sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:

“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025

---

"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"

The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right

But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.

And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation

---

LOL. "never."

You need to go back and read your history again........

---

I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]

Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?

Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian

Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians

[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]

---

The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.

---

For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR

Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there

[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]

---

I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with this

---

Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.

Of course DC would not like to see that at home

Kyiv does not want that right now.

And Moscow does not want that.

I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....

---

Just a reminder that the Donbas never voted, never even informally raised joining Russia as an issue, and was NOT majority "Ethnic Russian" in 2014.

---

Just a reminder that they voted twice, once for independence in 2014 and once for annexation to Russia in 2022. We can debate the legitimacy of those votes, but they did happen.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Well that's how their military is designed. You can tout whatever Kremlin talking point you need, but that's who they are militarily. Their decision to move from rapid advance early in the war to slow, war of attrition doesn't change the nature or purpose of their forces.

---

No, that is not how their military is designed. It is vastly different from its Soviet predecessor.

Russian doctrines serve two main purposes -- to define the parameters of military action and to define what the military needs in order to accomplish its goals. Our own military understands this and analyzes Russian doctrinal statements accordingly. To refer to them as "Kremlin talking points," as if they were concocted for your benefit, is to misunderstand the subject entirely.

Russia's military is currently designed for regional defense and nuclear deterrence. This is not controversial. Any politician who tells you otherwise is playing on your fears just like they did with Afghanistan and Iraq.

---

Politicians aren't telling me anything. The only person being told something by politicians is you as you quote their "doctrine". How did Russia roll into Georgia? In tanks. How did they roll into the Donbas? In tanks. How did they roll into Ukraine? In tanks. Combined with their Air Force make up, missiles (non nuke), cyber warfare, and the paramilitary Wagner Group, it's laughable to say they are just some regional defense force.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Well that's how their military is designed. You can tout whatever Kremlin talking point you need, but that's who they are militarily. Their decision to move from rapid advance early in the war to slow, war of attrition doesn't change the nature or purpose of their forces.

---

No, that is not how their military is designed. It is vastly different from its Soviet predecessor.

Russian doctrines serve two main purposes -- to define the parameters of military action and to define what the military needs in order to accomplish its goals. Our own military understands this and analyzes Russian doctrinal statements accordingly. To refer to them as "Kremlin talking points," as if they were concocted for your benefit, is to misunderstand the subject entirely.

Russia's military is currently designed for regional defense and nuclear deterrence. This is not controversial. Any politician who tells you otherwise is playing on your fears just like they did with Afghanistan and Iraq.

---

Politicians aren't telling me anything. The only person being told something by politicians is you as you quote their "doctrine". How did Russia roll into Georgia? In tanks. How did they roll into the Donbas? In tanks. How did they roll into Ukraine? In tanks. Combined with their Air Force make up, missiles (non nuke), cyber warfare, and the paramilitary Wagner Group, it's laughable to say they are just some regional defense force.

---

Is there some misunderstanding about the term "regional?" Russia's doctrine is admittedly designed to address threats in places like Georgia and Ukraine. That is completely different from waging war against NATO on its own territory. The idea of the Wagner Group invading Europe is laughable.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

You told me that you wanted this war to go on as long as possible and peace talks were off the table because you wanted to crush Russia for as long as possible.

The Trump administration has no intentions of allowing this war to continue.

---

Then why did he just negotiate a de facto Lend-lease deal with them and state "now Ukraine can fight on for as long as it wants."

Trump doesn't care how long the conflict lasts. He just wants the Europeans to pay for most of it so we can focus on China/Pacific.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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)

Cumulative US foreign aid 1946 to 2023.
Annually we are now giving away over $63 billion officially.

If you include Ukraine, It around $200 billion in the past two years, so the annual spending is closer to $160+ billion per year in 2023 and 2024.

We have a $2 trillion annual… pic.twitter.com/ZF2j6F84B5

— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) December 24, 2024

---

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 honestly think somehow Russia is an existential threat to America

---

They have an equivalent nuclear arsenal and an adversarial relationship with us. Heck, you and your ilk have argued to not escalate the Ukraine War due to that very existential threat! Who's crazy again??

---

1. Is every country that has nukes an existential threat to the USA?

How about Israel?

The idea that a country we have never had a war with....and one that we actually were allied in two different world wars with....is now an "existential threat" is a scary idea you are pushing.

2. I have also never used the term "existential threat" with russia or nuclear war.....I did say it was beyond stupid to fight a proxy war with Russia over a long time client state of theirs.....a war that could turn nuclear an be a disaster for us and Western Civilization. Not worth the risk at all.

I would feel the same about fighting a nuclear war with France over the Belgium

You are ok with the risk because you have already predetermined that the Russian Federation already posses some kind of "existential threat" to the United States

---

LOL nuclear capability is not a paramount concern for countries that have democratic systems and are allied with us, allow us basing rights, cooperate with us on trade & security issues, etc...... It is an enormous concern, however, for countries which spend every waking moment of every waking day trying to disrupt our trade and security relationships, which Russia has done to us for the last couple hundred years +

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:

“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025

---

"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"

The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right

But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.

And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation

---

LOL. "never."

You need to go back and read your history again........

---

I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]

Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?

Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian

Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians

[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]

---

The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.

---

For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR

Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there

[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]

---

I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with this

---

Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.

Of course DC would not like to see that at home

Kyiv does not want that right now.

And Moscow does not want that.

I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....

---

as a general rule, most states want to leave borders where they are, because fiddling with them starts wars. See Ukraine, 2022.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:

“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025

---

"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"

The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right

But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.

And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation

---

LOL. "never."

You need to go back and read your history again........

---

I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]

Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?

Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian

Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians

[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]

---

Why don't you apply the same template of ethnicity to Russia and see what would happen?

The point of my query was to illustrate that trying to sculpture borders to historic ethnicity is a bottomless pit of nonsense. Most of Ukraine was once part of a Lithuanian state. Much of it was occupied by peoples who no longer exist, or who have not had significant presence in the region for a couple of centuries (Turkey in particular, but also Pechenegs and others). Look at the Bulgars. Should they get a state carved out in Russia. They already have one in the Balkans. So why not on the Volga. And how did do many of them get from the Volga to the Balkans, anyway?

Russia tries to Russify everything it can get its hands on. Relentlessly.
Ukraine is trying to Ukrainize everything it can get its hands on Relentlessly.
It's what states do.
Because its the only way to build a justification to either move or defend borders.

States have intense interest in defending their borders.
Moving borders involves wars.
The premise of your entire worldview here is at odds with your opposition to the war.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:

“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025

---

"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"

The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right

But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.

And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation

---

LOL. "never."

You need to go back and read your history again........

---

I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]

Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?

Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian

Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians

[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]

---

The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.

---

For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR

Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there

[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]

---

I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with this

---

Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.

Of course DC would not like to see that at home

Kyiv does not want that right now.

And Moscow does not want that.

I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....

---

Just a reminder that the Donbas never voted, never even informally raised joining Russia as an issue, and was NOT majority "Ethnic Russian" in 2014.

---

Just a reminder that they voted twice, once for independence in 2014 and once for annexation to Russia in 2022. We can debate the legitimacy of those votes, but they did happen.

---

Correct. The context for my discussion with Red was pre-2014 invasion.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:

“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025

---

"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"

The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right

But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.

And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation

---

LOL. "never."

You need to go back and read your history again........

---

I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]

Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?

Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian

Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians

[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]

---

Why don't you apply the same template of ethnicity to Russia and see what would happen?

---

Happy to do so....

The Chechens have already tried to fight there way out of the Russ. Federation twice (1994 & 1999)

Other groups are welcome to do so as well....and might in the future.

Will you then advocate for sending weapons and money to Moscow to help them keep non-ethnic Russians inside the Russian Federation? lol of course you would not....

Yet you do demand the USA does that with Kyiv (send them weapons to keep a non-Ukrainian minority inside the union)

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:

“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025

---

"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"

The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right

But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.

And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation

---

LOL. "never."

You need to go back and read your history again........

---

I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]

Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?

Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian

Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians

[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]

---

Moving borders involves wars.

---

No it does not

Or at least it does not have to....

Czechia and Slovakia split up in the 1990s and resolved their border issues without violence.

The USA and Canada (UK) resolved their border dispute over the northern border and the Oregon territory without war.

It can be done....even if centralized bureaucratic States would prefer to fight than negotiate in good faith and change borders

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Well that's how their military is designed. You can tout whatever Kremlin talking point you need, but that's who they are militarily. Their decision to move from rapid advance early in the war to slow, war of attrition doesn't change the nature or purpose of their forces.

---

No, that is not how their military is designed. It is vastly different from its Soviet predecessor.

Russian doctrines serve two main purposes -- to define the parameters of military action and to define what the military needs in order to accomplish its goals. Our own military understands this and analyzes Russian doctrinal statements accordingly. To refer to them as "Kremlin talking points," as if they were concocted for your benefit, is to misunderstand the subject entirely.

Russia's military is currently designed for regional defense and nuclear deterrence. This is not controversial. Any politician who tells you otherwise is playing on your fears just like they did with Afghanistan and Iraq.

---

Politicians aren't telling me anything. The only person being told something by politicians is you as you quote their "doctrine". How did Russia roll into Georgia? In tanks. How did they roll into the Donbas? In tanks. How did they roll into Ukraine? In tanks. Combined with their Air Force make up, missiles (non nuke), cyber warfare, and the paramilitary Wagner Group, it's laughable to say they are just some regional defense force.

---

Is there some misunderstanding about the term "regional?" Russia's doctrine is admittedly designed to address threats in places like Georgia and Ukraine. That is completely different from waging war against NATO on its own territory. The idea of the Wagner Group invading Europe is laughable.

---

**Checks map to see what continent Ukraine is on** Hmm..laughable.

While I have some issues with you characterizing it as "regional" given the long range capabilities, I have the bigger issue with you characterizing it as defensive. It has all the hallmarks of a ground expeditionary force. Their lack of a strong Navy keeps it from being more expeditionary, which is perhaps why you consider it "regional".

Poland's Former Prime Minister and Former Member of the European Parliament - Leszek Miller - on the Ukraine War: Ukraine Has No Chances to Emerge Victorious from Conflict

Ukraine has already been defeated and has to come to terms with it, former Polish Prime Minister Leszek… pic.twitter.com/MgUVzs5gOh

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) February 27, 2025

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Well that's how their military is designed. You can tout whatever Kremlin talking point you need, but that's who they are militarily. Their decision to move from rapid advance early in the war to slow, war of attrition doesn't change the nature or purpose of their forces.

---

No, that is not how their military is designed. It is vastly different from its Soviet predecessor.

Russian doctrines serve two main purposes -- to define the parameters of military action and to define what the military needs in order to accomplish its goals. Our own military understands this and analyzes Russian doctrinal statements accordingly. To refer to them as "Kremlin talking points," as if they were concocted for your benefit, is to misunderstand the subject entirely.

Russia's military is currently designed for regional defense and nuclear deterrence. This is not controversial. Any politician who tells you otherwise is playing on your fears just like they did with Afghanistan and Iraq.

---

Politicians aren't telling me anything. The only person being told something by politicians is you as you quote their "doctrine". How did Russia roll into Georgia? In tanks. How did they roll into the Donbas? In tanks. How did they roll into Ukraine? In tanks. Combined with their Air Force make up, missiles (non nuke), cyber warfare, and the paramilitary Wagner Group, it's laughable to say they are just some regional defense force.

---

Is there some misunderstanding about the term "regional?" Russia's doctrine is admittedly designed to address threats in places like Georgia and Ukraine. That is completely different from waging war against NATO on its own territory. The idea of the Wagner Group invading Europe is laughable.

---

**Checks map to see what continent Ukraine is on** Hmm..laughable.

While I have some issues with you characterizing it as "regional" given the long range capabilities, I have the bigger issue with you characterizing it as defensive. It has all the hallmarks of a ground expeditionary force. Their lack of a strong Navy keeps it from being more expeditionary, which is perhaps why you consider it "regional".

---

"Europe" in this context meaning the EU.

Don't confuse military analysis with politics. Ukraine sent an expeditionary force into Kursk, but I doubt you'd have a problem describing Ukraine's posture as defensive.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:

“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025

---

"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"

The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right

But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.

And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation

---

LOL. "never."

You need to go back and read your history again........

---

I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]

Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?

Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian

Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians

[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]

---

Why don't you apply the same template of ethnicity to Russia and see what would happen?

---

Happy to do so....

The Chechens have already tried to fight there way out of the Russ. Federation twice (1994 & 1999)

Other groups are welcome to do so as well....and might in the future.

Will you then advocate for sending weapons and money to Moscow to help them keep non-ethnic Russians inside the Russian Federation? lol of course you would not....

Yet you do demand the USA does that with Kyiv (send them weapons to keep a non-Ukrainian minority inside the union)

---

Very weak reasoning, conflating Chechnya with Ukraine. I won't go down the whole list, because I don't need to go any further than nothing Chechnya does not have a contiguous border with Nato.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:

“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025

---

"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"

The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right

But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.

And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation

---

LOL. "never."

You need to go back and read your history again........

---

I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]

Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?

Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian

Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians

[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]

---

Why don't you apply the same template of ethnicity to Russia and see what would happen?

---

Happy to do so....

The Chechens have already tried to fight there way out of the Russ. Federation twice (1994 & 1999)

Other groups are welcome to do so as well....and might in the future.

Will you then advocate for sending weapons and money to Moscow to help them keep non-ethnic Russians inside the Russian Federation? lol of course you would not....

Yet you do demand the USA does that with Kyiv (send them weapons to keep a non-Ukrainian minority inside the union)

---

Very weak reasoning, conflating Chechnya with Ukraine. I won't go down the whole list, because I don't need to go any further than nothing Chechnya does not have a contiguous border with Nato.

---

Neither does Georgia….

Yet DC (CIA, USAID, others) have been messing around there for a while now

And while you moved the goal post to (borders NATO….well NATO keeps expanding so that issue won't go away)

The main issue we were discussing is that Kyiv tries to keep people inside its union that don't want be there just like Moscow does

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:

“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025

---

"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"

The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right

But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.

And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation

---

LOL. "never."

You need to go back and read your history again........

---

I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]

Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?

Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian

Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians

[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]

---

Moving borders involves wars.

---

No it does not

Or at least it does not have to....

Czechia and Slovakia split up in the 1990s and resolved their border issues without violence.

The USA and Canada (UK) resolved their border dispute over the northern border and the Oregon territory without war.

It can be done....even if centralized bureaucratic States would prefer to fight than negotiate in good faith and change borders

---

It requires both sides AND neighbors AND greater powers to agree on the need for the split, which is so exceedingly rare than you could only come up with a couple of arcane examples.

When one nation tries to take a piece of another, that is war, my friend. Very often war followed by insurgency, which sometimes leads back to war.

You are trying to make (poorly applied) realist arguments and further undermining them by tossing in wild-eyed idealist notions (like moving borders willy-nilly to achieve ethnic homogeneity).

Here's one of the most thunderous lessons of history - you start futzing around with borders, you gets yourself into a war.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:

“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025

---

"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"

The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right

But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.

And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation

---

LOL. "never."

You need to go back and read your history again........

---

I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]

Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?

Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian

Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians

[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]

---

Moving borders involves wars.

---

No it does not

Or at least it does not have to....

Czechia and Slovakia split up in the 1990s and resolved their border issues without violence.

The USA and Canada (UK) resolved their border dispute over the northern border and the Oregon territory without war.

It can be done....even if centralized bureaucratic States would prefer to fight than negotiate in good faith and change borders

---

It requires both sides AND neighbors AND greater powers to agree on the need for the split, which is so exceedingly rare than you could only come up with a couple of arcane examples.
.

---

I never argued it was not rare

You seem to think war is justified over borders and that a peaceful split up is not a preferred outcome

Kyiv should let Donbas go

Moscow should let Chechnya go

Trump backing off the dictator comment after just a few days is one of the most pathetic take backs I've ever seen in politics.

ron.reagan said:

---

Trump backing off the dictator comment after just a few days is one of the most pathetic take backs I've ever seen in politics.

---

Oh come on dude. We just got out of the Joe Biden era...

There will never be a more pathetic excuse for a politician in world history.

They are doing a deal right now for the Ukraine to supply us rare earth minerals. Not sure what our part in this will be. Trump played this beautifully

Assassin said:

---

They are doing a deal right now for the Ukraine to supply us rare earth minerals. Not sure what our part in this will be. Trump played this beautifully

---

explains Trump Dick Sucking syndrome to a T

It's contagious . . . Putin now saying Zelensky is legitimate (duh) and martial law prevents elections (duh).

I'm not being facetious here. Of course, we still need an actual deal, but Trump does indeed seem to be playing this beautifully.

Assassin said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Trump backing off the dictator comment after just a few days is one of the most pathetic take backs I've ever seen in politics.

---

Oh come on dude. We just got out of the Joe Biden era...

There will never be a more pathetic excuse for a politician in world history.

---

get a job, you parasite on the govt teet

sombear said:

---

It's contagious . . . Putin now saying Zelensky is legitimate (duh) and martial law prevents elections (duh).

I'm not being facetious here. Of course, we still need an actual deal, but Trump does indeed seem to be playing this beautifully.

---

I agree with a lot what Trump is doing with Ukraine. I just think he is making it a lot harder on himself due to hubris and a general lack of knowledge in key areas. As long as we don't let Russia gain any more territory, stop wasting money by prolonging the war, and make Europe step up in a big way I'll be satisfied.

We are oscillating too close between peace and world war 3

Trump played these guys like novices in a Blackjack game in Las Vegas

Zelensky's body language as DJT tells him to his face it's time for the war to end: pic.twitter.com/CcPGVThfiE

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) February 28, 2025

ron.reagan said:

---

Trump backing off the dictator comment after just a few days is one of the most pathetic take backs I've ever seen in politics.

---

Did he "back off" the comment

Or just troll the reporter?

Trump on calling Zelenskyy a dictator: “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that.”

Ok. So either he’s demented with memory loss or a just a huge asshole. Which is it?#Trump #Zelensky pic.twitter.com/aRwptEXxd6

— Urban Secrets 🤫 (@stiwari1510) February 27, 2025

JD Vance and Zelensky going back and forth. It's not pretty. I thought JD was a little better salesman, to be honest

ron.reagan said:

---

*********Trump is looking like a genius

---

FIFY

Zelensky is not in a position to dictate terms and embarrass the administration in front of the media. Trump told him the truth.

chriscbear said:

---

Zelensky is not in a position to dictate terms and embarrass the administration in front of the media. Trump told him the truth.

---

Absolutely. Zelensky just got reamed. Deservedly so as he keeps flip flopping on these deals. You think Trump instructed JD to be the attack dog?

Assassin said:

---

chriscbear said:

---

Zelensky is not in a position to dictate terms and embarrass the administration in front of the media. Trump told him the truth.

---

Absolutely. Zelensky just got reamed. Deservedly so as he keeps flip flopping on these deals. You think Trump instructed JD to be the attack dog?

---

Maybe Trump was tired of getting deals done in the backroom and then Zelensky saying 'we never talked about it'. Now he can't do that anymore

For those that missed it

JD Vance and Trump just put Zelensky in his place. Wow. Watch this.

pic.twitter.com/zndgjKEPKz

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) February 28, 2025

There was a question of if Trump had a great plan or just had no idea what he was doing. Now it is obvious he just has no idea what he is doing. What a clown show