whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

There you go with the conspiracy theories again. No one is attributing omniscience to the US. We did a lot more than just speak to the opposition, though. We essentially created them and gave them the green light by signaling our continued support.

And LOL at "what is the CIA used for?" No doubt the Nuland call is just the tip of the iceberg. We all know what the CIA does, but try getting ATL to admit it.

---

There you go with the conspiracy again.

Don't opposition parties exist in all democratic countries? (Yes). Did we create ALL of those, too? (No). Didn't Ukrainian elections show swings from one party to the other? (Yes). So isn't it in fact true that there has been a Ukrainian opposition party in existence continuously since independence from the USSR? (Obviously).

You are making shyte up to support a predetermined conclusion.

---

One straw man after another. No, obviously we did not create all opposition parties in all countries.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

It's frankly hard to debate because as you and I both know Sam and others in here project capabilities and actions on people and events that are so far removed from the possibility of occurring it's borderline fantasy.

---

None of the facts are in serious dispute. I imagine it is hard to debate when your only rebuttal is "nuh-UHHH!"

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

She's a problem solver. She shows up, and within a few weeks, she's indispensable. Every time I see Coach Teaff, he asks "how's the General?" (meaning you could see it very early on.....the proverbial born leader.)

GBs are the closest equivalent we have to the "little green men" that destabilized the Donbas. Stereotypically they'll be somewhere in injun country coaching auxilliaries to keep adversaries off balance, usually in deniable scenarios, so not always afforded the air & indirect fire support the SEALS can usually count on. Requires resourcefulness, discretion, ability to build trust with the locals for long periods of time (usually in foreign language), and above all keen wits and a very cool head. You have much to be proud about there.

---

All nice .

But you clearly described her as on the 'front lines' of the war.

None if this fits such a description.

Now do you have every right to be proud of your daughter's service and contributions ?

Absolutely.

---

Not once have I said anyone has been in combat. I've been very clear where our military is: they're standing to arms to deter Russia from escalating their war against a defacto ally into Nato or anywhere else. This is quite a bit more serious than the Cold War. There never was a full-scale war in Europe during the CW. In those days, a border patrol was just a border patrol. Now, we are literally doing CAPs along the perimeter of the war zone, playing chicken wing-tip to wing-tip with a party directly involved that war. We are on a war footing and have been since Putin invaded.

When you're gassing up an F-16 and signing your name on a sidewinder to go flash at a Fulcrum, you're on the ramparts/front-lines. and that is the case for many thousands of our military servicemen & women, any one of whom could be dodging Kinzhals tomorrow.

---

Front lines clearly implies combat .


Fueling up aircraft hundreds of miles away from the **** isn't front line anything.

Again, is your daughter to be respected……YES.

Is there a world of difference between her situation and some US special forces operatives in the mud with Ukrainian units dodging local drone strikes ?

---

If there were US soldiers in Ukraine they wouldn't be special forces, unless embassy or other special purpose. And if there were U.S. special forces in Ukraine they wouldn't be on front lines as that's not their thing.

---

There have been US troops in Ukraine engaged in combat operations for many months .

This is how it's always been done.

WW2 Roosevelt had the US Navy escorting British merchant ships halfway to England . The British Navy would then escort the ships the rest of the way . In the process US warships would routinely attack any German submarines that approached such convoys. Finally the Germans got permission to attack US warships . Two US destroyers were torpedoed. One was sunk . Over a hundred US sailors were killed. This undeclared war against Germany went on for months. And the American public was only dimly aware of it as Roosevelt knew the American people wanted no part of another European war after the WW1 debacle. After Pearl Harbor The US enters WW2.
Four years later and with over 500,000 US dead the Soviet Union dominates Eastern Europe and the communists take over China.

Korean War : weakly equipped, poorly trained , US army units are positioned as a 'trip wire ' to forestall North Korea from attacking the South. Exactly WHY it was US policy to be in Korea at all remains unclear . Irregardless North Korea attacked ; killing thousands of US GI's and almost driving them completely off the peninsula. War drags on for over 3 years with over 33,000 US servicemen killed.


Vietnam: first just aid, then advisors , then 500,000 US troops inserted into the country . Over 8 years later the US pulls out of Vietnam in total defeat after suffering over 53,000 dead.

Iraq

Afghanistan

The list goes on and on .



Yet here we go still again. Risking WW3 with Russia. The country with the largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet. Over Ukraine; a country that the US has historically ignored.


Best part ?

We are risking war while the US is nominally lead by the oldest president in US history.

Yes sir folks ; a man exhibiting clear signs of dementia, has inserted US troops into Ukraine.

Yet their are idiots who insist Biden has 'earned their vote'.

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

Good information.


Didn't realize the Green Berets were still active units .
But if so, they are almost always in the **** .

---

They call them Army Rangers now.

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

She's a problem solver. She shows up, and within a few weeks, she's indispensable. Every time I see Coach Teaff, he asks "how's the General?" (meaning you could see it very early on.....the proverbial born leader.)

GBs are the closest equivalent we have to the "little green men" that destabilized the Donbas. Stereotypically they'll be somewhere in injun country coaching auxilliaries to keep adversaries off balance, usually in deniable scenarios, so not always afforded the air & indirect fire support the SEALS can usually count on. Requires resourcefulness, discretion, ability to build trust with the locals for long periods of time (usually in foreign language), and above all keen wits and a very cool head. You have much to be proud about there.

---

All nice .

But you clearly described her as on the 'front lines' of the war.

None if this fits such a description.

Now do you have every right to be proud of your daughter's service and contributions ?

Absolutely.

---

Not once have I said anyone has been in combat. I've been very clear where our military is: they're standing to arms to deter Russia from escalating their war against a defacto ally into Nato or anywhere else. This is quite a bit more serious than the Cold War. There never was a full-scale war in Europe during the CW. In those days, a border patrol was just a border patrol. Now, we are literally doing CAPs along the perimeter of the war zone, playing chicken wing-tip to wing-tip with a party directly involved that war. We are on a war footing and have been since Putin invaded.

When you're gassing up an F-16 and signing your name on a sidewinder to go flash at a Fulcrum, you're on the ramparts/front-lines. and that is the case for many thousands of our military servicemen & women, any one of whom could be dodging Kinzhals tomorrow.

---

Front lines clearly implies combat .


Fueling up aircraft hundreds of miles away from the **** isn't front line anything.

Again, is your daughter to be respected……YES.

Is there a world of difference between her situation and some US special forces operatives in the mud with Ukrainian units dodging local drone strikes ?

---

If there were US soldiers in Ukraine they wouldn't be special forces, unless embassy or other special purpose. And if there were U.S. special forces in Ukraine they wouldn't be on front lines as that's not their thing.

---

There have been US troops in Ukraine engaged in combat operations for many months .

This is how it's always been done.

WW2 Roosevelt had the US Navy escorting British merchant ships halfway to England . The British Navy would then escort the ships the rest of the way . In the process US warships would routinely attack any German submarines that approached such convoys. Finally the Germans got permission to attack US warships . Two US destroyers were torpedoed. One was sunk . Over a hundred US sailors were killed. This undeclared war against Germany went on for months. And the American public was only dimly aware of it as Roosevelt knew the American people wanted no part of another European war after the WW1 debacle. After Pearl Harbor The US enters WW2.
Four years later and with over 500,000 US dead the Soviet Union dominates Eastern Europe and the communists take over China.

Korean War : weakly equipped, poorly trained , US army units are positioned as a 'trip wire ' to forestall North Korea from attacking the South. Exactly WHY it was US policy to be in Korea at all remains unclear . Irregardless North Korea attacked ; killing thousands of US GI's and almost driving them completely off the peninsula. War drags on for over 3 years with over 33,000 US servicemen killed.


Vietnam: first just aid, then advisors , then 500,000 US troops inserted into the country . Over 8 years later the US pulls out of Vietnam in total defeat after suffering over 53,000 dead.

Iraq

Afghanistan

The list goes on and on .



Yet here we go still again. Risking WW3 with Russia. The country with the largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet. Over Ukraine; a country that the US has historically ignored.


Best part ?

We are risking war while the US is nominally lead by the oldest president in US history.

Yes sir folks ; a man exhibiting clear signs of dementia, has inserted US troops into Ukraine.

Yet their are idiots who insist Biden has 'earned their vote'.

---

I do disagree with you on some of this, being advisors is the SF job. Freedom of Navigation is the job of the Navy. Our presence in the Horn of Africa, is needed for anti-piracy. Patrolling the Straits of Homuz is needed. Like Marines guarding embassies, that is the job...

The "wars" and us doing nation building, Ok. I can go there. But the rest, even having advisors in Ukraine, is the job.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters).

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

I can understand your view. (And I hope your daughter remains safe)

But without the direct intervention of NATO ground troops how is this war to be won?

Ukraine is getting vast amounts of gear, weapons, and cash payments…..but it's manpower they lack.

Without NATO getting directly into the fighting what's the end game here?

---

you have it completely ass-backwards.

---

They have the manpower but not the gear?

[Ukraine The Ukrainian military is facing a critical shortage of infantry, leading to exhaustion and diminished morale on the front line, military personnel in the field said this week a perilous new dynamic for Kyiv nearly two years into the grinding, bloody war with Russia.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/ukraine-soldiers-shortage-infantry-russia/#

---

Read that article closely and see what it says about the age of conscription.

Manpower is not the limiting factor. Ammo is.

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

She's a problem solver. She shows up, and within a few weeks, she's indispensable. Every time I see Coach Teaff, he asks "how's the General?" (meaning you could see it very early on.....the proverbial born leader.)

GBs are the closest equivalent we have to the "little green men" that destabilized the Donbas. Stereotypically they'll be somewhere in injun country coaching auxilliaries to keep adversaries off balance, usually in deniable scenarios, so not always afforded the air & indirect fire support the SEALS can usually count on. Requires resourcefulness, discretion, ability to build trust with the locals for long periods of time (usually in foreign language), and above all keen wits and a very cool head. You have much to be proud about there.

---

All nice .

But you clearly described her as on the 'front lines' of the war.

None if this fits such a description.

Now do you have every right to be proud of your daughter's service and contributions ?

Absolutely.

---

Not once have I said anyone has been in combat. I've been very clear where our military is: they're standing to arms to deter Russia from escalating their war against a defacto ally into Nato or anywhere else. This is quite a bit more serious than the Cold War. There never was a full-scale war in Europe during the CW. In those days, a border patrol was just a border patrol. Now, we are literally doing CAPs along the perimeter of the war zone, playing chicken wing-tip to wing-tip with a party directly involved that war. We are on a war footing and have been since Putin invaded.

When you're gassing up an F-16 and signing your name on a sidewinder to go flash at a Fulcrum, you're on the ramparts/front-lines. and that is the case for many thousands of our military servicemen & women, any one of whom could be dodging Kinzhals tomorrow.

---

Front lines clearly implies combat .


Fueling up aircraft hundreds of miles away from the **** isn't front line anything.

Again, is your daughter to be respected……YES.

Is there a world of difference between her situation and some US special forces operatives in the mud with Ukrainian units dodging local drone strikes ?

---

If there were US soldiers in Ukraine they wouldn't be special forces, unless embassy or other special purpose. And if there were U.S. special forces in Ukraine they wouldn't be on front lines as that's not their thing.

---

There have been US troops in Ukraine engaged in combat operations for many months .

This is how it's always been done.

WW2 Roosevelt had the US Navy escorting British merchant ships halfway to England . The British Navy would then escort the ships the rest of the way . In the process US warships would routinely attack any German submarines that approached such convoys. Finally the Germans got permission to attack US warships . Two US destroyers were torpedoed. One was sunk . Over a hundred US sailors were killed. This undeclared war against Germany went on for months. And the American public was only dimly aware of it as Roosevelt knew the American people wanted no part of another European war after the WW1 debacle. After Pearl Harbor The US enters WW2.
Four years later and with over 500,000 US dead the Soviet Union dominates Eastern Europe and the communists take over China.

Korean War : weakly equipped, poorly trained , US army units are positioned as a 'trip wire ' to forestall North Korea from attacking the South. Exactly WHY it was US policy to be in Korea at all remains unclear . Irregardless North Korea attacked ; killing thousands of US GI's and almost driving them completely off the peninsula. War drags on for over 3 years with over 33,000 US servicemen killed.


Vietnam: first just aid, then advisors , then 500,000 US troops inserted into the country . Over 8 years later the US pulls out of Vietnam in total defeat after suffering over 53,000 dead.

Iraq

Afghanistan

The list goes on and on .



Yet here we go still again. Risking WW3 with Russia. The country with the largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet. Over Ukraine; a country that the US has historically ignored.


Best part ?

We are risking war while the US is nominally lead by the oldest president in US history.

Yes sir folks ; a man exhibiting clear signs of dementia, has inserted US troops into Ukraine.

Yet their are idiots who insist Biden has 'earned their vote'.

---

ATL is correct about GB. Their mission is unconventional warfare, not trench warfare. I.E. who trained the Ukr Army how to use small unit tactics to take out Russian armored columns?

That is not to say they're never in a war zone or don't get shot at or anything like that….. "advisors" can very much find themselves in the hot stuff. But the need for deniability means there are layers of efforts to stay out of the limelight.

That is all quite a contrast with SEALS who have a different mission that will attract attention.

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

Good information.


Didn't realize the Green Berets were still active units .
But if so, they are almost always in the **** .

---

They call them Army Rangers now.

---

Army Rangers go back to WW2.

Not positive, but I believe it was under the Obama administration that the Green Berets might have been inactivated.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

There you go with the conspiracy theories again. No one is attributing omniscience to the US. We did a lot more than just speak to the opposition, though. We essentially created them and gave them the green light by signaling our continued support.

And LOL at "what is the CIA used for?" No doubt the Nuland call is just the tip of the iceberg. We all know what the CIA does, but try getting ATL to admit it.

---

There you go with the conspiracy again.

Don't opposition parties exist in all democratic countries? (Yes). Did we create ALL of those, too? (No). Didn't Ukrainian elections show swings from one party to the other? (Yes). So isn't it in fact true that there has been a Ukrainian opposition party in existence continuously since independence from the USSR? (Obviously).

You are making shyte up to support a predetermined conclusion.

---

One straw man after another. No, obviously we did not create all opposition parties in all countries.

---

I didn't create any strawmen, just torched yours by illustrating that your example is unremarkable given that what you cited is a core function of diplomacy and done everywhere.

We created neither a Ukrainian opposition, nor a coup to depose a Ukrainian regime.

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

Good information.


Didn't realize the Green Berets were still active units .
But if so, they are almost always in the **** .

---

They call them Army Rangers now.

---

Army Rangers go back to WW2.

Not positive, but I believe it was under the Obama administration that the Green Berets might have been inactivated.

---

Army Rangers (75th Inf Reg) are not "Green Berets". They are expert infantry, commando, shock troops. They are the elite Infantry unit of the Army. Rangers are conventional small unit fighting force.

"Green Berets" is Special Forces (SF), they are advisor, force multiplier, and some commando skills. But their main job is going in and training US allies, force multiplier. If we have advisors, they are typically SF. That is what they do. SF is unconventional. Different skill set.

SF has not been inactivated

1st Group - Ft Lewis Asia
5th Group - Ft Campbell Middle East, Africa
7th Group - Ft Bragg South and Central America, Caribbean
10th Group - Ft Carson Europe

I do not believe there are any others that are on active duty. 20th SF is in FL AR.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

She's a problem solver. She shows up, and within a few weeks, she's indispensable. Every time I see Coach Teaff, he asks "how's the General?" (meaning you could see it very early on.....the proverbial born leader.)

GBs are the closest equivalent we have to the "little green men" that destabilized the Donbas. Stereotypically they'll be somewhere in injun country coaching auxilliaries to keep adversaries off balance, usually in deniable scenarios, so not always afforded the air & indirect fire support the SEALS can usually count on. Requires resourcefulness, discretion, ability to build trust with the locals for long periods of time (usually in foreign language), and above all keen wits and a very cool head. You have much to be proud about there.

---

All nice .

But you clearly described her as on the 'front lines' of the war.

None if this fits such a description.

Now do you have every right to be proud of your daughter's service and contributions ?

Absolutely.

---

Not once have I said anyone has been in combat. I've been very clear where our military is: they're standing to arms to deter Russia from escalating their war against a defacto ally into Nato or anywhere else. This is quite a bit more serious than the Cold War. There never was a full-scale war in Europe during the CW. In those days, a border patrol was just a border patrol. Now, we are literally doing CAPs along the perimeter of the war zone, playing chicken wing-tip to wing-tip with a party directly involved that war. We are on a war footing and have been since Putin invaded.

When you're gassing up an F-16 and signing your name on a sidewinder to go flash at a Fulcrum, you're on the ramparts/front-lines. and that is the case for many thousands of our military servicemen & women, any one of whom could be dodging Kinzhals tomorrow.

---

Front lines clearly implies combat .


Fueling up aircraft hundreds of miles away from the **** isn't front line anything.

Again, is your daughter to be respected……YES.

Is there a world of difference between her situation and some US special forces operatives in the mud with Ukrainian units dodging local drone strikes ?

---

If there were US soldiers in Ukraine they wouldn't be special forces, unless embassy or other special purpose. And if there were U.S. special forces in Ukraine they wouldn't be on front lines as that's not their thing.

---

There have been US troops in Ukraine engaged in combat operations for many months .

This is how it's always been done.

WW2 Roosevelt had the US Navy escorting British merchant ships halfway to England . The British Navy would then escort the ships the rest of the way . In the process US warships would routinely attack any German submarines that approached such convoys. Finally the Germans got permission to attack US warships . Two US destroyers were torpedoed. One was sunk . Over a hundred US sailors were killed. This undeclared war against Germany went on for months. And the American public was only dimly aware of it as Roosevelt knew the American people wanted no part of another European war after the WW1 debacle. After Pearl Harbor The US enters WW2.
Four years later and with over 500,000 US dead the Soviet Union dominates Eastern Europe and the communists take over China.

Korean War : weakly equipped, poorly trained , US army units are positioned as a 'trip wire ' to forestall North Korea from attacking the South. Exactly WHY it was US policy to be in Korea at all remains unclear . Irregardless North Korea attacked ; killing thousands of US GI's and almost driving them completely off the peninsula. War drags on for over 3 years with over 33,000 US servicemen killed.


Vietnam: first just aid, then advisors , then 500,000 US troops inserted into the country . Over 8 years later the US pulls out of Vietnam in total defeat after suffering over 53,000 dead.

Iraq

Afghanistan

The list goes on and on .



Yet here we go still again. Risking WW3 with Russia. The country with the largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet. Over Ukraine; a country that the US has historically ignored.


Best part ?

We are risking war while the US is nominally lead by the oldest president in US history.

Yes sir folks ; a man exhibiting clear signs of dementia, has inserted US troops into Ukraine.

Yet their are idiots who insist Biden has 'earned their vote'.

---

I do disagree with you on some of this, being advisors is the SF job. Freedom of Navigation is the job of the Navy. Our presence in the Horn of Africa, is needed for anti-piracy. Patrolling the Straits of Homuz is needed. Like Marines guarding embassies, that is the job...

The "wars" and us doing nation building, Ok. I can go there. But the rest, even having advisors in Ukraine, is the job.

---

The American people have routinely been lied to and dragged step by step into foreign wars against their will. It always starts with 'advisors'.

It is happening still again today.

Except this time involving a country possessing the world's largest stockpile of hydrogen bombs .


It doesn't get any stupider than that .

Now the architect of this insanity , who is already the oldest president in US history.; dares to demand reelection.

And there are millions of full on idiots, blissfully ignorant of the situation , who declare how Biden has 'earned their vote '.

Absolutely incredible.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

She's a problem solver. She shows up, and within a few weeks, she's indispensable. Every time I see Coach Teaff, he asks "how's the General?" (meaning you could see it very early on.....the proverbial born leader.)

GBs are the closest equivalent we have to the "little green men" that destabilized the Donbas. Stereotypically they'll be somewhere in injun country coaching auxilliaries to keep adversaries off balance, usually in deniable scenarios, so not always afforded the air & indirect fire support the SEALS can usually count on. Requires resourcefulness, discretion, ability to build trust with the locals for long periods of time (usually in foreign language), and above all keen wits and a very cool head. You have much to be proud about there.

---

All nice .

But you clearly described her as on the 'front lines' of the war.

None if this fits such a description.

Now do you have every right to be proud of your daughter's service and contributions ?

Absolutely.

---

Not once have I said anyone has been in combat. I've been very clear where our military is: they're standing to arms to deter Russia from escalating their war against a defacto ally into Nato or anywhere else. This is quite a bit more serious than the Cold War. There never was a full-scale war in Europe during the CW. In those days, a border patrol was just a border patrol. Now, we are literally doing CAPs along the perimeter of the war zone, playing chicken wing-tip to wing-tip with a party directly involved that war. We are on a war footing and have been since Putin invaded.

When you're gassing up an F-16 and signing your name on a sidewinder to go flash at a Fulcrum, you're on the ramparts/front-lines. and that is the case for many thousands of our military servicemen & women, any one of whom could be dodging Kinzhals tomorrow.

---

Front lines clearly implies combat .


Fueling up aircraft hundreds of miles away from the **** isn't front line anything.

Again, is your daughter to be respected……YES.

Is there a world of difference between her situation and some US special forces operatives in the mud with Ukrainian units dodging local drone strikes ?

---

You can waive that strawman around all you want, but I've been very clear that "front lines" and "ramparts" refer to NATO not Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine has NATO somewhere between DEFCON 2 and DDEFCON 3 = a partial war footing. The eastern border of Eastern Europe is the front line. It is literally being patrolled with live ammo. We are increasing troop presence there. Building logistical footprints, preparing for new bases. The fact that we have troops in Ukraine covertly does not change that fundamental construction. Those troops are advisors to a foreign conflict, not official combatants.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

She's a problem solver. She shows up, and within a few weeks, she's indispensable. Every time I see Coach Teaff, he asks "how's the General?" (meaning you could see it very early on.....the proverbial born leader.)

GBs are the closest equivalent we have to the "little green men" that destabilized the Donbas. Stereotypically they'll be somewhere in injun country coaching auxilliaries to keep adversaries off balance, usually in deniable scenarios, so not always afforded the air & indirect fire support the SEALS can usually count on. Requires resourcefulness, discretion, ability to build trust with the locals for long periods of time (usually in foreign language), and above all keen wits and a very cool head. You have much to be proud about there.

---

All nice .

But you clearly described her as on the 'front lines' of the war.

None if this fits such a description.

Now do you have every right to be proud of your daughter's service and contributions ?

Absolutely.

---

Not once have I said anyone has been in combat. I've been very clear where our military is: they're standing to arms to deter Russia from escalating their war against a defacto ally into Nato or anywhere else. This is quite a bit more serious than the Cold War. There never was a full-scale war in Europe during the CW. In those days, a border patrol was just a border patrol. Now, we are literally doing CAPs along the perimeter of the war zone, playing chicken wing-tip to wing-tip with a party directly involved that war. We are on a war footing and have been since Putin invaded.

When you're gassing up an F-16 and signing your name on a sidewinder to go flash at a Fulcrum, you're on the ramparts/front-lines. and that is the case for many thousands of our military servicemen & women, any one of whom could be dodging Kinzhals tomorrow.

---

Front lines clearly implies combat .


Fueling up aircraft hundreds of miles away from the **** isn't front line anything.

Again, is your daughter to be respected……YES.

Is there a world of difference between her situation and some US special forces operatives in the mud with Ukrainian units dodging local drone strikes ?

---

You can waive that strawman around all you want, but I've been very clear that "front lines" and "ramparts" refer to NATO not Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine has NATO somewhere between DEFCON 2 and DDEFCON 3 = a partial war footing. The eastern border of Eastern Europe is the front line. It is literally being patrolled with live ammo. We are increasing troop presence there. Building logistical footprints, preparing for new bases. The fact that we have troops in Ukraine covertly does not change that fundamental construction. Those troops are advisors to a foreign conflict, not official combatants.

---

Bull****


You just got carried away with your own hyperbole.

It's not the end of the world. Not the first time around here and certainly won't be the last.


Just go on to your next 400 word essay.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

It's frankly hard to debate because as you and I both know Sam and others in here project capabilities and actions on people and events that are so far removed from the possibility of occurring it's borderline fantasy.

---

None of the facts are in serious dispute. I imagine it is hard to debate when your only rebuttal is "nuh-UHHH!"

---

You're not presenting facts. You're inventing narratives. It's like trying to convince a child there is no Santa Claus.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

There you go with the conspiracy theories again. No one is attributing omniscience to the US. We did a lot more than just speak to the opposition, though. We essentially created them and gave them the green light by signaling our continued support.

And LOL at "what is the CIA used for?" No doubt the Nuland call is just the tip of the iceberg. We all know what the CIA does, but try getting ATL to admit it.

---

There you go with the conspiracy again.

Don't opposition parties exist in all democratic countries? (Yes). Did we create ALL of those, too? (No). Didn't Ukrainian elections show swings from one party to the other? (Yes). So isn't it in fact true that there has been a Ukrainian opposition party in existence continuously since independence from the USSR? (Obviously).

You are making shyte up to support a predetermined conclusion.

---

One straw man after another. No, obviously we did not create all opposition parties in all countries.

---

I didn't create any strawmen, just torched yours by illustrating that your example is unremarkable given that what you cited is a core function of diplomacy and done everywhere.

We created neither a Ukrainian opposition, nor a coup to depose a Ukrainian regime.

---

I've documented it with sources from our own CIA and NED, among others. You're sticking with "deniability," in other words lies. No surprises there.

---

You and I rarely agree ; but you are dead on about Ukraine.

Incredible how the American people buy into the same government propaganda war after war .

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

It's frankly hard to debate because as you and I both know Sam and others in here project capabilities and actions on people and events that are so far removed from the possibility of occurring it's borderline fantasy.

---

None of the facts are in serious dispute. I imagine it is hard to debate when your only rebuttal is "nuh-UHHH!"

---

You're not presenting facts. You're inventing narratives. It's like trying to convince a child there is no Santa Claus.

---

More conclusory statements and rhetoric, still no effort to refute the pertinent facts.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters).

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

I can understand your view. (And I hope your daughter remains safe)

But without the direct intervention of NATO ground troops how is this war to be won?

Ukraine is getting vast amounts of gear, weapons, and cash payments…..but it's manpower they lack.

Without NATO getting directly into the fighting what's the end game here?

---

you have it completely ass-backwards.

---

They have the manpower but not the gear?

[Ukraine The Ukrainian military is facing a critical shortage of infantry, leading to exhaustion and diminished morale on the front line, military personnel in the field said this week a perilous new dynamic for Kyiv nearly two years into the grinding, bloody war with Russia.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/ukraine-soldiers-shortage-infantry-russia/#

---

What I've said all along is that it's as if the point of this war is to kill off Ukrainians for the purpose of the west capturing their marketshare and being close enough to bully Russia.

Some people on here don't have a problem with it. I think its immoral and evil to send people through the meat grinder for those goals. They think its about saving their country from Russia when its really about the spoils of war.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters).

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

I can understand your view. (And I hope your daughter remains safe)

But without the direct intervention of NATO ground troops how is this war to be won?

Ukraine is getting vast amounts of gear, weapons, and cash payments…..but it's manpower they lack.

Without NATO getting directly into the fighting what's the end game here?

---

you have it completely ass-backwards.

---

They have the manpower but not the gear?

[Ukraine The Ukrainian military is facing a critical shortage of infantry, leading to exhaustion and diminished morale on the front line, military personnel in the field said this week a perilous new dynamic for Kyiv nearly two years into the grinding, bloody war with Russia.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/ukraine-soldiers-shortage-infantry-russia/#

---

What I've said all along is that it's as if the point of this war is to kill off Ukrainians for the purpose of the west capturing their marketshare and being close enough to bully Russia.

Some people on here don't have a problem with it. I think its immoral and evil to send people through the meat grinder for those goals.

---

Certainly there is going to be a lot of cheap farm land to buy up in Ukraine after this war is over.

Blackrock is going to make a killing......

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters).

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

I can understand your view. (And I hope your daughter remains safe)

But without the direct intervention of NATO ground troops how is this war to be won?

Ukraine is getting vast amounts of gear, weapons, and cash payments…..but it's manpower they lack.

Without NATO getting directly into the fighting what's the end game here?

---

you have it completely ass-backwards.

---

They have the manpower but not the gear?

[Ukraine The Ukrainian military is facing a critical shortage of infantry, leading to exhaustion and diminished morale on the front line, military personnel in the field said this week a perilous new dynamic for Kyiv nearly two years into the grinding, bloody war with Russia.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/ukraine-soldiers-shortage-infantry-russia/#

---

What I've said all along is that it's as if the point of this war is to kill off Ukrainians for the purpose of the west capturing their marketshare and being close enough to bully Russia.

Some people on here don't have a problem with it. I think its immoral and evil to send people through the meat grinder for those goals.

---

Certainly there is going to be a lot of cheap farm land to buy up in Ukraine after this war is over.

Blackrock is going to make a killing......

---

Absolutely. The elite within Ukraine will be able to strongarm a substantially smaller population into it with ease.

I think the moral thing to do is to pursue peace and save countless lives instead of using their deaths to give us an advantage.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

Good information.


Didn't realize the Green Berets were still active units .
But if so, they are almost always in the **** .

---

They call them Army Rangers now.

---

Army Rangers go back to WW2.

Not positive, but I believe it was under the Obama administration that the Green Berets might have been inactivated.

---

Army Rangers (75th Inf Reg) are not "Green Berets". They are expert infantry, commando, shock troops. They are the elite Infantry unit of the Army. Rangers are conventional small unit fighting force.

"Green Berets" is Special Forces (SF), they are advisor, force multiplier, and some commando skills. But their main job is going in and training US allies, force multiplier. If we have advisors, they are typically SF. That is what they do. SF is unconventional. Different skill set.

SF has not been inactivated

1st Group - Ft Lewis Asia
5th Group - Ft Campbell Middle East, Africa
7th Group - Ft Bragg South and Central America, Caribbean
10th Group - Ft Carson Europe

I do not believe there are any others that are on active duty. 20th SF is in FL AR.

---

great to know. Thanks for the clarification. I am way out of my element relative to military.

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

She's a problem solver. She shows up, and within a few weeks, she's indispensable. Every time I see Coach Teaff, he asks "how's the General?" (meaning you could see it very early on.....the proverbial born leader.)

GBs are the closest equivalent we have to the "little green men" that destabilized the Donbas. Stereotypically they'll be somewhere in injun country coaching auxilliaries to keep adversaries off balance, usually in deniable scenarios, so not always afforded the air & indirect fire support the SEALS can usually count on. Requires resourcefulness, discretion, ability to build trust with the locals for long periods of time (usually in foreign language), and above all keen wits and a very cool head. You have much to be proud about there.

---

All nice .

But you clearly described her as on the 'front lines' of the war.

None if this fits such a description.

Now do you have every right to be proud of your daughter's service and contributions ?

Absolutely.

---

Not once have I said anyone has been in combat. I've been very clear where our military is: they're standing to arms to deter Russia from escalating their war against a defacto ally into Nato or anywhere else. This is quite a bit more serious than the Cold War. There never was a full-scale war in Europe during the CW. In those days, a border patrol was just a border patrol. Now, we are literally doing CAPs along the perimeter of the war zone, playing chicken wing-tip to wing-tip with a party directly involved that war. We are on a war footing and have been since Putin invaded.

When you're gassing up an F-16 and signing your name on a sidewinder to go flash at a Fulcrum, you're on the ramparts/front-lines. and that is the case for many thousands of our military servicemen & women, any one of whom could be dodging Kinzhals tomorrow.

---

Front lines clearly implies combat .


Fueling up aircraft hundreds of miles away from the **** isn't front line anything.

Again, is your daughter to be respected……YES.

Is there a world of difference between her situation and some US special forces operatives in the mud with Ukrainian units dodging local drone strikes ?

---

If there were US soldiers in Ukraine they wouldn't be special forces, unless embassy or other special purpose. And if there were U.S. special forces in Ukraine they wouldn't be on front lines as that's not their thing.

---

There have been US troops in Ukraine engaged in combat operations for many months .

This is how it's always been done.

WW2 Roosevelt had the US Navy escorting British merchant ships halfway to England . The British Navy would then escort the ships the rest of the way . In the process US warships would routinely attack any German submarines that approached such convoys. Finally the Germans got permission to attack US warships . Two US destroyers were torpedoed. One was sunk . Over a hundred US sailors were killed. This undeclared war against Germany went on for months. And the American public was only dimly aware of it as Roosevelt knew the American people wanted no part of another European war after the WW1 debacle. After Pearl Harbor The US enters WW2.
Four years later and with over 500,000 US dead the Soviet Union dominates Eastern Europe and the communists take over China.

Korean War : weakly equipped, poorly trained , US army units are positioned as a 'trip wire ' to forestall North Korea from attacking the South. Exactly WHY it was US policy to be in Korea at all remains unclear . Irregardless North Korea attacked ; killing thousands of US GI's and almost driving them completely off the peninsula. War drags on for over 3 years with over 33,000 US servicemen killed.


Vietnam: first just aid, then advisors , then 500,000 US troops inserted into the country . Over 8 years later the US pulls out of Vietnam in total defeat after suffering over 53,000 dead.

Iraq

Afghanistan

The list goes on and on .



Yet here we go still again. Risking WW3 with Russia. The country with the largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet. Over Ukraine; a country that the US has historically ignored.


Best part ?

We are risking war while the US is nominally lead by the oldest president in US history.

Yes sir folks ; a man exhibiting clear signs of dementia, has inserted US troops into Ukraine.

Yet there are idiots who insist Biden has 'earned their vote'.

---

I was addressing your special forces on the front line comment. Given the amount of weaponry we've provided I'm certain military personnel have been involved with training whether in Ukraine or an adjacent nation. I'm sure American mercenaries have been involved with combat too. We still have embassy personnel (I think) so you'll have soldiers in a role there also. So technically for sure we have "troops in Ukraine". Do we have a bunch fighting the war for them? I do not believe that to be true.

And I continue to take issue with the U.S. classified as taking us to the brink of WW3. Russia invaded sparking this intense escalation. Even if Biden or Harris were loose with the rhetoric, there's a big difference between a war of words and an actual war.

But I won't disagree about the state of our current CiC.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

It's frankly hard to debate because as you and I both know Sam and others in here project capabilities and actions on people and events that are so far removed from the possibility of occurring it's borderline fantasy.

---

None of the facts are in serious dispute. I imagine it is hard to debate when your only rebuttal is "nuh-UHHH!"

---

You're not presenting facts. You're inventing narratives. It's like trying to convince a child there is no Santa Claus.

---

More conclusory statements and rhetoric, still no effort to refute the pertinent facts.

---

Asked and answered over and over again. It's in this very thread. I'm not wasting any more time on an errant fantasy.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

She's a problem solver. She shows up, and within a few weeks, she's indispensable. Every time I see Coach Teaff, he asks "how's the General?" (meaning you could see it very early on.....the proverbial born leader.)

GBs are the closest equivalent we have to the "little green men" that destabilized the Donbas. Stereotypically they'll be somewhere in injun country coaching auxilliaries to keep adversaries off balance, usually in deniable scenarios, so not always afforded the air & indirect fire support the SEALS can usually count on. Requires resourcefulness, discretion, ability to build trust with the locals for long periods of time (usually in foreign language), and above all keen wits and a very cool head. You have much to be proud about there.

---

All nice .

But you clearly described her as on the 'front lines' of the war.

None if this fits such a description.

Now do you have every right to be proud of your daughter's service and contributions ?

Absolutely.

---

Not once have I said anyone has been in combat. I've been very clear where our military is: they're standing to arms to deter Russia from escalating their war against a defacto ally into Nato or anywhere else. This is quite a bit more serious than the Cold War. There never was a full-scale war in Europe during the CW. In those days, a border patrol was just a border patrol. Now, we are literally doing CAPs along the perimeter of the war zone, playing chicken wing-tip to wing-tip with a party directly involved that war. We are on a war footing and have been since Putin invaded.

When you're gassing up an F-16 and signing your name on a sidewinder to go flash at a Fulcrum, you're on the ramparts/front-lines. and that is the case for many thousands of our military servicemen & women, any one of whom could be dodging Kinzhals tomorrow.

---

Front lines clearly implies combat .


Fueling up aircraft hundreds of miles away from the **** isn't front line anything.

Again, is your daughter to be respected%85%85YES.

Is there a world of difference between her situation and some US special forces operatives in the mud with Ukrainian units dodging local drone strikes ?

---

If there were US soldiers in Ukraine they wouldn't be special forces, unless embassy or other special purpose. And if there were U.S. special forces in Ukraine they wouldn't be on front lines as that's not their thing.

---

There have been US troops in Ukraine engaged in combat operations for many months .

This is how it's always been done.

WW2 Roosevelt had the US Navy escorting British merchant ships halfway to England . The British Navy would then escort the ships the rest of the way . In the process US warships would routinely attack any German submarines that approached such convoys. Finally the Germans got permission to attack US warships . Two US destroyers were torpedoed. One was sunk . Over a hundred US sailors were killed. This undeclared war against Germany went on for months. And the American public was only dimly aware of it as Roosevelt knew the American people wanted no part of another European war after the WW1 debacle. After Pearl Harbor The US enters WW2.
Four years later and with over 500,000 US dead the Soviet Union dominates Eastern Europe and the communists take over China.

Korean War : weakly equipped, poorly trained , US army units are positioned as a 'trip wire ' to forestall North Korea from attacking the South. Exactly WHY it was US policy to be in Korea at all remains unclear . Irregardless North Korea attacked ; killing thousands of US GI's and almost driving them completely off the peninsula. War drags on for over 3 years with over 33,000 US servicemen killed.


Vietnam: first just aid, then advisors , then 500,000 US troops inserted into the country . Over 8 years later the US pulls out of Vietnam in total defeat after suffering over 53,000 dead.

Iraq

Afghanistan

The list goes on and on .



Yet here we go still again. Risking WW3 with Russia. The country with the largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet. Over Ukraine; a country that the US has historically ignored.


Best part ?

We are risking war while the US is nominally lead by the oldest president in US history.

Yes sir folks ; a man exhibiting clear signs of dementia, has inserted US troops into Ukraine.

Yet their are idiots who insist Biden has 'earned their vote'.

---

I do disagree with you on some of this, being advisors is the SF job. Freedom of Navigation is the job of the Navy. Our presence in the Horn of Africa, is needed for anti-piracy. Patrolling the Straits of Homuz is needed. Like Marines guarding embassies, that is the job...

The "wars" and us doing nation building, Ok. I can go there. But the rest, even having advisors in Ukraine, is the job.

---

Protecting freedom of navigation and escorting belligerents in a conflict are vastly different things. One is the job. The other is an act of war, like what we're doing in Ukraine.

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

She's a problem solver. She shows up, and within a few weeks, she's indispensable. Every time I see Coach Teaff, he asks "how's the General?" (meaning you could see it very early on.....the proverbial born leader.)

GBs are the closest equivalent we have to the "little green men" that destabilized the Donbas. Stereotypically they'll be somewhere in injun country coaching auxilliaries to keep adversaries off balance, usually in deniable scenarios, so not always afforded the air & indirect fire support the SEALS can usually count on. Requires resourcefulness, discretion, ability to build trust with the locals for long periods of time (usually in foreign language), and above all keen wits and a very cool head. You have much to be proud about there.

---

All nice .

But you clearly described her as on the 'front lines' of the war.

None if this fits such a description.

Now do you have every right to be proud of your daughter's service and contributions ?

Absolutely.

---

Not once have I said anyone has been in combat. I've been very clear where our military is: they're standing to arms to deter Russia from escalating their war against a defacto ally into Nato or anywhere else. This is quite a bit more serious than the Cold War. There never was a full-scale war in Europe during the CW. In those days, a border patrol was just a border patrol. Now, we are literally doing CAPs along the perimeter of the war zone, playing chicken wing-tip to wing-tip with a party directly involved that war. We are on a war footing and have been since Putin invaded.

When you're gassing up an F-16 and signing your name on a sidewinder to go flash at a Fulcrum, you're on the ramparts/front-lines. and that is the case for many thousands of our military servicemen & women, any one of whom could be dodging Kinzhals tomorrow.

---

Front lines clearly implies combat .


Fueling up aircraft hundreds of miles away from the **** isn't front line anything.

Again, is your daughter to be respected……YES.

Is there a world of difference between her situation and some US special forces operatives in the mud with Ukrainian units dodging local drone strikes ?

---

If there were US soldiers in Ukraine they wouldn't be special forces, unless embassy or other special purpose. And if there were U.S. special forces in Ukraine they wouldn't be on front lines as that's not their thing.

---

There have been US troops in Ukraine engaged in combat operations for many months .

This is how it's always been done.

WW2 Roosevelt had the US Navy escorting British merchant ships halfway to England . The British Navy would then escort the ships the rest of the way . In the process US warships would routinely attack any German submarines that approached such convoys. Finally the Germans got permission to attack US warships . Two US destroyers were torpedoed. One was sunk . Over a hundred US sailors were killed. This undeclared war against Germany went on for months. And the American public was only dimly aware of it as Roosevelt knew the American people wanted no part of another European war after the WW1 debacle. After Pearl Harbor The US enters WW2.
Four years later and with over 500,000 US dead the Soviet Union dominates Eastern Europe and the communists take over China.

Korean War : weakly equipped, poorly trained , US army units are positioned as a 'trip wire ' to forestall North Korea from attacking the South. Exactly WHY it was US policy to be in Korea at all remains unclear . Irregardless North Korea attacked ; killing thousands of US GI's and almost driving them completely off the peninsula. War drags on for over 3 years with over 33,000 US servicemen killed.


Vietnam: first just aid, then advisors , then 500,000 US troops inserted into the country . Over 8 years later the US pulls out of Vietnam in total defeat after suffering over 53,000 dead.

Iraq

Afghanistan

The list goes on and on .



Yet here we go still again. Risking WW3 with Russia. The country with the largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet. Over Ukraine; a country that the US has historically ignored.


Best part ?

We are risking war while the US is nominally lead by the oldest president in US history.

Yes sir folks ; a man exhibiting clear signs of dementia, has inserted US troops into Ukraine.

Yet there are idiots who insist Biden has 'earned their vote'.

---

I was addressing your special forces on the front line comment. Given the amount of weaponry we've provided I'm certain military personnel have been involved with training whether in Ukraine or an adjacent nation. I'm sure American mercenaries have been involved with combat too. We still have embassy personnel (I think) so you'll have soldiers in a role there also. So technically for sure we have "troops in Ukraine". Do we have a bunch fighting the war for them? I do not believe that to be true.

And I continue to take issue with the U.S. classified as taking us to the brink of WW3. Russia invaded sparking this intense escalation. Even if Biden or Harris were loose with the rhetoric, there's a big difference between a war of words and an actual war.

But I won't disagree about the state of our current CiC.

---

The United States has ZERO treaty obligations to Ukraine.

A country the United States has completely ignored for over 150 years . A country that has been securely in the Russian sphere of influence for centuries .




Yet now we are slowly being informed that there are various US military personnel involved with Ukrainian combat operations.


It is the same old tactic our politicians have played on us for generations.

Only this time our brinkmanship is being orchestrated by an 80 year old nonentity who routinely exhibits clear signs of dementia.

Only this time it could end up with the annihilation of 80% of the American people within 48hours .

And yet our media is so dishonest, so partisan, the same people in the nuclear crosshairs aren't even aware of the risks involved.

And many of them still insist Biden ' Has earned their vote'.

Maybe Margaret Sanger was right after all.

J.R. said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters). Because of that deployment, her base had to bring in squadrons of two additional airframes: F-15s to do the CAPs over Germany (what had previously been the mission of the F-16s), and KC-130 tankers to refuel everything. She had to not only refuel, resupply, and maintain the F-16s deployed to Romania, but also open up two entire supply chains for the new aircraft: new hangars, new supply depots, additional fueling storage and stations, additional maintenance yards, etc..... We're talking 600x fuel usage over pre-invasion levels (and all other supply metrics showing similar jumps). It was 24/7, 7 days a week 31 days a month, no leave & little sleep kind of duty. She did a quick rotate back to Pentagon for a year (hated it) and took the option of early enrollment at the C&GS school, which is wrapping up soon. In June, she takes over command of a "mobility unit" in Italy. Wife and I will likely go over to attend the ceremony. "Mobility Units" are theater rather than base specific. Meaning she will not serve the base but rather front line units on deployment.

All that's to say she's already been on the ramparts to deter Russian decisionmaking. For the next two years, if Nato does end up engaged, under whatever scenario that may entail, she will be responsible for pushing troop units, artillery pieces, weapons systems, ammo for all the foregoing, MREs, uniforms, mobile hospital units, etc.....downrange to the center of the Nato line. She had in mind becoming an Africanist (she remembers living there). But timing is what it is and she was in the right place at the right time and now will likely be climbing the Nato mission ladder for the rest of her career.

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

Wow, she sounds fascinating . That is one balsy lady. My good son is a Green Beret and we have no idea where he is and havent' for 6 months.

---

Good information.


Didn't realize the Green Berets were still active units .
But if so, they are almost always in the **** .

---

They call them Army Rangers now.

---

Army Rangers go back to WW2.

Not positive, but I believe it was under the Obama administration that the Green Berets might have been inactivated.

---

Army Rangers (75th Inf Reg) are not "Green Berets". They are expert infantry, commando, shock troops. They are the elite Infantry unit of the Army. Rangers are conventional small unit fighting force.

"Green Berets" is Special Forces (SF), they are advisor, force multiplier, and some commando skills. But their main job is going in and training US allies, force multiplier. If we have advisors, they are typically SF. That is what they do. SF is unconventional. Different skill set.

SF has not been inactivated

1st Group - Ft Lewis Asia
5th Group - Ft Campbell Middle East, Africa
7th Group - Ft Bragg South and Central America, Caribbean
10th Group - Ft Carson Europe

I do not believe there are any others that are on active duty. 20th SF is in FL AR.

---

great to know. Thanks for the clarification. I am way out of my element relative to military.

---

Been a long time for me since I was at Ft Bragg. Would have made a better soldier now than when I was 24!

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

It's frankly hard to debate because as you and I both know Sam and others in here project capabilities and actions on people and events that are so far removed from the possibility of occurring it's borderline fantasy.

---

None of the facts are in serious dispute. I imagine it is hard to debate when your only rebuttal is "nuh-UHHH!"

---

You're not presenting facts. You're inventing narratives. It's like trying to convince a child there is no Santa Claus.

---

More conclusory statements and rhetoric, still no effort to refute the pertinent facts.

---

Asked and answered over and over again. It's in this very thread. I'm not wasting any more time on an errant fantasy.

---

What you've done over and over again is try to deny the facts instead of saying what you really mean -- that overthrowing Yanukovych was a good idea and there was nothing wrong with our involvement. It reminds me of when you fought tooth and nail to prove non-existent violations of Iran's nuclear agreement, and when that didn't work you finally broke down and admitted you didn't want the deal to succeed because it would give the regime too much credibility. At some point you became so convinced by your own rhetoric that you lost the distinction between "negotiations failed" and "I hope they fail."

I suspect the same thing is going on when you try to argue that supporting a coup isn't really supporting a coup unless it involves quasi-military tactics. Under most circumstances this is obviously not something an intelligent person would say. Try using it as a defense in the seditious conspiracy cases that arose from J6, for example. But you've lost the distinction between "it didn't happen" and "it was a good thing." You may have even convinced yourself it wasn't a coup at all but rather a mostly peaceful transfer of power and a victory for free speech. Never mind that the former government was peacefully elected and the new one forcibly imposed, leading to civil war with a large part of the country which didn't want it.

That's the kind of fantasy our government sells in the guise of promoting "democracy." If nothing else I hope you'll take time to ask yourself why you're afraid to own it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

It's frankly hard to debate because as you and I both know Sam and others in here project capabilities and actions on people and events that are so far removed from the possibility of occurring it's borderline fantasy.

---

None of the facts are in serious dispute. I imagine it is hard to debate when your only rebuttal is "nuh-UHHH!"

---

You're not presenting facts. You're inventing narratives. It's like trying to convince a child there is no Santa Claus.

---

More conclusory statements and rhetoric, still no effort to refute the pertinent facts.

---

Asked and answered over and over again. It's in this very thread. I'm not wasting any more time on an errant fantasy.

---

What you've done over and over again is try to deny the facts instead of saying what you really mean -- that overthrowing Yanukovych was a good idea and there was nothing wrong with our involvement. It reminds me of when you fought tooth and nail to prove non-existent violations of Iran's nuclear agreement, and when that didn't work you finally broke down and admitted you didn't want the deal to succeed because it would give the regime too much credibility. At some point you became so convinced by your own rhetoric that you lost the distinction between "negotiations failed" and "I hope they fail."

I suspect the same thing is going on when you try to argue that supporting a coup isn't really supporting a coup unless it involves quasi-military tactics. Under most circumstances this is obviously not something an intelligent person would say. Try using it as a defense in the seditious conspiracy cases that arose from J6, for example. But you've lost the distinction between "it didn't happen" and "it was a good thing." You may have even convinced yourself it wasn't a coup at all but rather a mostly peaceful transfer of power and a victory for free speech. Never mind that the former government was peacefully elected and the new one forcibly imposed, leading to civil war with a large part of the country which didn't want it.

That's the kind of fantasy our government sells in the guise of promoting "democracy." If nothing else I hope you'll take time to ask yourself why you're afraid to own it.

---

The only fantasy here is the RU propaganda you continue to crap out as facts, shill.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

It's frankly hard to debate because as you and I both know Sam and others in here project capabilities and actions on people and events that are so far removed from the possibility of occurring it's borderline fantasy.

---

None of the facts are in serious dispute. I imagine it is hard to debate when your only rebuttal is "nuh-UHHH!"

---

You're not presenting facts. You're inventing narratives. It's like trying to convince a child there is no Santa Claus.

---

More conclusory statements and rhetoric, still no effort to refute the pertinent facts.

---

Asked and answered over and over again. It's in this very thread. I'm not wasting any more time on an errant fantasy.

---

What you've done over and over again is try to deny the facts instead of saying what you really mean -- that overthrowing Yanukovych was a good idea and there was nothing wrong with our involvement. It reminds me of when you fought tooth and nail to prove non-existent violations of Iran's nuclear agreement, and when that didn't work you finally broke down and admitted you didn't want the deal to succeed because it would give the regime too much credibility. At some point you became so convinced by your own rhetoric that you lost the distinction between "negotiations failed" and "I hope they fail."

I suspect the same thing is going on when you try to argue that supporting a coup isn't really supporting a coup unless it involves quasi-military tactics. Under most circumstances this is obviously not something an intelligent person would say. Try using it as a defense in the seditious conspiracy cases that arose from J6, for example. But you've lost the distinction between "it didn't happen" and "it was a good thing." You may have even convinced yourself it wasn't a coup at all but rather a mostly peaceful transfer of power and a victory for free speech. Never mind that the former government was peacefully elected and the new one forcibly imposed, leading to civil war with a large part of the country which didn't want it.

That's the kind of fantasy our government sells in the guise of promoting "democracy." If nothing else I hope you'll take time to ask yourself why you're afraid to own it.

---

Well, at least I understand where the fantasy derives. The same inanity of Jan 6 as a coup is now being projected on the US in Ukraine.

Maybe I've been around enough coups to recognize that if we did try it in Ukraine it wouldn't have looked anything like what occurred. In fact, Yanukovych would have had to have been a part of it to even play out like it did because of the time frames involved. You're now taking US support of the protesters cause as the coup. That's simple absurdity. Then you go down paths of Nazi threats, and other RU propaganda ops as your basis. Coups don't require military action, but they do require a coordinated strategy, not the association of random unrelated circumstances. The latter is how propaganda is built.

And I have no recollection of that Iran conclusion. You may be confusing me with another poster.

sombear said:

---

Is it overthrowing when Ukraine's own parliament voted VY out? Is it overthrowing when VY flees to Russia the day after signing an agreement?

If the answer is yes (which it is not BTW) how exactly did the U.S. overthrown VY? Russia and its allies very publicly lobbied (and threatened) VY to align with Russia. The U.S. and its allies very publicly lobbied VY to align with EU (as he pledged to do throughout his campaign).

If the "overthrowing" was covert, how did we make that happen when Ukrainian intel was controlled by Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians at that time?

Was it the cookies/sandwiches????????

---

It's nonsensical. But as I said above, they've glommed on to some random circumstances (and disinformation) to create a narrative.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

There you go with the conspiracy theories again. No one is attributing omniscience to the US. We did a lot more than just speak to the opposition, though. We essentially created them and gave them the green light by signaling our continued support.

And LOL at "what is the CIA used for?" No doubt the Nuland call is just the tip of the iceberg. We all know what the CIA does, but try getting ATL to admit it.

---

There you go with the conspiracy again.

Don't opposition parties exist in all democratic countries? (Yes). Did we create ALL of those, too? (No). Didn't Ukrainian elections show swings from one party to the other? (Yes). So isn't it in fact true that there has been a Ukrainian opposition party in existence continuously since independence from the USSR? (Obviously).

You are making shyte up to support a predetermined conclusion.

---

One straw man after another. No, obviously we did not create all opposition parties in all countries.

---

I didn't create any strawmen, just torched yours by illustrating that your example is unremarkable given that what you cited is a core function of diplomacy and done everywhere.

We created neither a Ukrainian opposition, nor a coup to depose a Ukrainian regime.

---

I've documented it with sources from our own CIA and NED, among others. You're sticking with "deniability," in other words lies. No surprises there.

---

You and I rarely agree ; but you are dead on about Ukraine.

Incredible how the American people buy into the same government propaganda war after war .

---

Inherent xenophobia combined with generations of anti-Russian propaganda. But you're right, it never ceases to amaze.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A coup mechanism is any mechanism that one uses to accomplish a coup. The rest is just you trying to define away the issue.

I've drawn you a straight line from our early support of right-wing extremists, to their resurgence after the Cold War with our help, to their key role in Maidan. Nuland met with the leader of Svoboda in December 2013 (she wasn't just there to serve sandwiches) and again a week before the government collapsed. We don't have to speculate about why they met because we have direct evidence in the form of her taped conversation. We know that, contrary to the agreement with Yanukovych, the US was pushing for total regime change with the "Big Three" as a replacement. This was far from mere advocacy, considering how dependent these would-be rulers were on our support. It was a signal of what we would do going forward and what kind of success they could expect if they kept the pressure on.

---

This is a complete fabrication and false alignment of events. It's not even worth rehashing because I've dealt with each point independently, and shown where it doesn't fit with the events. Now you're parsing the Nuland phone call, which was a Russian intel op by the way, and going hook line and sinker there with wild inferences.

Not every counter policy opinion or effort is a coup mechanism.

---

Sweet Jesus, Sam has gone thru the rabbit hole of Third World Think = The USG is omniscient and omnipotent, so if something significant happened, by definition the USG either sponsored or allowed it.

Reality is this: Ambassadors all over the world talk to opposition party leaders all the time. it's their job. Those opposition leaders might win an election someday. They might win a coup some day. Better to know them than not.

And IF the USG is going to engage in hanky panky with an opposition leader/party, it's damned sure not going to do it with an Ambassador. LOLOLOLOL. I mean, what the heck does Sam think the CIA is used for? In the exceedingly rare instances when such does happen, you keep your Ambassador as far away from it as possible = plausible deniability.

Mercy sakes Ukraine has totally discombobulated poor Sam.

Thi

---

It's frankly hard to debate because as you and I both know Sam and others in here project capabilities and actions on people and events that are so far removed from the possibility of occurring it's borderline fantasy.

---

None of the facts are in serious dispute. I imagine it is hard to debate when your only rebuttal is "nuh-UHHH!"

---

You're not presenting facts. You're inventing narratives. It's like trying to convince a child there is no Santa Claus.

---

More conclusory statements and rhetoric, still no effort to refute the pertinent facts.

---

Asked and answered over and over again. It's in this very thread. I'm not wasting any more time on an errant fantasy.

---

What you've done over and over again is try to deny the facts instead of saying what you really mean -- that overthrowing Yanukovych was a good idea and there was nothing wrong with our involvement. It reminds me of when you fought tooth and nail to prove non-existent violations of Iran's nuclear agreement, and when that didn't work you finally broke down and admitted you didn't want the deal to succeed because it would give the regime too much credibility. At some point you became so convinced by your own rhetoric that you lost the distinction between "negotiations failed" and "I hope they fail."

I suspect the same thing is going on when you try to argue that supporting a coup isn't really supporting a coup unless it involves quasi-military tactics. Under most circumstances this is obviously not something an intelligent person would say. Try using it as a defense in the seditious conspiracy cases that arose from J6, for example. But you've lost the distinction between "it didn't happen" and "it was a good thing." You may have even convinced yourself it wasn't a coup at all but rather a mostly peaceful transfer of power and a victory for free speech. Never mind that the former government was peacefully elected and the new one forcibly imposed, leading to civil war with a large part of the country which didn't want it.

That's the kind of fantasy our government sells in the guise of promoting "democracy." If nothing else I hope you'll take time to ask yourself why you're afraid to own it.

---

Well, at least I understand where the fantasy derives. The same inanity of Jan 6 as a coup is now being projected on the US in Ukraine.

Maybe I've been around enough coups to recognize that if we did try it in Ukraine it wouldn't have looked anything like what occurred. In fact, Yanukovych would have had to have been a part of it to even play out like it did because of the time frames involved. You're now taking US support of the protesters cause as the coup. That's simple absurdity. Then you go down paths of Nazi threats, and other RU propaganda ops as your basis. Coups don't require military action, but they do require a coordinated strategy, not the association of random unrelated circumstances. The latter is how propaganda is built.

And I have no recollection of that Iran conclusion. You may be confusing me with another poster.

---

And there it is. J6 doesn't qualify because there was no real firepower and no chance of success. Maidan had both of those things…but it still doesn't qualify. Whatever suits the narrative.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

NATO is a shell.

There is zero willingness of any of the NATO populations to fight and die for Ukraine or even other each other.
The manicheanism of "zero/any" renders this statement flatly untrue. Not true of Finland or Sweden. Not true of the Baltics. Nor is it true of Poland, or Romania. And the numbers jump if we talk about further Russian encroachments.

The combat readiness of almost every NATO country is non existent.
again, more manicheanism. The militaries are smaller than they should be, and in aggregate the level of readiness is subpar, but there are several nations who have very capable armies that are far more capable than the Russians.

Ukraine is running out of resources; especially in manpower .
Ukraine is running out of ammo. They have enough men to soldier on for years.

Meanwhile Russia's infrastructure has barely been touched .
The vaunted economic sanctions a complete joke.
Flatly untrue. Russia is sending 70-year old tanks to the front, borrowing-back ammo it gave to North Korea 70 years ago. Russia is unable to replace mechanized vehicles or arty tubes at the rate it's burning it up.
The false dilemma you've created here is one of expectations - that economic sanctions which do not crater a country's eonomy have no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions drive up the cost of doing business, and afford diplomats more things to negotiate over. They can cripple key sectors of the economy, and have done so specifically on weapons & ordnance to great effect.

By any measure Russia is winning this war and as a result Ukraine needs to reach an accord while they still can salvage their sovereignty.
Russia is making small, tactical gains in some sectors, after having suffered several months of tactical losses in some sectors, which was preceded by a prior period of some tactical gains, which of course was prefaced by some significant tactical losses.

---

This war can go on for years, and likely will until well after Trump is inaugurated. And if Trump does indeed follow up on his statement about a "lend/lease" to Ukraine, Russia will be in a world of hurt. They are stretched to the breaking point. We start building bases in Finland and Sweden, increasing troop deployments to the Baltics, and loading Ukraine up on arty rounds & long-range missiles....Russia will have to sue for peace.

---

You are nuts.


Ukraine can't endure continued infrastructure and manpower losses for years .

They are barely holding on now.


And your hero Trump is never going to be president again.

His latest political gaffe will be followed by even more erratic ones as Election Day approaches.A

---

As long as Nato keeps sending Ammo, Ukrainians will keep killing Russians, who are in a condition not much better than the Ukrainians.....

Wars of attrition are ugly things.

---

No it's just entertainment to goofs like you.
I have a daughter on the front-line of the conflict and would very much prefer she avoid combat, which will be far less likely if we push ahead and help Ukraine finish the job.

A bloodletting that Biden help bring on.
Agreed.

And money can NOT replace dead soldiers.
That is a reciprocal equation. Russia is losing soldiers at a rate greater than their numerical advantage.

Russia has far deeper reserves. Far deeper pools of manpower.
Which they cannot tap due to having to defend a far larger geographic footprint, AND to avoid political destabilization in core Russian demographic areas.

This war is either going to end via a diplomatic settlement or a rapid of the Ukrainian army within the next 14 months.
14 months is a good guess. I would put it closer to 24 months. Everyone wants to see what Trump will do. Those who think he's going to hand Ukraine over to Putin are going to be sorely disappointed.

---

---

Bull****

How exactly do you have a daughter on the 'front line' of the Russia Ukraine battlefield ?
See below

Dude
Trump is not going to be president .
You might be right. But a lot of people made fools of themselves in 2016 saying exactly that, so I advise a little more hedging.

Why would the Dems ' steal the election' in 2020 only to play nice in 2024 ?
Discussed before. It's only viable to steal a close election, 3pts margins or less. Any more than that, and the math starts to highlight rather than obscure the funny business. That's why Dems are panicking. Biden is down nationally, and down well-outside the 3pt range in enough swing states to make fraud non-viable. That's why you hear Trump talking about winning big......to overwhelm the fraud.

Besides Trump is continually verbally self destructive.
He's going to scare the living **** out of independent voters right into Biden's camp.
Fact is, right now he's winning them comfortably. That's because Biden is scaring the **** out of them even more. And it's not likely to change.

---

For six months after Putin invaded Ukraine, my daughter was C/OPs at a US AF base in Germany and kept several squadrons of fully armed F-16's in the air flying CAPs over Romania & the Black Sea (playing bump & nudge with Russian fighters).

The most obvious way to keep her from dodging Russian missiles is to win the damned war in Ukraine. Any other outcome increases the risk to her, and all the other sons & daughters in uniform, who are on war footing as we debate this. It's hard to understand how smart people can work so hard to avoid seeing such an obvious reality staring them in the face. The costs of finishing the job in Ukraine are nominal compared to the costs of dealing with a loss.

---

I can understand your view. (And I hope your daughter remains safe)

But without the direct intervention of NATO ground troops how is this war to be won?

Ukraine is getting vast amounts of gear, weapons, and cash payments…..but it's manpower they lack.

Without NATO getting directly into the fighting what's the end game here?

---

you have it completely ass-backwards.

---

They have the manpower but not the gear?

[Ukraine The Ukrainian military is facing a critical shortage of infantry, leading to exhaustion and diminished morale on the front line, military personnel in the field said this week a perilous new dynamic for Kyiv nearly two years into the grinding, bloody war with Russia.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/ukraine-soldiers-shortage-infantry-russia/#

---

What I've said all along is that it's as if the point of this war is to kill off Ukrainians for the purpose of the west capturing their marketshare and being close enough to bully Russia.

Some people on here don't have a problem with it. I think its immoral and evil to send people through the meat grinder for those goals.

---

Certainly there is going to be a lot of cheap farm land to buy up in Ukraine after this war is over.

Blackrock is going to make a killing......

---

Putin has a Billion dollar palace on the Black Sea, 2 yachts, a cash funnel from Gazprom, and what do you think is going to happen with his oligarch partners Derapasky, Rotenberg, and Abramov with their new Ukrainian spoils? He already rewarded Rotenberg with the Kerch Strait bridge to Crimea. And you're concerned about a publicly traded U.S. company and post war rebuild projects? You want the Russian "sphere of influence" angle? This is what it's all about. Russia's the world's most prolific kleptocracy.

---

I don't think anyone has every said Putin is not rewarding his oligarchs will Ukrainian spoils.

Does that then justify DC doing the same?

ps.

While Putin will leverage any power in Ukraine to bleed money out of the country....DC will do the same while also demanding they import in endless amounts of Africans and MENA migrants and accept the whole liberal cultural values like LGBTQ ideology.

Ukraine under Moscow will be subjugated...but still Slavic and Christian

Ukraine under DC rule will be subjugated...and within 30 years not even recognizable as Ukrainian