BREAKING:

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

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

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 17, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

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

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

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 17, 2024

---

They were there to protect the Christian Armenians.

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

There is nothing triumphant about this.

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

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

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

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 17, 2024

---

They were there to protect the Christian Armenians.

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

There is nothing triumphant about this.

---

100% dead on .

More Christians have been murdered in the last 125 years than any time in history .

And the media ignores the continuing killings .

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

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

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

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 17, 2024

---

They were there to protect the Christian Armenians.

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

There is nothing triumphant about this.

---

Not true. Armenia wants the Russians out also.

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

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

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

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 17, 2024

---

They were there to protect the Christian Armenians.

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

There is nothing triumphant about this.

---

Not true. Armenia wants the Russians out also.

---

I find that hard to believe since they were the ones who asked for their protection in the first place.

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

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

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

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 17, 2024

---

They were there to protect the Christian Armenians.

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

There is nothing triumphant about this.

---

Not true. Armenia wants the Russians out also.

---

Yup.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/armenia-can-no-longer-rely-russia-military-defence-needs-pm-pashinyan-says-2024-02-02/

Bear8084 said:

---

sombear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

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

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

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 17, 2024

---

They were there to protect the Christian Armenians.

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

There is nothing triumphant about this.

---

Not true. Armenia wants the Russians out also.

---

Yup.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/armenia-can-no-longer-rely-russia-military-defence-needs-pm-pashinyan-says-2024-02-02/

---

You really have to feel for the Armenians.

No one wants to help them.

The Turks and Azerbaijanis (also turks) want them dead.

Israel sends their enemies weapons.

The USA does not care about them.

And now even Russia has sold them out over larger geo-strategic considerations and because they are focused on the fight in Ukraine and dealing with an expansionist NATO at their door.

No one is coming to save the poor Armenian Christians.

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/29/1202576206/the-fall-of-an-enclave-in-azerbaijan-stuns-the-armenian-diaspora-shattering-a-dr

I feel so sorry for the Armenians. Like the Serbs they are being complete hung out to dry by their fellow Christians.

If they think the US is going to protect them anymore than the Russians, they are in for a rude awakening.

US is more likely to finish them off and annex the remains to the Azerbaijan if it means the Azerbaijani will support Israel against Iran.

End result - more dead Christians.

Bear8084 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


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

Quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

---

Your criteria are only relevant to NATO. They don't make Ukraine any less a threat to Russia, so waiting a decade or three doesn't change anything.

NATO doesn't exist only to defend against Russia. It's also there to pacify Europe -- a benefit that will be sorely missed as its influence continues to decline. France is already trying to position itself as a military leader in post-NATO Europe, much to the annoyance of the Germans.

---

Isn't that what the US wants, at least under Trump? But, with less troops and less money the US influence will decline. There is a reason we kept troops there AND paid what we did for decades and it was not all about fear of the Russians.

This is what gets me. We say we want to pay less and bring troops home, then we get mad when we have less influence and others fill the void. Do the same in the Pacific and see how far China expands... There is a price. You want to keep things like they were which worked out well for the US, we have forward bases, pay and deploy. You want to save Nickles and have everyone home, the world don't care what we think.

---

Vatniks and quislings don't care.

---

As long as their gas stays cheap and they get to do what they want.

$95 Billion...

$61 Billion to Ukraine
$26 Billion to Israel
$8 Billion to Taiwan

How much assistance did the East Palestine or Lahaina residents receive?

The_barBEARian said:

---

$95 Billion...

$61 Billion to Ukraine
$26 Billion to Israel
$8 Billion to Taiwan

How much assistance did the East Palestine or Lahaina residents receive?

---

You know Americans come last to the Regime.

They would not even spend $12 billion on a border wall that would have almost eliminated fentanyl pouring into our country and killing tens of thousands yearly

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

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

Sec. Kendall: I don't know.

Waltz: $90,000.

pic.twitter.com/9WwmkP3MVr

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 17, 2024

80% of the spending for Ukraine is replenishment of American weapons and stocks.

That's a really important thing for our own U.S. industrial base and defense base,”

says Speaker Johnson in CNN interview

🇺🇸🇺🇦pic.twitter.com/uzz8IrkdUp

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 18, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

80% of the spending for Ukraine is replenishment of American weapons and stocks.

That's a really important thing for our own U.S. industrial base and defense base,”

says Speaker Johnson in CNN interview

🇺🇸🇺🇦pic.twitter.com/uzz8IrkdUp

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 18, 2024

---

So 80% is our own weapons (and a kick back for the MIC and defense lobbyists in Northern Virginia)

Ok

What's the other 20% for?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

80% of the spending for Ukraine is replenishment of American weapons and stocks.

That's a really important thing for our own U.S. industrial base and defense base,”

says Speaker Johnson in CNN interview

🇺🇸🇺🇦pic.twitter.com/uzz8IrkdUp

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 18, 2024

---

So 80% is our own weapons (and a kick back for the MIC and defense lobbyists in Northern Virginia)

Ok

What's the other 20% for?

---

He's admitting what critics of the war have been saying all along. Our weapon stockpiles are depleted, and another $61 billion isn't going to change the outcome. It's all about paying off those who invested in this fiasco.

---

Not even close.

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

80% of the spending for Ukraine is replenishment of American weapons and stocks.

That's a really important thing for our own U.S. industrial base and defense base,”

says Speaker Johnson in CNN interview

🇺🇸🇺🇦pic.twitter.com/uzz8IrkdUp

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 18, 2024

---

So 80% is our own weapons (and a kick back for the MIC and defense lobbyists in Northern Virginia)

Ok

What's the other 20% for?

---

He's admitting what critics of the war have been saying all along. Our weapon stockpiles are depleted, and another $61 billion isn't going to change the outcome. It's all about paying off those who invested in this fiasco.

---

Not even close.

---

$1 trillion in interest alone now added to our debt every year... and that's before they waste another $100 billion this weekend.

Congrats! You are a slave! Your money is worth 80% less than it was thirty years ago.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

America has no Ukraine Plan B except more war

https://asiatimes.com/2024/03/america-has-no-ukraine-plan-b-except-more-war/

Good read, shows where Whiterock's flawed numbers come from. Ukraine is collapsing and barring a foolish move by NATO to ignite WW3 by overtly deploying combat forces to Ukraine the choice is to give the Russians the eastern half, or lose the whole thing.

If sanity prevails President Trump will have negotiators at the table in 2025 hammering out the details of that first option and this latest neocon project will be added to the list of foreign policy misadventures that include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.

---

It's just Sam Lowery-lite, and actually undermines your assertion that Ukraine is out of manpower.

All you have to do to blow his argument out of the water is point to the combined GDP of Russia vs NATO. It's the difference between a pickup truck and a freight train.

---

Freight trains aren't built for war. Neither is the NATO economy. That's all I needed to say a year ago, and it's only proven truer in the weeks and months since.

---

LOL you blundered into that one. Freight trains are central to the Russian war machine.....their logistical chain relies upon them to a degree no other military does. Russia has an entire military command devoted to railway operations (+/- 30k troops).

No peacetime economy is built for war. They have to mobilize. And the size of your economy limits how much one can mobilize. The Russian economy is 10% the size of the Nato economy. They have no hope of winning a war against Nato.
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Thoughts/NATOs-Combined-GDP-is-far-larger-than-Russias.aspx

Russia also faces a daunting mismatch in population, 6-to-1:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/nato

Russia is already at the point where additional mobilizations will affect economic output.....

---

You missed the point. We never mobilized for Ukraine, and now it's far too late.

---

Nato doesn't need to fully mobilize to win the war in Ukraine. It has a 10-1 advantage. Just letting Ukraine have the stuff we were planning to destroy anyway has brought Russia to a standstill.

---

Not even close.

---

You're right. My statement wasn't close. It was Spot. On.

---

They're about to "standstill" their way into Chasiv Yar as we speak. That's four out of five major Russian objectives I identified a year ago, despite the fact they've been in a defensive posture almost the whole time. So yeah..."spot on."

---

Since their capture of Bakhnut a year ago, the Russians have advanced almost 10km to Yasiv Char, less a half-mile per month, nearly all of it in the last 60 days after the Ukrainians have run out of ammunition.

Can you not see how silly your point is here? Even at the rate Russia has advanced in the last month, it will take years for them to take everything east of the Dnieper.

If we keep supplying ammo, They won't take a yard.

---

Note the phrase "despite being in a defensive posture." It's incredible that you've been watching this for the last year and still don't understand the Russian strategy.

---

Their strategy is quite clear. They are going to keep throwing human waves at Ukrainian lines to deplete existing aid packages, then wait for you to win the argument that we should end any future aid. Which is about where we are right now.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4599441-ukraine-cant-hold-lines-without-rapid-resumption-us-aid-think-tank/

If we resume aid, the Russian advance will stop. But you would rather be right that Ukraine cannot win and are willing to cut them off and let them run out of ammo (where we are now) just so you can say "see, I told you Ukraine couldn't win."

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


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

Quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

---

Your criteria are only relevant to NATO. They don't make Ukraine any less a threat to Russia, so waiting a decade or three doesn't change anything.
Wait a minute. Now you're saying UKRAINE is a threat to Russia? If Ukraine was a threat to Russia, why would they need to join Nato? Very chaotic thinking you have going on their, sir.

NATO doesn't exist only to defend against Russia. It's also there to pacify Europe -- a benefit that will be sorely missed as its influence continues to decline. France is already trying to position itself as a military leader in post-NATO Europe, much to the annoyance of the Germans.
LOL you work tirelessly to undermine Nato support for Ukraine, advocating that we avoid war by leaving to Russia as much of Ukraine as Russia wants, and let the Russian war machine move 600mi westward to the borders of the heart of NATO.......and then stand back and say "poor Nato....it's declining. Tsk. Tsk. What a shame."

---

LOL you're like the arsonist who set fire to the house and blamed the owners for not locking the doors.

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

80% of the spending for Ukraine is replenishment of American weapons and stocks.

That's a really important thing for our own U.S. industrial base and defense base,”

says Speaker Johnson in CNN interview

🇺🇸🇺🇦pic.twitter.com/uzz8IrkdUp

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 18, 2024

---

So 80% is our own weapons (and a kick back for the MIC and defense lobbyists in Northern Virginia)

Ok

What's the other 20% for?

---

It's really hard to prove out any graft in that other than what would normally occur at the defense portion of the public trough.

we are giving Ukraine old systems and munitions scheduled for replacement. The cost of de-mil and/or storage are significant, and they have to be replaced anyway. Most of the dollar amounts of the "military aid package" is actually accounting entries, writing off assets. And the net cost of transport of the asset is in most cases less than the cost of the de-mil or storage. So the taxpayer is really not spending a significant amount of money to support Ukraine relative to the cost of what would be done to those systems/munitions in normal course of business, other than to accelerate 1-5 years of planned replacements into the the current year.

We are literally paying more money to scrap Bradleys than it costs to ship them to Ukraine and let them get destroyed killing Russians.

Like most anti-war positions, yours here are quite illogical once they clear the hurdle of obtusity.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

80% of the spending for Ukraine is replenishment of American weapons and stocks.

That's a really important thing for our own U.S. industrial base and defense base,”

says Speaker Johnson in CNN interview

🇺🇸🇺🇦pic.twitter.com/uzz8IrkdUp

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 18, 2024

---

So 80% is our own weapons (and a kick back for the MIC and defense lobbyists in Northern Virginia)

Ok

What's the other 20% for?

---

It's really hard to prove out any graft in that other than what would normally occur at the defense portion of the public trough.

we are giving Ukraine old systems and munitions scheduled for replacement.

---

Well interesting that you admit some of its going to graft like that is not something to worry about.

And your fall back position is that is all just money being spent on old systems and munitions...but its far more than that.

[The USA has already spend a vast fortune on this proxy war. And so have our European allies.

Yet its never enough....right after we send the cash we are again hit with endless media reports about how Ukraine is running out of money and needs more and more.

To date, Congress has passed four spending packages in response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine $113 billion in total. The $113 billion spans agencies and bureaus and provides for much-needed support in areas including military equipment, migration and refugee assistance, energy, and countering disinformation.]

https://www.csis.org/analysis/past-present-and-future-us-assistance-ukraine-deep-dive-data

[The UK is one of the leading donors to Ukraine, alongside the US and Germany. The UK has pledged almost 12 billion in overall support to Ukraine since February 2022, of which 7.1 billion is for military assistance. 2.3 billion was provided in each of the financial years 2022/23 and 2023/24 and on 12 January 2024, the Government announced a further 2.5 billion of funding for 2024/25.

The European Union is also providing non-lethal and lethal arms and training through its European Peace Facility (EPF). This is the first time the bloc has, in its history, approved the supply of lethal weapons to a third country. To date, the EU has committed 11.1 billion of EPF funding for military support to Ukraine, including 5 billion for a dedicated Ukraine Assistance Fund which was agreed in March 2024.]

[As this chart shows, thanks chiefly to the 77.2 billion in pledged financial aid, European Union institutions are the largest aid donors to Ukraine. This is based on data from the IfW Kiel Ukraine Support Tracker which currently covers the period January 24, 2022 to January 15, 2024.

Ukraine's largest military aid partner since the start of the war, the United States, has committed... Germany, the United Kingdom and Denmark have been the next most significant pledgers of aid.]

https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-humanitarian-and-financial-aid-donors/

Rep. McCaul: “I want to give them everything they need to at least push the Russians back so we don’t have to send our men and women over there. It’s called deterrence. If we fail on that and surrender in Ukraine...it makes us weaker because we’re not projecting strength.” pic.twitter.com/NsSO52aT31

— Republicans for Ukraine (@GOP4Ukraine) April 18, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

Rep. McCaul: “I want to give them everything they need to at least push the Russians back so we don’t have to send our men and women over there. It’s called deterrence. If we fail on that and surrender in Ukraine...it makes us weaker because we’re not projecting strength.” pic.twitter.com/NsSO52aT31

— Republicans for Ukraine (@GOP4Ukraine) April 18, 2024

---

Why would we ever have to send "our boys and girls" over to eastern Ukraine?

I can't tell if they are fear mongering for more money or they are rooting on the idea of getting American troops involved in another 3rd world hell hole (2nd world technically)

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

America has no Ukraine Plan B except more war

https://asiatimes.com/2024/03/america-has-no-ukraine-plan-b-except-more-war/

Good read, shows where Whiterock's flawed numbers come from. Ukraine is collapsing and barring a foolish move by NATO to ignite WW3 by overtly deploying combat forces to Ukraine the choice is to give the Russians the eastern half, or lose the whole thing.

If sanity prevails President Trump will have negotiators at the table in 2025 hammering out the details of that first option and this latest neocon project will be added to the list of foreign policy misadventures that include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.

---

It's just Sam Lowery-lite, and actually undermines your assertion that Ukraine is out of manpower.

All you have to do to blow his argument out of the water is point to the combined GDP of Russia vs NATO. It's the difference between a pickup truck and a freight train.

---

Freight trains aren't built for war. Neither is the NATO economy. That's all I needed to say a year ago, and it's only proven truer in the weeks and months since.

---

LOL you blundered into that one. Freight trains are central to the Russian war machine.....their logistical chain relies upon them to a degree no other military does. Russia has an entire military command devoted to railway operations (+/- 30k troops).

No peacetime economy is built for war. They have to mobilize. And the size of your economy limits how much one can mobilize. The Russian economy is 10% the size of the Nato economy. They have no hope of winning a war against Nato.
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Thoughts/NATOs-Combined-GDP-is-far-larger-than-Russias.aspx

Russia also faces a daunting mismatch in population, 6-to-1:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/nato

Russia is already at the point where additional mobilizations will affect economic output.....

---

You missed the point. We never mobilized for Ukraine, and now it's far too late.

---

Nato doesn't need to fully mobilize to win the war in Ukraine. It has a 10-1 advantage. Just letting Ukraine have the stuff we were planning to destroy anyway has brought Russia to a standstill.

---

Not even close.

---

You're right. My statement wasn't close. It was Spot. On.

---

They're about to "standstill" their way into Chasiv Yar as we speak. That's four out of five major Russian objectives I identified a year ago, despite the fact they've been in a defensive posture almost the whole time. So yeah..."spot on."

---

Since their capture of Bakhnut a year ago, the Russians have advanced almost 10km to Yasiv Char, less a half-mile per month, nearly all of it in the last 60 days after the Ukrainians have run out of ammunition.

Can you not see how silly your point is here? Even at the rate Russia has advanced in the last month, it will take years for them to take everything east of the Dnieper.

If we keep supplying ammo, They won't take a yard.

---

Note the phrase "despite being in a defensive posture." It's incredible that you've been watching this for the last year and still don't understand the Russian strategy.

---

Their strategy is quite clear. They are going to keep throwing human waves at Ukrainian lines to deplete existing aid packages

---

Certainly not.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


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

Quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

---

Your criteria are only relevant to NATO. They don't make Ukraine any less a threat to Russia, so waiting a decade or three doesn't change anything.
Wait a minute. Now you're saying UKRAINE is a threat to Russia? If Ukraine was a threat to Russia, why would they need to join Nato? Very chaotic thinking you have going on their, sir.

NATO doesn't exist only to defend against Russia. It's also there to pacify Europe -- a benefit that will be sorely missed as its influence continues to decline. France is already trying to position itself as a military leader in post-NATO Europe, much to the annoyance of the Germans.
LOL you work tirelessly to undermine Nato support for Ukraine, advocating that we avoid war by leaving to Russia as much of Ukraine as Russia wants, and let the Russian war machine move 600mi westward to the borders of the heart of NATO.......and then stand back and say "poor Nato....it's declining. Tsk. Tsk. What a shame."

---

LOL you're like the arsonist who set fire to the house and blamed the owners for not locking the doors.

---

Having what you call a "stable democratic system," which you cite as a requirement for NATO membership, would not make Ukraine any less of a threat to Russia. It's only a matter of concern to the West.

NATO is weakening itself by pursuing the proxy war in Ukraine. The longer it goes on, the more territory Ukraine will lose and the worse NATO's humiliation will be. You can't blame me for that. I would have focused on our role as a defensive alliance and a stabilizing force in Europe instead of relentlessly provoking the Russians.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The War Our Leaders Are Preparing Us For:


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

Quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

Absolute nonsense.

---

They're openly saying it.

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

LOL I have pointed that out *a half-dozen times or more) as my reason for NOT wanting to admit Ukraine to Nato for a decade or three!

NATO has stated criteria for membership, which includes two relevant items on this point: no border controversies, and stable democratic systems. Finland, Sweden, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria....all have them. Ukraine does not. That is not to say Ukraine cannot or will not have them. Their application is in. So let them prove themselves out over the next 10-20 years (preferably the further end of that envelope). IF they get there, fine. If not, fine. They can remain in partner status.

But since you made the reflexivity argument, let's look at you insistence that the advance of Nato is a threat to Russia. Who has Nato invaded? (nobody). What Russia really means when they describe the growth of NATO as a threat is...they can't dominate those areas anymore (which is why those areas all wanted to join Nato).

FACT: Without Russia, Nato doesn't exist.

No matter how much you lionize and apologize for them, Russia is an aggressive expansionist power with delusions of imperial grandeur that no one WANTS to be dominated by.

---

Your criteria are only relevant to NATO. They don't make Ukraine any less a threat to Russia, so waiting a decade or three doesn't change anything.
Wait a minute. Now you're saying UKRAINE is a threat to Russia? If Ukraine was a threat to Russia, why would they need to join Nato? Very chaotic thinking you have going on their, sir.

NATO doesn't exist only to defend against Russia. It's also there to pacify Europe -- a benefit that will be sorely missed as its influence continues to decline. France is already trying to position itself as a military leader in post-NATO Europe, much to the annoyance of the Germans.
LOL you work tirelessly to undermine Nato support for Ukraine, advocating that we avoid war by leaving to Russia as much of Ukraine as Russia wants, and let the Russian war machine move 600mi westward to the borders of the heart of NATO.......and then stand back and say "poor Nato....it's declining. Tsk. Tsk. What a shame."

---

LOL you're like the arsonist who set fire to the house and blamed the owners for not locking the doors.

---

Having what you call a "stable democratic system," which you cite as a requirement for NATO membership, would not make Ukraine any less of a threat to Russia. It's only a matter of concern to the West.

NATO is weakening itself by pursuing the proxy war in Ukraine. The longer it goes on, the more territory Ukraine will lose and the worse NATO's humiliation will be. You can't blame me for that. I would have focused on our role as a defensive alliance and a stabilizing force in Europe instead of relentlessly provoking the Russians.

---

Wrong.

"Stop fighting or we'll rape you harder." Spoken like a true vatnik.

whiterock said:

---

We are literally paying more money to scrap Bradleys than it costs to ship them to Ukraine and let them get destroyed killing Russians.

---

Now that's a Christian viewpoint. Send obsolete military hardware to an "ally" because it is cheaper to kill people than scrap it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

America has no Ukraine Plan B except more war

https://asiatimes.com/2024/03/america-has-no-ukraine-plan-b-except-more-war/

Good read, shows where Whiterock's flawed numbers come from. Ukraine is collapsing and barring a foolish move by NATO to ignite WW3 by overtly deploying combat forces to Ukraine the choice is to give the Russians the eastern half, or lose the whole thing.

If sanity prevails President Trump will have negotiators at the table in 2025 hammering out the details of that first option and this latest neocon project will be added to the list of foreign policy misadventures that include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.

---

It's just Sam Lowery-lite, and actually undermines your assertion that Ukraine is out of manpower.

All you have to do to blow his argument out of the water is point to the combined GDP of Russia vs NATO. It's the difference between a pickup truck and a freight train.

---

Freight trains aren't built for war. Neither is the NATO economy. That's all I needed to say a year ago, and it's only proven truer in the weeks and months since.

---

LOL you blundered into that one. Freight trains are central to the Russian war machine.....their logistical chain relies upon them to a degree no other military does. Russia has an entire military command devoted to railway operations (+/- 30k troops).

No peacetime economy is built for war. They have to mobilize. And the size of your economy limits how much one can mobilize. The Russian economy is 10% the size of the Nato economy. They have no hope of winning a war against Nato.
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Thoughts/NATOs-Combined-GDP-is-far-larger-than-Russias.aspx

Russia also faces a daunting mismatch in population, 6-to-1:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/nato

Russia is already at the point where additional mobilizations will affect economic output.....

---

You missed the point. We never mobilized for Ukraine, and now it's far too late.

---

Nato doesn't need to fully mobilize to win the war in Ukraine. It has a 10-1 advantage. Just letting Ukraine have the stuff we were planning to destroy anyway has brought Russia to a standstill.

---

Not even close.

---

You're right. My statement wasn't close. It was Spot. On.

---

They're about to "standstill" their way into Chasiv Yar as we speak. That's four out of five major Russian objectives I identified a year ago, despite the fact they've been in a defensive posture almost the whole time. So yeah..."spot on."

---

Since their capture of Bakhnut a year ago, the Russians have advanced almost 10km to Yasiv Char, less a half-mile per month, nearly all of it in the last 60 days after the Ukrainians have run out of ammunition.

Can you not see how silly your point is here? Even at the rate Russia has advanced in the last month, it will take years for them to take everything east of the Dnieper.

If we keep supplying ammo, They won't take a yard.

---

Note the phrase "despite being in a defensive posture." It's incredible that you've been watching this for the last year and still don't understand the Russian strategy.

---

Their strategy is quite clear. They are going to keep throwing human waves at Ukrainian lines to deplete existing aid packages

---

Certainly not.

---

That's exactly what they are trying to do, shill.

I am grateful to the United States House of Representatives, both parties, and personally Speaker Mike Johnson for the decision that keeps history on the right track.

Democracy and freedom will always have global significance and will never fail as long as America helps to…

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) April 20, 2024

The Pentagon is preparing to rush critical ammunition and air defenses to Ukraine in the coming days, delivering a lifeline to frontline forces battered by Russian bombs and demoralized by congressional inaction. https://t.co/6dQVHrdqcG

— Axios (@axios) April 20, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

The Pentagon is preparing to rush critical ammunition and air defenses to Ukraine in the coming days, delivering a lifeline to frontline forces battered by Russian bombs and demoralized by congressional inaction. https://t.co/6dQVHrdqcG

— Axios (@axios) April 20, 2024

---

So it's not the horrific war they being forced a gun point to fight that is demoralizing the Ukrainian soldiers…

It's that pesky American Congress debating on if it should be fleecing the taxpayers for billions.

God I get such a kick out of the Media

The reality is that "Aid to Ukraine" is actually just funding their entire civil service because their true GDP has gone to 0. This war requires constant injections of $20B+ or else it stops immediately because the entire country stops showing up to work. https://t.co/XfFlo3ExSs

— HankHeIl (@HankHeil) April 21, 2024