Why Are We in Ukraine?

635,545 Views | 8139 Replies | Last: 2 min ago by Doc Holliday
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ron.reagan said:

LGBTID=, religious people, you, all wetards that I don't mind engaging with . If you ever win bingo night at the trailer park you should travel the world a little

Despite your low level bigotry against White people who happen to live in trailer parks (often really good folks).....I don't live in one

I have also been all over Europe (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Slovenia, Switzerland)

Have you been anywhere you tard?

Certainly not to Ukraine to fight you war mongering coward lol
ron.reagan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

LGBTID=, religious people, you, all wetards that I don't mind engaging with . If you ever win bingo night at the trailer park you should travel the world a little

Despite your low level bigotry against White people who happen to live in trailer parks (often really good folks).....I don't live in one

I have also been all over Europe (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Slovenia, Switzerland)

Have you been anywhere you tard?

Certainly not to Ukraine to fight you war mongering coward lol
As I've said before I've spent half my adult life in South Korea. I also managed a team out of Lviv for a decade.

And my apologizes, I had no idea you were white
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ron.reagan said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

LGBTID=, religious people, you, all wetards that I don't mind engaging with . If you ever win bingo night at the trailer park you should travel the world a little

Despite your low level bigotry against White people who happen to live in trailer parks (often really good folks).....I don't live in one

I have also been all over Europe (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Slovenia, Switzerland)

Have you been anywhere you tard?

Certainly not to Ukraine to fight you war mongering coward lol
As I've said before I've spent half my adult life in South Korea. I also managed a team out of Lviv for a decade.

And my apologizes, I had no idea you were white

So you're an anime obsessed unmarried Incel....makes sense
ron.reagan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

LGBTID=, religious people, you, all wetards that I don't mind engaging with . If you ever win bingo night at the trailer park you should travel the world a little

Despite your low level bigotry against White people who happen to live in trailer parks (often really good folks).....I don't live in one

I have also been all over Europe (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Slovenia, Switzerland)

Have you been anywhere you tard?

Certainly not to Ukraine to fight you war mongering coward lol
As I've said before I've spent half my adult life in South Korea. I also managed a team out of Lviv for a decade.

And my apologizes, I had no idea you were white

So you're an anime obsessed unmarried Incel....makes sense

At least we got past the bigotry part
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


Sorry Sam

Russian tank tactics were developed and designed to role through Poland and the Baltic States.

That has been an open secret for decades.
Yet lo and behold, there they are, defending Russian trenches in the Donbas almost as if they were following a doctrine set forth by Putin in 2010 and widely if not universally recognized by our own military experts.
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe

And the A-10 Thunderbolt II was designed to destroy them.

(and no matter what our lying military desk jockey brass says about the "threat of Russia"....they have stopped production on that anti-tank killer because they know there is no chance Russia invades Europe)


LOL

Have always been amused about the social media love affair with the A-10. Guess because it looks 'cool'.

The airframe has been obsolete for at least 20 years.
Unless you have total air supremacy the A-10 is an easy kill for almost any jet fighter.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

KaiBear said:

J.R. said:

KaiBear said:

J.R. said:

I did enjoy seeing the little French Guy (Macron) run circles around Trump yesterday. Charmed the crap out of him as Trump loves, then Macron punched him in the nose relative to the structure of the European "loan" as Trump said. Macron fact checked the Liar in Chief in real time on TV and set him straight. The look on Trump's fat face was priceless.
Amusing how we all look situations differently.

Often twisting realities to enhance our pre conceived notions.

I just want to see this war end and hopefully get some of the billions Biden gave away returned to benefit American taxpayers.
I think everyone want to see the war end, just like Israel /Gaza. The FACT that Trump continues to repeat that Ukraine was the aggressor and started the war. No one in their right mind could possibly believe that. For anyone who does, please let me know the specifics. Did Russia invade Ukraine or not? Unbelievable that our President can get people to believe it. Howdy Hitler.
Not everyone wants to see the war end on realistic terms.

Ukraine's military is clearly bleeding to death.

Her infrastructure blasted; the people worn out.

Trump is right to push for a settlement....Biden never had the juice to do so.

Don't agree with all of Trump's comments; however I suspect he is looking beyond a truce and attempting to build some long term business realationships with Russia as a way to have real security in Europe.
Russia has no more territory than it had in April 2022.

Russia, not Ukraine, has had to bring in tens of thousands of troops from North Korea, Yemen, and North Africa. And some estimates have half their new weapons and ammo coming from China, North Korea, and Iran.



1. So the front line is static...Russia can't even advance past what it held 3 years ago

2. Russia has to rely on conscript forces from 2nd and 3rd world Nations

How do these facts change the narrative about how Russia is this great threat that the USA needs to confront in a bloody proxy war? Or else Russia will invade the rest of Europe....


But, yes, Russia is a threat to the U.S. geopolitically and in other significant ways simply virtue of being on the opposite side on most major world issues, trying to undermine us in every region of the world, and aligning with our worst enemies.



How much of that opposition has come directly from DC-Brussels actions and how much of it was Russian actions?

After all Russia is a different civilization (Orthodox Civilization according to Huntington) but not that much different than the West. They could be partners and not enemies.

"Bluntly stated...expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … "- Excerpt from George F. Kennan, "A Fateful Error," New York Times, 05 Feb 1997

"I sometimes wonder if our leaders actually want to drive Russia into an angry, sullen isolation. Russians are proud and patriotic. They are as wounded by the loss of status and empire as we were in the Fifties. Why rub their noses in it, week by week, by keeping NATO alive years after it should have been wound up and by threatening to extend it into Ukraine and Georgia. It is by doing things such as this that we created Vladimir Putin. This alliance does not have the military strength to defend its overstretched frontiers and will look very silly if a future Kremlin decides to pressure its neighbors, who will then call on NATO for help and find that none comes." -Peter Hitchens



My answer might surprise you. It's both. We despise most things about Russia. Russia despises most things about us. It's really not too complex. Some tend to overthink it, others minimize it for some unknown reason. We just have diametrically opposed world views.

I know there are exceptions, but not too many people who have spent substantial time in Russia and truly studied it, disagree.

For example, as even Sachs acknowledges, Russia itself could have joined NATO. For such a significant entity, its membership requirements are straightforward. But Russia has no interest in satisfying even half of them. This is going to sound harsher than it's meant to be, but freedom, individual rights, individual over state, etc. just aren't on Putin's radar. And that's ok. That's a longstanding worldview of many countries and leaders.

Nobody created Putin. He is what he has always been. He's been consistent if nothing else. Read his writings. Read interviews of his friends and family. If anything, his actions have been less extreme than his core belief, and as much a detractor as anyone. He very openly yearns for the old Soviet Empire and what he has long called the Rome of this age.



It seems unlikely that Sachs would say that. Putin certainly never said anything about bringing back the Soviet empire.

Everyone I know who's studied Russia did so because they love the language and culture.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

Redbrickbear said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe

And the A-10 Thunderbolt II was designed to destroy them.

(and no matter what our lying military desk jockey brass says about the "threat of Russia"....they have stopped production on that anti-tank killer because they know there is no chance Russia invades Europe)


LOL

Have always been amused about the social media love affair the with A-10. Guess because it looks 'cool'.

The airframe has been obsolete for at least 20 years.
Unless you have total air supremacy the A-10 is an easy kill for almost any jet fighter.


It does look so cool



Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

KaiBear said:

J.R. said:

KaiBear said:

J.R. said:

I did enjoy seeing the little French Guy (Macron) run circles around Trump yesterday. Charmed the crap out of him as Trump loves, then Macron punched him in the nose relative to the structure of the European "loan" as Trump said. Macron fact checked the Liar in Chief in real time on TV and set him straight. The look on Trump's fat face was priceless.
Amusing how we all look situations differently.

Often twisting realities to enhance our pre conceived notions.

I just want to see this war end and hopefully get some of the billions Biden gave away returned to benefit American taxpayers.
I think everyone want to see the war end, just like Israel /Gaza. The FACT that Trump continues to repeat that Ukraine was the aggressor and started the war. No one in their right mind could possibly believe that. For anyone who does, please let me know the specifics. Did Russia invade Ukraine or not? Unbelievable that our President can get people to believe it. Howdy Hitler.
Not everyone wants to see the war end on realistic terms.

Ukraine's military is clearly bleeding to death.

Her infrastructure blasted; the people worn out.

Trump is right to push for a settlement....Biden never had the juice to do so.

Don't agree with all of Trump's comments; however I suspect he is looking beyond a truce and attempting to build some long term business realationships with Russia as a way to have real security in Europe.
Russia has no more territory than it had in April 2022.

Russia, not Ukraine, has had to bring in tens of thousands of troops from North Korea, Yemen, and North Africa. And some estimates have half their new weapons and ammo coming from China, North Korea, and Iran.



1. So the front line is static...Russia can't even advance past what it held 3 years ago

2. Russia has to rely on conscript forces from 2nd and 3rd world Nations

How do these facts change the narrative about how Russia is this great threat that the USA needs to confront in a bloody proxy war? Or else Russia will invade the rest of Europe....


But, yes, Russia is a threat to the U.S. geopolitically and in other significant ways simply virtue of being on the opposite side on most major world issues, trying to undermine us in every region of the world, and aligning with our worst enemies.



How much of that opposition has come directly from DC-Brussels actions and how much of it was Russian actions?

After all Russia is a different civilization (Orthodox Civilization according to Huntington) but not that much different than the West. They could be partners and not enemies.

"Bluntly stated...expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … "- Excerpt from George F. Kennan, "A Fateful Error," New York Times, 05 Feb 1997

"I sometimes wonder if our leaders actually want to drive Russia into an angry, sullen isolation. Russians are proud and patriotic. They are as wounded by the loss of status and empire as we were in the Fifties. Why rub their noses in it, week by week, by keeping NATO alive years after it should have been wound up and by threatening to extend it into Ukraine and Georgia. It is by doing things such as this that we created Vladimir Putin. This alliance does not have the military strength to defend its overstretched frontiers and will look very silly if a future Kremlin decides to pressure its neighbors, who will then call on NATO for help and find that none comes." -Peter Hitchens



My answer might surprise you. It's both. We despise most things about Russia. Russia despises most things about us. It's really not too complex. Some tend to overthink it, others minimize it for some unknown reason. We just have diametrically opposed world views.

I know there are exceptions, but not too many people who have spent substantial time in Russia and truly studied it, disagree.

For example, as even Sachs acknowledges, Russia itself could have joined NATO. For such a significant entity, its membership requirements are straightforward. But Russia has no interest in satisfying even half of them. This is going to sound harsher than it's meant to be, but freedom, individual rights, individual over state, etc. just aren't on Putin's radar. And that's ok. That's a longstanding worldview of many countries and leaders.

Nobody created Putin. He is what he has always been. He's been consistent if nothing else. Read his writings. Read interviews of his friends and family. If anything, his actions have been less extreme than his core belief, and as much a detractor as anyone. He very openly yearns for the old Soviet Empire and what he has long called the Rome of this age.



Putin certainly never said anything about bringing back the Soviet empire.

Everyone I know who's studied Russia did so because they love the language and culture.


Yea Putin said the break up was a disaster for Moscow's power in the region.

(Something that would be true for DC if the USA broke up….not a very controversial statement)

And it was of course Gorbachev that actually always said he wanted to save the actual Soviet Union….with the socialism stuff intact as well





ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .


Not even close to being true

The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.

America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.

When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government

(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)

You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,

And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!

Hypocrite you are!

And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.

That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )

And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA

The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.

Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars

Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s



Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.

You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.

But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe

And the A-10 Thunderbolt II was designed to destroy them.

(and no matter what our lying military desk jockey brass says about the "threat of Russia"....they have stopped production on that anti-tank killer because they know there is no chance Russia invades Europe)
No, the A-10 is no longer necessary for tank warfare since ground based man and unmanned tank destroying guided missiles are the most effective, as well as Apache helicopter generations that are equipped to destroy tanks and are better ground force support mechanisms.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .


Not even close to being true

The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.

America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.

When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government

(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)

You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,

And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!

Hypocrite you are!

And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.

That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )

And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA

The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.

Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars

Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s



Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.

You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.

But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.


Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class

Has very little to do with external adversaries

9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us

You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.

The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow

They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)

TinFoilHatPreacherBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

KaiBear said:

Redbrickbear said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe

And the A-10 Thunderbolt II was designed to destroy them.

(and no matter what our lying military desk jockey brass says about the "threat of Russia"....they have stopped production on that anti-tank killer because they know there is no chance Russia invades Europe)


LOL

Have always been amused about the social media love affair the with A-10. Guess because it looks 'cool'.

The airframe has been obsolete for at least 20 years.
Unless you have total air supremacy the A-10 is an easy kill for almost any jet fighter.


It does look so cool




We always have total air control. And that's why the guys on the ground love the A10. Slow, brutal and mean, destroying the obstacles for the boots. When it shows up, you know enemies are going bye bye.
Thee tinfoil hat couch-potato prognosticator, not a bible school preacher.


Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

Redbrickbear said:

KaiBear said:

Redbrickbear said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe

And the A-10 Thunderbolt II was designed to destroy them.

(and no matter what our lying military desk jockey brass says about the "threat of Russia"....they have stopped production on that anti-tank killer because they know there is no chance Russia invades Europe)


LOL

Have always been amused about the social media love affair the with A-10. Guess because it looks 'cool'.

The airframe has been obsolete for at least 20 years.
Unless you have total air supremacy the A-10 is an easy kill for almost any jet fighter.


It does look so cool




We always have total air control. And that's why the guys on the ground love the A10. Slow, brutal and mean, destroying the obstacles for the boots. When it shows up, you know enemies are going bye bye.
Still trying to figure out how 6'6, 290 lb Dallas Cowboy Chad Hennings fit in the cockpit of one of those... he flew 45 A10 missions in Iraq back in the day
Facebook Groups at; Memories of: Dallas, Texas, Football in Texas, Texas Music, Through a Texas Lens and also Dallas History Guild. Come visit!
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .


Not even close to being true

The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.

America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.

When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government

(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)

You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,

And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!

Hypocrite you are!

And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.

That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )

And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA

The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.

Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars

Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s



Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.

You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.

But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.


Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class

Has very little to do with external adversaries

9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us

You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.

The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow

They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)



Yep, the wealthiest and most resource rich country in the world and most live with very little savings. The taxpayer is being runover and their wealth siphoned.

Regarding the tweet, 60 billion isn't likely the real number. The Fed has lots of ways to loan on our (the taxpayers) behalf.

One of the frequently overlooked ones is the Fed's currency swaps. Where the Fed provides liquidity or even props up another country/central bank. Not even sure currency swaps are included in the 60 billion number listed above. It's hard to get a good understanding on its "negative" economic impact on the taxpayer, so anyone can feel free to help me out. But in many cases the Fed swaps currencies with a lesser country for "repayment later" via a swap, and in many of those cases we swap/give in situations where we will knowingly lose out. The swap can be at whatever rate the Fed chooses (not in our favor necessarily). I can't really find info on how much we lose on these, but since it's hard to find, I think it will be great amounts.
Thee tinfoil hat couch-potato prognosticator, not a bible school preacher.


KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


Sorry Sam

Russian tank tactics were developed and designed to role through Poland and the Baltic States.

That has been an open secret for decades.
Yet lo and behold, there they are, defending Russian trenches in the Donbas almost as if they were following a doctrine set forth by Putin in 2010 and widely if not universally recognized by our own military experts.


LOL internet speculation does not replace long held Russian doctrine.

Though it's an amusing way to play ' what if '.

sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

KaiBear said:

J.R. said:

KaiBear said:

J.R. said:

I did enjoy seeing the little French Guy (Macron) run circles around Trump yesterday. Charmed the crap out of him as Trump loves, then Macron punched him in the nose relative to the structure of the European "loan" as Trump said. Macron fact checked the Liar in Chief in real time on TV and set him straight. The look on Trump's fat face was priceless.
Amusing how we all look situations differently.

Often twisting realities to enhance our pre conceived notions.

I just want to see this war end and hopefully get some of the billions Biden gave away returned to benefit American taxpayers.
I think everyone want to see the war end, just like Israel /Gaza. The FACT that Trump continues to repeat that Ukraine was the aggressor and started the war. No one in their right mind could possibly believe that. For anyone who does, please let me know the specifics. Did Russia invade Ukraine or not? Unbelievable that our President can get people to believe it. Howdy Hitler.
Not everyone wants to see the war end on realistic terms.

Ukraine's military is clearly bleeding to death.

Her infrastructure blasted; the people worn out.

Trump is right to push for a settlement....Biden never had the juice to do so.

Don't agree with all of Trump's comments; however I suspect he is looking beyond a truce and attempting to build some long term business realationships with Russia as a way to have real security in Europe.
Russia has no more territory than it had in April 2022.

Russia, not Ukraine, has had to bring in tens of thousands of troops from North Korea, Yemen, and North Africa. And some estimates have half their new weapons and ammo coming from China, North Korea, and Iran.



1. So the front line is static...Russia can't even advance past what it held 3 years ago

2. Russia has to rely on conscript forces from 2nd and 3rd world Nations

How do these facts change the narrative about how Russia is this great threat that the USA needs to confront in a bloody proxy war? Or else Russia will invade the rest of Europe....


But, yes, Russia is a threat to the U.S. geopolitically and in other significant ways simply virtue of being on the opposite side on most major world issues, trying to undermine us in every region of the world, and aligning with our worst enemies.



How much of that opposition has come directly from DC-Brussels actions and how much of it was Russian actions?

After all Russia is a different civilization (Orthodox Civilization according to Huntington) but not that much different than the West. They could be partners and not enemies.

"Bluntly stated...expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … "- Excerpt from George F. Kennan, "A Fateful Error," New York Times, 05 Feb 1997

"I sometimes wonder if our leaders actually want to drive Russia into an angry, sullen isolation. Russians are proud and patriotic. They are as wounded by the loss of status and empire as we were in the Fifties. Why rub their noses in it, week by week, by keeping NATO alive years after it should have been wound up and by threatening to extend it into Ukraine and Georgia. It is by doing things such as this that we created Vladimir Putin. This alliance does not have the military strength to defend its overstretched frontiers and will look very silly if a future Kremlin decides to pressure its neighbors, who will then call on NATO for help and find that none comes." -Peter Hitchens



My answer might surprise you. It's both. We despise most things about Russia. Russia despises most things about us. I

There is nothing inherent about the Russian character or Russian civilization that would make them at odds with the USA

(we have never even fought a war against them....are were allies in two world wars)

No, seems more likely this is the direct result of large scale geo-political games on both sides and a desire of the powers that be in DC and Brussels to push a military alliance network up the borders and harass them for not being sufficiently socially liberal/progressive on cultural matters


When I say Russia I mean the Russian government. Some of my favorite people in the world are Russian and live in Russia. My wife is Russian. As Sam mentioned, Russian history, culture, traditions, and society are absolutely fascinating.

And I'm as anti-woke as anyone, but none of NATO's requirements have anything to do with that.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Or maybe Vance was being sarcastic
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

KaiBear said:

J.R. said:

KaiBear said:

J.R. said:

I did enjoy seeing the little French Guy (Macron) run circles around Trump yesterday. Charmed the crap out of him as Trump loves, then Macron punched him in the nose relative to the structure of the European "loan" as Trump said. Macron fact checked the Liar in Chief in real time on TV and set him straight. The look on Trump's fat face was priceless.
Amusing how we all look situations differently.

Often twisting realities to enhance our pre conceived notions.

I just want to see this war end and hopefully get some of the billions Biden gave away returned to benefit American taxpayers.
I think everyone want to see the war end, just like Israel /Gaza. The FACT that Trump continues to repeat that Ukraine was the aggressor and started the war. No one in their right mind could possibly believe that. For anyone who does, please let me know the specifics. Did Russia invade Ukraine or not? Unbelievable that our President can get people to believe it. Howdy Hitler.
Not everyone wants to see the war end on realistic terms.

Ukraine's military is clearly bleeding to death.

Her infrastructure blasted; the people worn out.

Trump is right to push for a settlement....Biden never had the juice to do so.

Don't agree with all of Trump's comments; however I suspect he is looking beyond a truce and attempting to build some long term business realationships with Russia as a way to have real security in Europe.
Russia has no more territory than it had in April 2022.

Russia, not Ukraine, has had to bring in tens of thousands of troops from North Korea, Yemen, and North Africa. And some estimates have half their new weapons and ammo coming from China, North Korea, and Iran.



1. So the front line is static...Russia can't even advance past what it held 3 years ago

2. Russia has to rely on conscript forces from 2nd and 3rd world Nations

How do these facts change the narrative about how Russia is this great threat that the USA needs to confront in a bloody proxy war? Or else Russia will invade the rest of Europe....


But, yes, Russia is a threat to the U.S. geopolitically and in other significant ways simply virtue of being on the opposite side on most major world issues, trying to undermine us in every region of the world, and aligning with our worst enemies.



How much of that opposition has come directly from DC-Brussels actions and how much of it was Russian actions?

After all Russia is a different civilization (Orthodox Civilization according to Huntington) but not that much different than the West. They could be partners and not enemies.

"Bluntly stated...expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … "- Excerpt from George F. Kennan, "A Fateful Error," New York Times, 05 Feb 1997

"I sometimes wonder if our leaders actually want to drive Russia into an angry, sullen isolation. Russians are proud and patriotic. They are as wounded by the loss of status and empire as we were in the Fifties. Why rub their noses in it, week by week, by keeping NATO alive years after it should have been wound up and by threatening to extend it into Ukraine and Georgia. It is by doing things such as this that we created Vladimir Putin. This alliance does not have the military strength to defend its overstretched frontiers and will look very silly if a future Kremlin decides to pressure its neighbors, who will then call on NATO for help and find that none comes." -Peter Hitchens



My answer might surprise you. It's both. We despise most things about Russia. Russia despises most things about us. I

There is nothing inherent about the Russian character or Russian civilization that would make them at odds with the USA

(we have never even fought a war against them....are were allies in two world wars)

No, seems more likely this is the direct result of large scale geo-political games on both sides and a desire of the powers that be in DC and Brussels to push a military alliance network up the borders and harass them for not being sufficiently socially liberal/progressive on cultural matters



And I'm as anti-woke as anyone, but none of NATO's requirements have anything to do with that.


Agree….NATO needs to be maintained

Just not expanded
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


You live in a delusional world. I don't doubt you believe it. Putin, 12k tanks and 2 invasions in 10 years does not add up to defense.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


Sorry Sam

Russian tank tactics were developed and designed to role through Poland and the Baltic States.

That has been an open secret for decades.
Yet lo and behold, there they are, defending Russian trenches in the Donbas almost as if they were following a doctrine set forth by Putin in 2010 and widely if not universally recognized by our own military experts.


LOL internet speculation does not replace long held Russian doctrine.

Though it's an amusing way to play ' what if '.


There's no speculation involved. Russia has clearly defined its doctrine under Putin.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


You live in a delusional world. I don't doubt you believe it. Putin, 12k tanks and 2 invasions in 10 years does not add up to defense.
That is all part of being a regional defensive force. What it's not is a force that threatens Europe.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .


Not even close to being true

The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.

America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.

When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government

(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)

You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,

And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!

Hypocrite you are!

And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.

That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )

And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA

The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.

Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars

Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s



Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.

You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.

But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.


Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class

Has very little to do with external adversaries

9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us

You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.

The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow

They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)


That's the myth you tell yourself. Internal political corruption and dysfunction are real concerns (not to mention standard fare in democracies), but they do not rise to the level of existential threats posed by powerful foreign adversaries, including non state actors. Russia and China possess military, economic, and cyber capabilities that can directly undermine U.S. security, while terrorist organizations have already demonstrated their ability to inflict mass casualties and disrupt our capabilities. Downplaying external threats in favor of an internal political grievance narrative is not only inaccurate but dangerously naive in the face of global challenges.

We have capabilities of dealing with internal political strife, and each side has taken its swipe at it. Trump is the latest version. But you know what would derail DOGE, Trump, and everything happening now? It's not law fare, a vocal Dem party, or a bureaucrat elite. A terror attack would tear up priorities in a matter of minutes. It's been over two decades now and we traded our principles for comfort and security. What 9/11 did along with our policies and approaches since, as well as events along the way, was make fear an ever present factor in our lives. And it made our ability to project power a necessity for our economic success. It is our existential threat regardless of how we feel about opposing political views.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


You live in a delusional world. I don't doubt you believe it. Putin, 12k tanks and 2 invasions in 10 years does not add up to defense.
That is all part of being a regional defensive force. What it's not is a force that threatens Europe.
Tanks are an offensive ground force weapon. The fact you can use them in a defensive battle tactic doesn't change their function.

Russia has a very limited naval expeditionary force, but their ground forces built around tanks, long range bombers, air superiority fighters, mobile missile systems, drones, and cyber warfare are very much intended as an expeditionary force. Deterrence forces (long range nuclear, non nuclear, and hypersonic missiles) along with anti aircraft and missile systems are Russia's primary mechanism for defense.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


You live in a delusional world. I don't doubt you believe it. Putin, 12k tanks and 2 invasions in 10 years does not add up to defense.
That is all part of being a regional defensive force. What it's not is a force that threatens Europe.
Sam, it is designed and built to threaten Europe. It is part of the Russian military identity. They are expansionist, they have taken and lost half of Europe in the past 70 years. They invade a Nation about every 5 years. That is an offensive minded threat. You can romanticize the Russian plight all you want, but their actions are the actions of a thug, expansionist Nation.
KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


Sorry Sam

Russian tank tactics were developed and designed to role through Poland and the Baltic States.

That has been an open secret for decades.
Yet lo and behold, there they are, defending Russian trenches in the Donbas almost as if they were following a doctrine set forth by Putin in 2010 and widely if not universally recognized by our own military experts.


LOL internet speculation does not replace long held Russian doctrine.

Though it's an amusing way to play ' what if '.


There's no speculation involved. Russia has clearly defined its doctrine under Putin.


Indeed

And because of that defensive doctrine both Sweden and Finland felt compelled to join NATO.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


You live in a delusional world. I don't doubt you believe it. Putin, 12k tanks and 2 invasions in 10 years does not add up to defense.
That is all part of being a regional defensive force. What it's not is a force that threatens Europe.
Tanks are an offensive ground force weapon. The fact you can use them in a defensive battle tactic doesn't change their function.

Russia has a very limited naval expeditionary force, but their ground forces built around tanks, long range bombers, air superiority fighters, mobile missile systems, drones, and cyber warfare are very much intended as an expeditionary force. Deterrence forces (long range nuclear, non nuclear, and hypersonic missiles) along with anti aircraft and missile systems are Russia's primary mechanism for defense.
Incorrect.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

FLBear5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


You live in a delusional world. I don't doubt you believe it. Putin, 12k tanks and 2 invasions in 10 years does not add up to defense.
That is all part of being a regional defensive force. What it's not is a force that threatens Europe.
Sam, it is designed and built to threaten Europe. It is part of the Russian military identity. They are expansionist, they have taken and lost half of Europe in the past 70 years. They invade a Nation about every 5 years. That is an offensive minded threat. You can romanticize the Russian plight all you want, but their actions are the actions of a thug, expansionist Nation.
Again, no. Read the doctrine and observe their strategy.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


Sorry Sam

Russian tank tactics were developed and designed to role through Poland and the Baltic States.

That has been an open secret for decades.
Yet lo and behold, there they are, defending Russian trenches in the Donbas almost as if they were following a doctrine set forth by Putin in 2010 and widely if not universally recognized by our own military experts.


LOL internet speculation does not replace long held Russian doctrine.

Though it's an amusing way to play ' what if '.


There's no speculation involved. Russia has clearly defined its doctrine under Putin.


Indeed

And because of that defensive doctrine both Sweden and Finland felt compelled to join NATO.

That and free money goes a long way.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .


Not even close to being true

The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.

America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.

When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government

(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)

You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,

And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!

Hypocrite you are!

And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.

That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )

And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA

The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.

Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars

Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s



Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.

You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.

But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.


Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class

Has very little to do with external adversaries

9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us

You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.

The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow

They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)


That's the myth you tell yourself. Internal political corruption and dysfunction are real concerns (not to mention standard fare in democracies), but they do not rise to the level of existential threats posed by powerful foreign adversaries, including non state actors. Russia.


Russia is not an existential threat to the USA

That is almost as crazy a thing to say as your contention that Al Qaeda "brought the USA to its knees"

But I am coming to understand your extremist view on promoting war with Russia over Ukraine.

You honeslty think somehow Russia is an existential threat to America
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

KaiBear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Redbrickbear said:

ron.reagan said:

historian said:



It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefield

Your takes are always funny

Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.


Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.


Sorry Sam

Russian tank tactics were developed and designed to role through Poland and the Baltic States.

That has been an open secret for decades.
Yet lo and behold, there they are, defending Russian trenches in the Donbas almost as if they were following a doctrine set forth by Putin in 2010 and widely if not universally recognized by our own military experts.


LOL internet speculation does not replace long held Russian doctrine.

Though it's an amusing way to play ' what if '.


There's no speculation involved. Russia has clearly defined its doctrine under Putin.


Indeed

And because of that defensive doctrine both Sweden and Finland felt compelled to join NATO.

That and free money goes a long way.
You really believe it, don't you. You honestly see Putin as an honest, up front actor.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KaiBear said:

whiterock said:

KaiBear said:

This entire narrative that this bloodfest in Ukraine was somehow worth it in order to 'weaken' the Russian military is ludicrous.
It is the price Russia pays for imperialism. That price has significantly weakened them. More importantly, we did not cause the events which unfolded. RUSSIA DID.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered.
Russia's invaded Ukraine, not Nato.

Only folks thousands of miles from the carnage can even attempt to be smug about it.
Nobody is smug. Just doing what must be done.

And for what …..to argue about tanks ?
Noting a relevant data point highlighting the nearly existential cost Russia has paid.

Russia will easily rebuild their tank numbers.
Nope. Will take them 30-40 years, minimum, if ever. They built those stores when they were twice as large a country. And now the demographic trends are working against them.

The United States might even get back some of the hundreds of billions Biden cynically gave away.
Probably will indeed get some sweetheart commercial deals that will matter.

But those lives are irrevocably lost.

Better Russian lives than ours.
Better Ukrainian lives than ours.

When an adversary advances toward you and an ally in the way is willing to resist that adversary, you support that ally until they run out of the ability to fight. Ukraine is a long, long way from that point.


Joe Biden's dementia and incredible blundering contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

To you it's just a numbers game.

Gives you a reason to get up in the morning.

But regardless if those killed are Russian or Ukrainians, they are human beings. Real blood and real carnage.

Trump has repeatedly said; had he been president this war would have never happened.

That is 100% correct .

It is the worst US foreign policy blunder since the 1950's.


you should thank the Ukrainians for doing very hard work for us - grinding up the Russian war machine for us.

It's not like they aren't getting anything for it. The survival of the Ukrainian state is assured.

Worst US foreign policy blunder since the 1950s was to not react more forcefully to Russia in 2014, followed by refusing to provide Ukraine with lethal aid sooner and more robustly. But by any measure, the worst blunder of all was Biden's escalation management strategy of slow walking all the aid and limiting how that aid could be used. It was a policy of "as long as it takes" rather "Ukrainian victory as soon as possible." It ensured the war would turn into WWI rather than WWII (attrition vs maneuver warfare) which of course plays to Russian strengths.

whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

whiterock said:

KaiBear said:

This entire narrative that this bloodfest in Ukraine was somehow worth it in order to 'weaken' the Russian military is ludicrous.
It is the price Russia pays for imperialism. That price has significantly weakened them. More importantly, we did not cause the events which unfolded. RUSSIA DID.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered.
Russia's invaded Ukraine, not Nato.

Only folks thousands of miles from the carnage can even attempt to be smug about it.
Nobody is smug. Just doing what must be done.

And for what …..to argue about tanks ?
Noting a relevant data point highlighting the nearly existential cost Russia has paid.

Russia will easily rebuild their tank numbers.
Nope. Will take them 30-40 years, minimum, if ever. They built those stores when they were twice as large a country. And now the demographic trends are working against them.

The United States might even get back some of the hundreds of billions Biden cynically gave away.
Probably will indeed get some sweetheart commercial deals that will matter.

But those lives are irrevocably lost.

Better Russian lives than ours.
Better Ukrainian lives than ours.

When an adversary advances toward you and an ally in the way is willing to resist that adversary, you support that ally until they run out of the ability to fight. Ukraine is a long, long way from that point.
Better no lives lost and peace.
Better redlines and diplomacy than war.

This is what the Trump administration is pursuing. Are ya'll now wholly against this administration? Based on your logic, I would assume you would prefer Kamala had won in order to pursue the endless support for the continuation of this war.
Yeah, but Obama and Biden bungled the readiness and diplomacy.

I told you that Trump would not end the war by cutting off aid to Ukraine. And look at the headlines this morning......Trump saying the minerals deal would give Ukraine all the money it needed to fight for as long as it needed.

Trump (and I) understand what many of his supporters do not - Russia's invasion of Ukraine cannot be allowed to stand. Russia must lose. Or it must retreat. Those are its choices. Or, at least, those are the choices Trump just sat in front of them at the peace talks.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:


Better Russian lives than ours.
Better Ukrainian lives than ours.


There is nothing east of the Bug river worth a single American life

Or anything there that would need us to be engaged in a costly proxy war that kills Ukrainians or russians.

Nor is there anything pre-determined about conflict with Russia. Its taken 30 years of deliberate decision making to get us to this point.

[George F. Kennan, had called the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era." Kennan, the architect of America's post-World War II strategy of containment of the Soviet Union, believed, as did most other Russia experts in the United States, that expanding NATO would damage beyond repair U.S. efforts to transform Russia from enemy to partner.]

[Even that first stage provoked Russian opposition and anger. In her memoir, Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, concedes that "[Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed to enlargement, seeing it as a strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe's dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated."

Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state, similarly described the Russian attitude. "Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country. They point out that they have disbanded the Warsaw Pact, their military alliance, and ask why the west should not do the same." It was an excellent question, and neither the Clinton administration nor its successors provided even a remotely convincing answer.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine
Kennan was a wise man. But even wise men make mistakes, in this particular case thinking the odds of making Russia a partner were greater than the odds of Russia simply rebuilding the old WP footprint (which has been the aim of its foreign policy for at least a thousand years.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

KaiBear said:

whiterock said:

KaiBear said:

This entire narrative that this bloodfest in Ukraine was somehow worth it in order to 'weaken' the Russian military is ludicrous.
It is the price Russia pays for imperialism. That price has significantly weakened them. More importantly, we did not cause the events which unfolded. RUSSIA DID.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered.
Russia's invaded Ukraine, not Nato.

Only folks thousands of miles from the carnage can even attempt to be smug about it.
Nobody is smug. Just doing what must be done.

And for what …..to argue about tanks ?
Noting a relevant data point highlighting the nearly existential cost Russia has paid.

Russia will easily rebuild their tank numbers.
Nope. Will take them 30-40 years, minimum, if ever. They built those stores when they were twice as large a country. And now the demographic trends are working against them.

The United States might even get back some of the hundreds of billions Biden cynically gave away.
Probably will indeed get some sweetheart commercial deals that will matter.

But those lives are irrevocably lost.

Better Russian lives than ours.
Better Ukrainian lives than ours.

When an adversary advances toward you and an ally in the way is willing to resist that adversary, you support that ally until they run out of the ability to fight. Ukraine is a long, long way from that point.


Joe Biden's dementia and incredible blundering contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

To you it's just a numbers game.

Gives you a reason to get up in the morning.

But regardless if those killed are Russian or Ukrainians, they are human beings. Real blood and real carnage.

Trump has repeatedly said; had he been president this war would have never happened.

That is 100% correct .

It is the worst US foreign policy blunder since the 1950's.


you should thank the Ukrainians for doing very hard work for us - grinding up the Russian war machine for us.

It's not like they aren't getting anything for it. The survival of the Ukrainian state is assured.

Worst US foreign policy blunder since the 1950s was to not react more forcefully to Russia in 2014, followed by refusing to provide Ukraine with lethal aid sooner and more robustly. But by any measure, the worst blunder of all was Biden's escalation management strategy of slow walking all the aid and limiting how that aid could be used. It was a policy of "as long as it takes" rather "Ukrainian victory as soon as possible." It ensured the war would turn into WWI rather than WWII (attrition vs maneuver warfare) which of course plays to Russian strengths.


You are right on the nose. They needed the full package at the beginning when it could have made a difference.
First Page Last Page
Page 226 of 233
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.