US Military" sources.

Rinse. Repeat.


I support Ukraine wanting to fight to not be part of Russia. I hate Joe Biden and his band of thieves. I wish real conservatives didn't worship at the feet of a known grifter, and act like he is some bastion of conservative ideals. He's sold his soul for far less in this life, and your buying shares of it for some things he is absolutely not going to do for you or anyone else.

God help us all.

---

Yuuuuuup. Accurate breakdown.

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Seeing "Rich" guy ATL_Bear and "Smart" guy Trey come together in support of Ukraine brings a tear to my eye.

---

"I'm not racist, I just don't like people who don't look like me….

---

I have noticed that those who throw out the racism line almost always end up living in very nice neighborhoods with majority White populations. (Maybe college educated Asians)

They also often tend to be politically progressive and female

I do wonder how many Somali & Guatemalan immigrants do you have living in your neighborhood Trey?

---

I have a Rwandan immigrant and his sister that live 2 doors over. We have beers together several times per month.

1 next door neighbor is a black husband and hispanic wife (they have 2 kids under 3) Other next door neighbor is a white husband and black wife (just had their first child 2 months ago)

We've given both of them all of our outgrown diapers, a bunch of clothes and toys and such. Got a couple free meals of thank you for the gesture.

White husband and black wife even paid to have their fence rebuilt next door. BarBearian would be
shocked to know that there wasn't an invoice on my doorstep the next day.

Neighbor behind me is a hispanic family that moved to CenTex from LA. He asked me if I'd help him trim some tree branches that were leaning on his fence since they extended into my yard. Brought over a 12 pack and drank most of it with me while we watched my kids jump on the trampoline for an hour after we finished.

I helped white dude's redneck dad cut a tree down and chop it up a few weeks after that.



Want me to keep listing my Super Scary neighborhood of people who don't all look like me and my family?!

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Seeing "Rich" guy ATL_Bear and "Smart" guy Trey come together in support of Ukraine brings a tear to my eye.

---

"I'm not racist, I just don't like people who don't look like me….

---

I have noticed that those who throw out the racism line almost always end up living in very nice neighborhoods with majority White populations. (Maybe college educated Asians)

They also often tend to be politically progressive and female

I do wonder how many Somali & Guatemalan immigrants do you have living in your neighborhood Trey?

---

I have a Rwandan immigrant and his sister that live 2 doors over. We have beers together several times per month.

1 next door neighbor is a black husband and hispanic wife (they have 2 kids under 3) Other next door neighbor is a white husband and black wife (just had their first child 2 months ago)

We've given both of them all of our outgrown diapers, a bunch of clothes and toys and such. Got a couple free meals of thank you for the gesture.

White husband and black wife even paid to have their fence rebuilt next door. BarBearian would be
shocked to know that there wasn't an invoice on my doorstep the next day.

Neighbor behind me is a hispanic family that moved to CenTex from LA….

---

Love it.

Great to know that you walk the walk.

Because there are a lot of "in this house we believe" progressive types that run from diversity like their pants are on fire.

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Seeing "Rich" guy ATL_Bear and "Smart" guy Trey come together in support of Ukraine brings a tear to my eye.

---

"I'm not racist, I just don't like people who don't look like me….

---

I have noticed that those who throw out the racism line almost always end up living in very nice neighborhoods with majority White populations. (Maybe college educated Asians)

They also often tend to be politically progressive and female

I do wonder how many Somali & Guatemalan immigrants do you have living in your neighborhood Trey?

---

I have a Rwandan immigrant and his sister that live 2 doors over. We have beers together several times per month.

1 next door neighbor is a black husband and hispanic wife (they have 2 kids under 3) Other next door neighbor is a white husband and black wife (just had their first child 2 months ago)

We've given both of them all of our outgrown diapers, a bunch of clothes and toys and such. Got a couple free meals of thank you for the gesture.

White husband and black wife even paid to have their fence rebuilt next door. BarBearian would be
shocked to know that there wasn't an invoice on my doorstep the next day.

Neighbor behind me is a hispanic family that moved to CenTex from LA….

---

Love it.

Great to know that you walk the walk.

Because there are a lot of "in this house we believe" progressive types that run from diversity like their pants are on fire.

---

It's a good thing I'm not a progressive type.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

The Warsaw Pact isn't around for a reason. Maybe you should think about that instead of a stupid hypothetical. The reason Canada and Mexico aren't aligned with China or Russia is we provide a beneficial partnership in good relations. Russia consistently doesn't.
.

---

I don't think anyone has argued that Russia is a great economic partner. (Has lot of resources but is a rusting out and corrupt place)

The point remains that if you surrounded them with a hostile military alliance then they will act in a military manner to secure their borderlands.

You can't then claim to be shocked.

DC helped overthrow the last government in Kyiv and you act like that is not an aggressive move.

Not to mention the hypocrisy of rooting ukriane on to war from the sidelines…..a bloody proxy war in which average Ukrainians pay the price for your desire to stick it to the big bad russkies

---

Yanukovych sealed his fate when he was hell bent on imprisoning his opposition and unloaded live rounds on protesters. We were playing both sides. Heck Manafort is credited with Yanukovych's revival after he fell out of favor due to earlier electoral shenanigans, but he turned out to be the criminal he had been since a boy.

Did we want Ukraine to be part of the EU economic arrangement? Of course, as did Yanukovych until the transparency requirements would mess with his grift, and the Putin oligarchy made him a better offer. As far as interference, it was likely more about who would replace him between the options, not that Yanukovych wasn't going down.

And why wouldn't we root for a burgeoning ally getting invaded by an oppressor?

You still can't say NATO is a threat unless you admit it's because Russia is an actual threat to a potential member. In this clash of hegemony, one side showed up with an economic agreement, the other showed up with a gun and a pen and said sign here or else. Well, the or else option was played.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Seeing "Rich" guy ATL_Bear and "Smart" guy Trey come together in support of Ukraine brings a tear to my eye.

---

Better to be thought a fool than to type something out and remove all doubt.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

The Warsaw Pact isn't around for a reason. Maybe you should think about that instead of a stupid hypothetical. The reason Canada and Mexico aren't aligned with China or Russia is we provide a beneficial partnership in good relations. Russia consistently doesn't.
.

---

I don't think anyone has argued that Russia is a great economic partner. (Has lot of resources but is a rusting out and corrupt place)

The point remains that if you surrounded them with a hostile military alliance then they will act in a military manner to secure their borderlands.

You can't then claim to be shocked.

DC helped overthrow the last government in Kyiv and you act like that is not an aggressive move.

Not to mention the hypocrisy of rooting ukriane on to war from the sidelines…..a bloody proxy war in which average Ukrainians pay the price for your desire to stick it to the big bad russkies

---

And why wouldn't we root for a burgeoning ally getting invaded by an oppressor?
.

---

When did Ukriane become an ally?

When did the American people get a vote on that?

When did Ukraine join NATO?

Some people seem to think this little corrupt state on the eastern fringe of Europe has been a long time ally of the USA….

trey3216 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

The Warsaw Pact isn't around for a reason. Maybe you should think about that instead of a stupid hypothetical. The reason Canada and Mexico aren't aligned with China or Russia is we provide a beneficial partnership in good relations. Russia consistently doesn't.

Furthermore, we already have the proximity and fire power should we ever engage Russia to cause massive destruction. What multiplier of that even occurs with an Ukraine or Georgia? The irony is Russia's actions proving the need for a military alliance for these nations.

---

No joke.

Here's the funniest thing about a lot of the arguments out of the "way right/Trump worshippers ( when Trump has been a leftie his entire life...lol)/"real conservatives"...

-Conservatives were blasting Obama during his election, and his terms for greatly underestimating Russia, and rightfully so.
-Ukraine has been trying to get away from Russian spheres for decades, even during the Soviet era, for what Russia did to them.
-Obama let Russia walk right into Crimea without lifting a finger
-Trump started arming Ukraine post Maidan
-Ukraine gets invaded again and the US, under Obama's dribble stain Biden, drags its ass in giving them more arms and has consistently been slow to the trigger getting things done when half the crap they need is a few hours away.
-Ukraine, even though historically corrupt, is rooting out a lot of the corruption which is engrained in their society due to.....its ties, which it has been desperate to break for decades, to Russia ( which we can all, other than Sam, admit is an amazingly corrupt regime and has been for centuries)
-The Biden family has a lot of shady business ties with Ukraine, and Russia, and China. A methodical thinker could probably put one and two together and think "Perhaps the Bidens are tied more to the pro-Russian factions of Ukraine rather than the pro-west ukraine, since....you know....they also have ties to China and Russia...who are thumb in ass together on a lot of the world monopoly board".....But NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! If it says Ukraine, it means all of Ukraine!!!!! Until it doesn't!!!! Just read RedBrick's posts!!!!!

-I mean, but what about the yachts and mansions!!!!!????? Well, hate to break it to you, but that shlt has been roundly disproven and exists because those that keep spouting that shlt??? You guessed it. Frank Stall...Friedrich Stalingrad or some other Russian milblogger posted it and ran with it via his fake newspaper with AI generated "former US Military" sources.

Rinse. Repeat.


I support Ukraine wanting to fight to not be part of Russia. I hate Joe Biden and his band of thieves. I wish real conservatives didn't worship at the feet of a known grifter, and act like he is some bastion of conservative ideals. He's sold his soul for far less in this life, and your buying shares of it for some things he is absolutely not going to do for you or anyone else.

God help us all.

---

Bingo.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

The Warsaw Pact isn't around for a reason. Maybe you should think about that instead of a stupid hypothetical. The reason Canada and Mexico aren't aligned with China or Russia is we provide a beneficial partnership in good relations. Russia consistently doesn't.
.

---

I don't think anyone has argued that Russia is a great economic partner. (Has lot of resources but is a rusting out and corrupt place)

The point remains that if you surrounded them with a hostile military alliance then they will act in a military manner to secure their borderlands.

You can't then claim to be shocked.

DC helped overthrow the last government in Kyiv and you act like that is not an aggressive move.

Not to mention the hypocrisy of rooting ukriane on to war from the sidelines…..a bloody proxy war in which average Ukrainians pay the price for your desire to stick it to the big bad russkies

---

And why wouldn't we root for a burgeoning ally getting invaded by an oppressor?
.

---

When did Ukriane become an ally?

When did the American people get a vote on that?

When did Ukraine join NATO?

Some people seem to think this little corrupt state on the eastern fringe of Europe has been a long time ally of the USA….

---

Burgeoning
Adjective
Beginning to grow or increase rapidly.

C'mon man, let's not be obtuse.

You are like a female.

Your logic is so surface level and superficial.

I am a bad person bcs I want to limit immigration and only allow people who are willing and able to adapt to my culture so I can protect my quality of life.

Meanwhile you are a good person bcs you drank some beer, chopped down a tree, and gave away some worthless hand-me-downs to some brown people? Should we be heaping you with flowers?

This may come as a shock to you, but real life isnt some psychotic left-wing Hollywood movie. Wanting strict immigration doesnt mean you spend your weekends burning crosses in the colored part of town or dragging people behind your pick-up truck.

Strict immigration means you want to receive the same level of respect you give to others. It means not wanting people moving into your community and attempting to bully and harass you for things you and your family have been doing for generations, tearing down your cultural landmarks, and rewriting your history bcs it doesnt make them feel good.

I have pleasant interactions with people who dont look like me every day, but I dont brag about it bcs I'm not some ******* who thinks I am somehow morally superior to other people.

Just thinking about calling another person I've never met in real life racist makes me cringe so hard.

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Of course. I also knew that Mexico has never done such a thing, in any scenario, rendering your analogy silly.

You also overlook the economic and demographic benefits to Russia's policy of westward expansion (into Ukraine). Subsuming Ukraine into the Russian policy negates decades of demographic decline and drastically increases the Russian economy.

It's the oldest reason of all to go to war = you grow your economy by stealing land and people from your neighbors. In other words = exactly what the current western order was built to prevent.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Of course. I also knew that Mexico has never done such a thing, in any scenario, rendering your analogy silly.

.

---

The analogy is that demographically Mexico has a brighter future than Russia (that's an undeniable fact)

Mexico is also smart enough to not spend vast amounts of its limited GDP trying to keep up with the West in military spending….

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Subsuming Ukraine into the Russian policy negates decades of demographic decline….

It's the oldest reason of all to go to war = you grow your economy by stealing….people from your neighbors. .

---

Does it?


Ukraine is in as much of a demographic decline as Russia (if not more)

I imagine the plan is to import Africans. pic.twitter.com/gx8TaQrraT

— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) February 1, 2024

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.

---

If by torpedoing you mean matching the West's offer dollar for dollar with no IMF strings and no oppression of ethnic minorities, yeah.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

It's nice to see from your little pictures how the globalists have been the ones consistently antagonizing Russia since the fall of the USSR.

The EU's achilles heel has always been that it is resource poor and requires outside energy and materials, so annexing Russia makes a lot of sense.

The Russian people just need to survive this storm and continue to play the long game.

The EU much like the US will eventually collapse in on itself bcs useful idiots like yourself have prioritized becoming an economic zone to make a select few obscenely rich at the expense of the force multiplier gained from having a shared cultural identity. Diversity isn't a strength. Controlled integration and cultural cohesion is.

For all this handwringing about Putin being greatest Tyrant alive today, the vast majority of his people seem to support his policies. If there was a mass uprising against him, he wouldn't be able to hold the territory seized in Ukraine... that is the power of cultural unity.

---

This can't be a serious post. No one can be this stupid. For all this globalist talk, it is nuts like you that literally preach turning their back on their country in favor of an oppressive tyrant. Let me tell you something, shared culture under the threat of force isn't a shared culture, it's an enforced culture, and what they do in the Middle East, Russia and China. The fact you are even entertaining this tripe tells me how lost you are. You know where income inequality and wealth concentration is most stark? Russia, China, the Middle East, and the third world. Sure, people in Western Economies can and do get very wealthy, but at least there's a greater disbursement of participation at all levels.

This isn't about DEI, immigration, or social policy, which in principle we'd likely be in agreement on. This is literally about freedom and oppression, which you seem to favor the latter in both social and economic approaches.

---

Russia is a multi-ethnic state with a strong sense of shared culture and national identity. If that's the product of 1,000 years of more or less authoritarian rule, so be it. Most countries historically have been more authoritarian than us. One thing your travels should have taught you is that democracy is not the measure of all things.

No one actually cares what kind of government exists in Russia anyway unless profits depend on it. We've negotiated and done business with far worse people than Putin. Typically the dictator we're fighting today is the one who was on our payroll yesterday. And don't make me laugh by talking about "corruption." Our Western oligarchs would like nothing more than another Yeltsin in power. If anything Putin's problem is that he isn't corrupt enough.

---

Who are some of "our Western Oligarchs"?

And your last statement can't be that naive.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

It's nice to see from your little pictures how the globalists have been the ones consistently antagonizing Russia since the fall of the USSR.

The EU's achilles heel has always been that it is resource poor and requires outside energy and materials, so annexing Russia makes a lot of sense.

The Russian people just need to survive this storm and continue to play the long game.

The EU much like the US will eventually collapse in on itself bcs useful idiots like yourself have prioritized becoming an economic zone to make a select few obscenely rich at the expense of the force multiplier gained from having a shared cultural identity. Diversity isn't a strength. Controlled integration and cultural cohesion is.

For all this handwringing about Putin being greatest Tyrant alive today, the vast majority of his people seem to support his policies. If there was a mass uprising against him, he wouldn't be able to hold the territory seized in Ukraine... that is the power of cultural unity.

---

This can't be a serious post. No one can be this stupid. For all this globalist talk, it is nuts like you that literally preach turning their back on their country in favor of an oppressive tyrant. Let me tell you something, shared culture under the threat of force isn't a shared culture, it's an enforced culture, and what they do in the Middle East, Russia and China. The fact you are even entertaining this tripe tells me how lost you are. You know where income inequality and wealth concentration is most stark? Russia, China, the Middle East, and the third world. Sure, people in Western Economies can and do get very wealthy, but at least there's a greater disbursement of participation at all levels.

This isn't about DEI, immigration, or social policy, which in principle we'd likely be in agreement on. This is literally about freedom and oppression, which you seem to favor the latter in both social and economic approaches.

---

Russia is a multi-ethnic state with a strong sense of shared culture and national identity. If that's the product of 1,000 years of more or less authoritarian rule, so be it. Most countries historically have been more authoritarian than us. One thing your travels should have taught you is that democracy is not the measure of all things.

No one actually cares what kind of government exists in Russia anyway unless profits depend on it. We've negotiated and done business with far worse people than Putin. Typically the dictator we're fighting today is the one who was on our payroll yesterday. And don't make me laugh by talking about "corruption." Our Western oligarchs would like nothing more than another Yeltsin in power. If anything Putin's problem is that he isn't corrupt enough.

---

Who are some of "our Western Oligarchs"?

And your last statement can't be that naive.

---

Surely you don't think the West is without Oligarchs? Now who is being naive....


[Anyone who thinks of oligarchs as a strictly post-Soviet phenomenon should reflect that the original definition comes from Aristotle, writing nearly 2,400 years ago: "Wherever men rule by reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many, that is an oligarchy." Oligarchs are an eternal type that is now proliferating worldwide, West as well as East. ]


https://www.ft.com/content/1da1da6b-9410-4ab5-a295-f3a9e48f9977


[The book distinguishes various types of oligarchs. "Business oligarchs" like Musk turn wealth into political power, while "political oligarchs" go the other way. A classic example of the latter, says the book, is Vladimir Putin, "a billionaire with nuclear weapons". Oligarch presidents have decision-making power, oligarch influencers such as Rupert Murdoch, Charles Koch and George Soros set agendas, while platform owners such as Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Google's Larry Page have rewired the information streams that flow into our brains.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

It's nice to see from your little pictures how the globalists have been the ones consistently antagonizing Russia since the fall of the USSR.

The EU's achilles heel has always been that it is resource poor and requires outside energy and materials, so annexing Russia makes a lot of sense.

The Russian people just need to survive this storm and continue to play the long game.

The EU much like the US will eventually collapse in on itself bcs useful idiots like yourself have prioritized becoming an economic zone to make a select few obscenely rich at the expense of the force multiplier gained from having a shared cultural identity. Diversity isn't a strength. Controlled integration and cultural cohesion is.

For all this handwringing about Putin being greatest Tyrant alive today, the vast majority of his people seem to support his policies. If there was a mass uprising against him, he wouldn't be able to hold the territory seized in Ukraine... that is the power of cultural unity.

---

This can't be a serious post. No one can be this stupid. For all this globalist talk, it is nuts like you that literally preach turning their back on their country in favor of an oppressive tyrant. Let me tell you something, shared culture under the threat of force isn't a shared culture, it's an enforced culture, and what they do in the Middle East, Russia and China. The fact you are even entertaining this tripe tells me how lost you are. You know where income inequality and wealth concentration is most stark? Russia, China, the Middle East, and the third world. Sure, people in Western Economies can and do get very wealthy, but at least there's a greater disbursement of participation at all levels.

This isn't about DEI, immigration, or social policy, which in principle we'd likely be in agreement on. This is literally about freedom and oppression, which you seem to favor the latter in both social and economic approaches.

---

Russia is a multi-ethnic state with a strong sense of shared culture and national identity. If that's the product of 1,000 years of more or less authoritarian rule, so be it. Most countries historically have been more authoritarian than us. One thing your travels should have taught you is that democracy is not the measure of all things.

No one actually cares what kind of government exists in Russia anyway unless profits depend on it. We've negotiated and done business with far worse people than Putin. Typically the dictator we're fighting today is the one who was on our payroll yesterday. And don't make me laugh by talking about "corruption." Our Western oligarchs would like nothing more than another Yeltsin in power. If anything Putin's problem is that he isn't corrupt enough.

---

Who are some of "our Western Oligarchs"?

And your last statement can't be that naive.

---

Surely you don't think the West is without Oligarchs? Now who is being naive....


[Anyone who thinks of oligarchs as a strictly post-Soviet phenomenon should reflect that the original definition comes from Aristotle, writing nearly 2,400 years ago: "Wherever men rule by reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many, that is an oligarchy." Oligarchs are an eternal type that is now proliferating worldwide, West as well as East. ]


https://www.ft.com/content/1da1da6b-9410-4ab5-a295-f3a9e48f9977


[The book distinguishes various types of oligarchs. "Business oligarchs" like Musk turn wealth into political power, while "political oligarchs" go the other way. A classic example of the latter, says the book, is Vladimir Putin, "a billionaire with nuclear weapons". Oligarch presidents have decision-making power, oligarch influencers such as Rupert Murdoch, Charles Koch and George Soros set agendas, while platform owners such as Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Google's Larry Page have rewired the information streams that flow into our brains.]

---

That seems to confuse the role of money in Western politics with oligarchy. It's just a backhanded way of demonizing the role of wealth and industry. If that's the definition of oligarchy, then the oligarchs are lobbying groups. The American Hospital Association has a hell of a lot more political influence than Mark Zuckerberg or Charles Koch.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

It's nice to see from your little pictures how the globalists have been the ones consistently antagonizing Russia since the fall of the USSR.

The EU's achilles heel has always been that it is resource poor and requires outside energy and materials, so annexing Russia makes a lot of sense.

The Russian people just need to survive this storm and continue to play the long game.

The EU much like the US will eventually collapse in on itself bcs useful idiots like yourself have prioritized becoming an economic zone to make a select few obscenely rich at the expense of the force multiplier gained from having a shared cultural identity. Diversity isn't a strength. Controlled integration and cultural cohesion is.

For all this handwringing about Putin being greatest Tyrant alive today, the vast majority of his people seem to support his policies. If there was a mass uprising against him, he wouldn't be able to hold the territory seized in Ukraine... that is the power of cultural unity.

---

This can't be a serious post. No one can be this stupid. For all this globalist talk, it is nuts like you that literally preach turning their back on their country in favor of an oppressive tyrant. Let me tell you something, shared culture under the threat of force isn't a shared culture, it's an enforced culture, and what they do in the Middle East, Russia and China. The fact you are even entertaining this tripe tells me how lost you are. You know where income inequality and wealth concentration is most stark? Russia, China, the Middle East, and the third world. Sure, people in Western Economies can and do get very wealthy, but at least there's a greater disbursement of participation at all levels.

This isn't about DEI, immigration, or social policy, which in principle we'd likely be in agreement on. This is literally about freedom and oppression, which you seem to favor the latter in both social and economic approaches.

---

Russia is a multi-ethnic state with a strong sense of shared culture and national identity. If that's the product of 1,000 years of more or less authoritarian rule, so be it. Most countries historically have been more authoritarian than us. One thing your travels should have taught you is that democracy is not the measure of all things.

No one actually cares what kind of government exists in Russia anyway unless profits depend on it. We've negotiated and done business with far worse people than Putin. Typically the dictator we're fighting today is the one who was on our payroll yesterday. And don't make me laugh by talking about "corruption." Our Western oligarchs would like nothing more than another Yeltsin in power. If anything Putin's problem is that he isn't corrupt enough.

---

Who are some of "our Western Oligarchs"?

And your last statement can't be that naive.

---

I believe our government has been gradually bought by foreign countries. I think the folly of the Iraq war and the 2008 recession poured gasoline on this when we printed our way out and diluted the life savings, which also represents the political power, of every American.

America's oligarchs are Israel, Saudi Arabia, & China. These are the three most powerful countries in the world and it shows by how our domestic and foreign policy is design around appeasing them.

An incomplete list of western oligarchs:

Bill Gates, Larry Fink, Laurene Powell Jobs, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bob Iger...

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Of course. I also knew that Mexico has never done such a thing, in any scenario, rendering your analogy silly.

.

---

The analogy is that demographically Mexico has a brighter future than Russia (that's an undeniable fact)

Mexico is also smart enough to not spend vast amounts of its limited GDP trying to keep up with the West in military spending….

---

Sadly, Russia is doing the opposite.
(you walked right into that one....)

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Subsuming Ukraine into the Russian policy negates decades of demographic decline….

It's the oldest reason of all to go to war = you grow your economy by stealing….people from your neighbors. .

---

Does it?


Ukraine is in as much of a demographic decline as Russia (if not more)

I imagine the plan is to import Africans. pic.twitter.com/gx8TaQrraT

— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) February 1, 2024

---

macroecomics 101......

It bumps the Russian population by 40m. It adds significant resources and industries. Russian GDP jumps immediately to a higher plateau. New warm-water ports, new markets, new investment opportunities (China will do the rebuild instead of the EU), better control of oil/gas export infrastructure. If one looks at Russia and Ukraine as a single entity, Ukraine is the most desirable part of that entity. None of it above the Arctic circle. None of it permafrost. None of it desert. 100% of Ukraine is arable, livable, developable, etc..... (could go on a bit with examples of why Russia wants Ukraine so badly).

Even if the demographic decline continues, which it likely would after a few years, the baseline is set far higher, extending out the timeframe of available economic and military power.

And, of course, to stave off that decline further out into the future, Russia could also subsume Belarus. (almost certain to happen at some point.) And then a few years later, something else......

It's what expansionist powers do - try to expand.
It's what Russia does - try to expand.
They never work terribly hard at internal improvements. They think zero-sum and look to steal from others.

Isolationism tends to limit the thought process, starting with the faulty premise that what happens abroad matters not to us.......

Realitybites said:

---

An incomplete list of western oligarchs:

Bill Gates, Larry Fink, Laurene Powell Jobs, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bob Iger...

---

there's always been a list of profoundly wealthy and powerful people.
Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, Mellon, Astor, etc....

What has changed, though, is that the older classes of oligarchs mostly had to do some industry building to get their wealth. There's a fair bit of rent-seeking going on in this newer class.


Politics and wealth have always been bedfellows. What matters is the rules of the relationships. We've done better than most, although we do need to remember what anti-trust statutes are for and how to use them for common good.

This can't be a serious post, at least as I understand it. Have you spent much time in Russia or do business there?

Russian oligarchs have virtually nothing in common with the Musks, Bezos, Zuckerbergs, Kochs, or other U.S. billionaires.

Russian oligarchs
- invented nothing
- built nothing from ground up
- Putin and his predecessors gave them their wealth
- most are friends or family members of Putin and other high-ranking officials
- they pledge complete support to Putin; actively work on his behalf domestically and internationally
- Putin not only leaves them alone but actively assists them.
- nascent competition quashed
- tied to organized crime
- involved in military matters
- complete immunity re: local laws

U.S. billionaires
- built and/or invented something
- all over the political spectrum
- not tied to organized crime
- constantly targeted by our government - FTC, IRS, NLRB, EEOC, EPA, SEC, DOL, FCPA, NHTSA
- not involved in military matters

sombear said:

---

U.S. billionaires
- built and/or invented something
- all over the political spectrum
- not tied to organized crime
- constantly targeted by our government - FTC, IRS, NLRB, EEOC, EPA, SEC, DOL, FCPA, NHTSA
- not involved in military matters

---

Go read volume I and II of "One Nation Under Blackmail" and you'll see just how inaccurate these assertions are, and have been for maybe 75-100 years (getting increasingly worse over time). As far as all over the political spectrum, with maybe a handful of exceptions they are all partisan democrats.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Subsuming Ukraine into the Russian policy negates decades of demographic decline….

It's the oldest reason of all to go to war = you grow your economy by stealing….people from your neighbors. .

---

Does it?


Ukraine is in as much of a demographic decline as Russia (if not more)

I imagine the plan is to import Africans. pic.twitter.com/gx8TaQrraT

— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) February 1, 2024

---

macroecomics 101......

It bumps the Russian population by 40m. It adds significant resources and industries. Russian GDP jumps immediately to a higher plateau. New warm-water ports, new markets, new investment opportunities (China will do the rebuild instead of the EU), better control of oil/gas export infrastructure. If one looks at Russia and Ukraine as a single entity, Ukraine is the most desirable part of that entity. None of it above the Arctic circle. None of it permafrost. None of it desert. 100% of Ukraine is arable, livable, developable, etc..... (could go on a bit with examples of why Russia wants Ukraine so badly).

Even if the demographic decline continues, which it likely would after a few years, the baseline is set far higher, extending out the timeframe of available economic and military power.

And, of course, to stave off that decline further out into the future, Russia could also subsume Belarus. (almost certain to happen at some point.) And then a few years later, something else......

It's what expansionist powers do - try to expand.
It's what Russia does - try to expand.
They never work terribly hard at internal improvements. They think zero-sum and look to steal from others.

Isolationism tends to limit the thought process, starting with the faulty premise that what happens abroad matters not to us.......

---

All those benefits are going to blackrock's $400B investment plan for Ukraine. Plus any other western entities that want the spoils of war.

Makes it much more lucrative the more dead Ukrainian men there are.

Ukraine has large swaths of the most fertile farmland in the world, 41 million hectares of agricultural land, 33 million hectares of which are arable equivalent to one-third of all arable land in the European Union.

It was obvious from the jump that America is determined to kill off all the indigenous male population of Ukraine.

Those men are tough, they have militias and battalions and are dangerous to the incoming corporate regime.

Ukrainians are being American Indian'ized. Let Ukraine clear out a little more, then resettle all the Palestinians refugees there. Give them all the unoccupied homes & businesses. Simple.

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

An incomplete list of western oligarchs:

Bill Gates, Larry Fink, Laurene Powell Jobs, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bob Iger...

---

there's always been a list of profoundly wealthy and powerful people.
Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, Mellon, Astor, etc....

What has changed, though, is that the older classes of oligarchs mostly had to do some industry building to get their wealth...

---

They also tended to be pretty patriotic and civic minded.

Carnegie helped build a high quality university in Pittsburgh (Carnegie-Mellon) and founded a lot of libraries in small to middle size towns all over America.

[the 1880s he'd built an empire in steel and then gave it all away: $60 million to fund a system of 1,689 public libraries across the country]

While Bezos is building a $500 million dollar mega yacht, partying with his skanky girlfriend in Miami, and funding the failing Washington Post and its far left cultural agenda.

I don't even know what Zuckerberg is doing other than building a massive semi-secret compound in Hawaii that makes you think he is planning for societal break down and plans on bugging out with his family and hangers on.

We just don't have the oligarchs we used to….