Assassin said:

---

🇷🇺🇺🇦 THE UKRANAIN KURSK POCKET COLLAPSES FURTHER!

The Ukranian army ran from Sudzha! Sudzha was the pride of their conquest on Russian territory.

All the alleged trump cards that Zelensky may thought to had, are gone!

1/ pic.twitter.com/uWXHGT3fHZ

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) March 11, 2025

---

Hate to see that. I knew Ukraine was going to lose but it's Stillwater not something I'm happy about.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

NATO is pretty big now days

So even if Russia was trying reoccupying vassal states....there are not many available

---

….thanks to those wise enough to expand prudently….

---

100% agree with wise and moderate expansion

---

if it took 25 years for a war to start in a third-country, it was by definition moderate expansion which had little to do with the war.......

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Peace deal happening. Thank the Lord

SEC. RUBIO: "We've made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations to end this conflict in a way that's enduring and sustainable." pic.twitter.com/oVFGPfSFBX

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 11, 2025

---

The ball is with Putin now

---

It depends on what we're offering. A ceasefire in and of itself benefits no one except the Ukrainians.

---

My guess is that the Ukranians are going to have to give up some land, Zelensky will have to step down and the US gets a bunch of mineral rights

---

correct, though I'd amend that we would set a date for an election rather than have him just step down.....

trey3216 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Peace deal happening. Thank the Lord

SEC. RUBIO: "We've made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations to end this conflict in a way that's enduring and sustainable." pic.twitter.com/oVFGPfSFBX

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 11, 2025

---

The ball is with Putin now

---

It depends on what we're offering. A ceasefire in and of itself benefits no one except the Ukrainians.

---

My guess is that the Ukranians are going to have to give up some land, Zelensky will have to step down and the US gets a bunch of mineral rights

---

My guess is Putin will show his ass, and we'll be right back to square one.

---

.....which will free up Trump's hand to lower the boom on sanctions, make weapons sales, remove restrictions on use of weapons systems, use of frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine, etc.... And Ukraine will have a lot of money to spend from the mineral deal.

Getting Ukraine to agree to talks positions Russia as the instigator, intransigent, etc...

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Actually, that is the argument of several members here.
Russia is not a threat to Europe.
Due to the large number of Russian speakers, not regarding 50 years of Russian occupancy, Russia has the right to take those lands
Ukraine has been a Russian vassal in the past, so it belongs to Russia
Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

Add those together and you get exactly what Whiterock said. Correct, Sam RedBrick and the rest of the Russia apologist.

Mahan rolls in his grave….

The United States now accounts for just 0.1% of global shipbuilding… 0.1%

Meanwhile, China alone is 53%+

America needs to get serious.
(h/t: @BrianTHart) pic.twitter.com/7m4gCtEMrM

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) March 12, 2025

whiterock said:

---

Mahan rolls in his grave….

The United States now accounts for just 0.1% of global shipbuilding… 0.1%

Meanwhile, China alone is 53%+

America needs to get serious.
(h/t: @BrianTHart) pic.twitter.com/7m4gCtEMrM

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) March 12, 2025

---

That is one of items that Trump pushed in his agenda. I remember going to shipyards in the 80s and seeing lots of ships being built. We ported in Norfolk, where the Navy was probably building half a dozen ships. It was pretty amazing to watch them being built in sections.

We were getting a new forpeak on our ship in San Diego, I think it was Continental Shipyards. They refitted ships there. This Navy helicopter gunship was next to us and the Exxon Valdez was right down the yard.

Spent a few weeks at a wetdock in San Fran. Ended up having to go to a dry dock. Amazing to watch the process

We have tons of shipyards ready to build. Not sure why we dropped off the face of the earth

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Ok so do you push for peace or not?

Ukraine can't win with solely financial or military equipment/weaponry assistance from the West. They could win if we have western boots on the ground and air support.

The idea that we keep them afloat only for them to die out and be forced to give up seems pointless. For Ukraine, its government, its people, its culture... there's many different outcomes, some worse some better. Some may be OK for the government, but not the people (losing a war with high casualties), while other may be OK for the people, but not the government, and so on. Certain outcomes may be acceptable to some people but disastrous to others living in different parts.

In short, there's not "one" successful outcome. There isn't a clean Ukrainian victory in which everyone wins. If nothing else, the ones that have already died and their families are already removed from true victory. Plus the generational trauma and mass fatherless homes that will lead to multiple generations of weak unguided men.

For Ukrainians to stand a chance, military history suggests that they would need a 3-to-2 advantage in manpower and considerably more firepower. Ukraine enjoyed these advantages in the first year of the war, but they now lie with Russia, and it is very difficult to see how Ukraine can recover them.

whiterock said:

---

Mahan rolls in his grave….

The United States now accounts for just 0.1% of global shipbuilding… 0.1%

Meanwhile, China alone is 53%+

America needs to get serious.
(h/t: @BrianTHart) pic.twitter.com/7m4gCtEMrM

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) March 12, 2025

---

Mahan isn't rolling over yet as the only ship building we do is for the Navy. We exited the merchant game a while ago (which is where the ship volume is) thanks to unions, the Jones act and the whittling away of the Merchant Marine Act and similar subsidies. That on top of our raw material costs and unwillingness to actually produce them.

I'd focus on increasing naval ship building capacity. That's truly strategic. The merchant game not so much.

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

That's an unprovable assumption. There certainly are plenty of people with the blame America always mentality, especially Leftists, but they are generally wrong.

Maybe it's because of the Greenies.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Peace deal happening. Thank the Lord

SEC. RUBIO: "We've made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations to end this conflict in a way that's enduring and sustainable." pic.twitter.com/oVFGPfSFBX

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 11, 2025

---

Russians aren't on board.

---

BREAKING: Russia’s Putin agrees with U.S./Ukraine ceasefire, but wants to speak to President Trump first.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) March 13, 2025

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Peace deal happening. Thank the Lord

SEC. RUBIO: "We've made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations to end this conflict in a way that's enduring and sustainable." pic.twitter.com/oVFGPfSFBX

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 11, 2025

---

Russians aren't on board.

---

BREAKING: Russia’s Putin agrees with U.S./Ukraine ceasefire, but wants to speak to President Trump first.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) March 13, 2025

---

Not on board, yet.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

If Nuland had a piccolo and walked the streets of East Bumf TX, FL, IN, and other places right now with a flag that said "Fck the EU" and a conga line of musically charmed gratuitants, 99% of the Lord Trumpers would follow in line.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

If Nuland had a piccolo and walked the streets of East Bumf TX, FL, IN, and other places right now with a flag that said "Fck the EU" and a conga line of musically charmed gratuitants, 99% of the Lord Trumpers would follow in line.

---

Naw

They would just point out that she is a really strange fat ogre....and wonder how someone like that was able to run the Eurasian affairs front and under secretary of State for 3 different Presidents

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

"And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit"

"[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]"


You say that like it is a bad thing. Russia will invade, it is a given. See Czech, twice. If the Russians have influence, they invade. To keep it simple - Russia = tanks. Not good.

Sorry, served during the Cold War. Took part in REFORGER and was in West Germany. You will not get me to believe that Russia is some victim and the evil Victoria Nuland is the real evil criminal because she got Ukraine voting and moving West. I think those were GOOD things.

Putin: Ukraine needs truce, we don’t; I agree to truce, but demand impossible conditions - no mobilization, no military aid or training for Ukraine, but I agree to truce 0/ pic.twitter.com/ZpTYDuHjrR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) March 13, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

"And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit"

"[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]"


You say that like it is a bad thing. Russia will invade, it is a given. See Czech, twice. If the Russians have influence, they invade. To keep it simple - Russia = tanks. Not good.

Sorry, served during the Cold War. Took part in REFORGER and was in West Germany. You will not get me to believe that Russia is some victim and the evil Victoria Nuland is the real evil criminal because she got Ukraine voting and moving West. I think those were GOOD things.

---

1. Moving ukriane west was always going to end in bloodshed

2. Nuland (and others like her) used our tax payer dollars to do it

Those alone are stupid and unethical actions

Not to mention the 3rd reason…if they never intended to use US-NATO ground forces to make sure the split with Moscow was accomplished….then this 3rd reason is crossly immoral

They helped get Ukraine into a bloody war they were never gonna help them win!

I still can't believed they planned a coup….and a proxy war…but never planned to actually win it….i just can't believe it

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

"And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit"

"[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]"


You say that like it is a bad thing. Russia will invade, it is a given. See Czech, twice. If the Russians have influence, they invade. To keep it simple - Russia = tanks. Not good.

Sorry, served during the Cold War. Took part in REFORGER and was in West Germany. You will not get me to believe that Russia is some victim and the evil Victoria Nuland is the real evil criminal because she got Ukraine voting and moving West. I think those were GOOD things.

---

1. Moving ukriane west was always going to end in bloodshed

2. Nuland (and others like her) used our tax payer dollars to do it

Those alone are stupid and unethical actions

Not to mention if they never intended to use US-NATO groups forces to make sure the split with Moscow was accomplished….then the 3rd reason is crossly immoral

They helped get Ukraine into a bloody war they were never gonna help them win!

I still can't believed they planned a coup….and a proxy war…but never planned to actually win it….i just can't believe it

---

I can't believe you buy into some of the bull**** you put forth.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

"And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit"

"[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]"


You say that like it is a bad thing. Russia will invade, it is a given. See Czech, twice. If the Russians have influence, they invade. To keep it simple - Russia = tanks. Not good.

Sorry, served during the Cold War. Took part in REFORGER and was in West Germany. You will not get me to believe that Russia is some victim and the evil Victoria Nuland is the real evil criminal because she got Ukraine voting and moving West. I think those were GOOD things.

---

1. Moving ukriane west was always going to end in bloodshed

2. Nuland (and others like her) used our tax payer dollars to do it

Those alone are stupid and unethical actions

Not to mention if they never intended to use US-NATO groups forces to make sure the split with Moscow was accomplished….then the 3rd reason is crossly immoral

They helped get Ukraine into a bloody war they were never gonna help them win!

I still can't believed they planned a coup….and a proxy war…but never planned to actually win it….i just can't believe it

---

I can't believe you buy into some of the bull**** you put forth.

---

You loving playing dumb on here when it suits you.

Everting in that post is factual.

You just really hate the reality of it.

I honestly have no idea why you continue to have faith in a bunch of foolish female spooks in DC who helped create this mess…and losing war

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

"And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit"

"[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]"


You say that like it is a bad thing. Russia will invade, it is a given. See Czech, twice. If the Russians have influence, they invade. To keep it simple - Russia = tanks. Not good.

Sorry, served during the Cold War. Took part in REFORGER and was in West Germany. You will not get me to believe that Russia is some victim and the evil Victoria Nuland is the real evil criminal because she got Ukraine voting and moving West. I think those were GOOD things.

---

1. Moving ukriane west was always going to end in bloodshed

2. Nuland (and others like her) used our tax payer dollars to do it

Those alone are stupid and unethical actions

Not to mention if they never intended to use US-NATO groups forces to make sure the split with Moscow was accomplished….then the 3rd reason is crossly immoral

They helped get Ukraine into a bloody war they were never gonna help them win!

I still can't believed they planned a coup….and a proxy war…but never planned to actually win it….i just can't believe it

---

I can't believe you buy into some of the bull**** you put forth.

---

You loving playing dumb on here when it suits you.

Everting in that post is factual.

You just really hate the reality of it.

I honestly have no idea why you continue to have faith in a bunch of foolish female spooks in DC who helped create this mess…and losing war

---

Listen, if you want to stand by and watch the abusive ex boyfriend round table the woman you asked out on a date, and then blame yourself, that's a you problem and reflective of a lack of morals and a constitution. It's the praising him like the woman deserved it that really gets me.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

"And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit"

"[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]"


You say that like it is a bad thing. Russia will invade, it is a given. See Czech, twice. If the Russians have influence, they invade. To keep it simple - Russia = tanks. Not good.

Sorry, served during the Cold War. Took part in REFORGER and was in West Germany. You will not get me to believe that Russia is some victim and the evil Victoria Nuland is the real evil criminal because she got Ukraine voting and moving West. I think those were GOOD things.

---

1. Moving ukriane west was always going to end in bloodshed

2. Nuland (and others like her) used our tax payer dollars to do it

Those alone are stupid and unethical actions

Not to mention if they never intended to use US-NATO groups forces to make sure the split with Moscow was accomplished….then the 3rd reason is crossly immoral

They helped get Ukraine into a bloody war they were never gonna help them win!

I still can't believed they planned a coup….and a proxy war…but never planned to actually win it….i just can't believe it

---

I can't believe you buy into some of the bull**** you put forth.

---

You loving playing dumb on here when it suits you.

Everting in that post is factual.

You just really hate the reality of it.

I honestly have no idea why you continue to have faith in a bunch of foolish female spooks in DC who helped create this mess…and losing war

---

Listen, if you want to stand by and watch the abusive ex boyfriend round table the woman you asked out on a date, and then blame yourself, that's a you problem and reflective of a lack of morals and a constitution. It's the praising him like the woman deserved it that really gets me.

---

This kind of lame liberal moral blackmail has been used to get the American people into conflicts all over the world that don't concern them or their real geo-strategic interests.

But let's say you get your way.

You plan on sending American group troops into the Ukriane war? Your buddy Biden from day one ruled that off the table.

Are you willing to risk a nuclear conflict over Donbas?

30 millions dead? 100 million? Large parts of Europe or the eastern sea board of America possibly turned to ash?

Is that the plan here?

Because just funneling weapon to Kyiv is not winning them this war

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

"And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit"

"[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]"


You say that like it is a bad thing. Russia will invade, it is a given. See Czech, twice. If the Russians have influence, they invade. To keep it simple - Russia = tanks. Not good.

Sorry, served during the Cold War. Took part in REFORGER and was in West Germany. You will not get me to believe that Russia is some victim and the evil Victoria Nuland is the real evil criminal because she got Ukraine voting and moving West. I think those were GOOD things.

---

1. Moving ukriane west was always going to end in bloodshed

2. Nuland (and others like her) used our tax payer dollars to do it

Those alone are stupid and unethical actions

Not to mention if they never intended to use US-NATO groups forces to make sure the split with Moscow was accomplished….then the 3rd reason is crossly immoral

They helped get Ukraine into a bloody war they were never gonna help them win!

I still can't believed they planned a coup….and a proxy war…but never planned to actually win it….i just can't believe it

---

I can't believe you buy into some of the bull**** you put forth.

---

You loving playing dumb on here when it suits you.

Everting in that post is factual.

You just really hate the reality of it.

I honestly have no idea why you continue to have faith in a bunch of foolish female spooks in DC who helped create this mess…and losing war

---

Listen, if you want to stand by and watch the abusive ex boyfriend round table the woman you asked out on a date, and then blame yourself, that's a you problem and reflective of a lack of morals and a constitution. It's the praising him like the woman deserved it that really gets me.

---

This kind of lame liberal moral blackmail has been used to get the American people into conflicts all over the world that don't concern them or their real geo-strategic interests.

But let's say you get your way.

You plan on sending American group troops into the Ukriane war? Your buddy Biden from day one ruled that off the table.

Are you willing to risk a nuclear conflict over Donbas?

30 millions dead? 100 million? Large parts of Europe or the eastern sea board of America possibly turned to ash?

Is that the plan here?

Because just funneling weapon to Kyiv is not winning them this war

---

Actually, it's this same extreme moralism, end of world scenarios and chicken little approaches that allow Putin to succeed. Weapons? It's shocking what little we actually did given the nature of the competing armies. I've never wanted U.S. soldiers on the ground, but we couldn't even agree to go hard on sanctions. It's a miracle they held up for this long at the lines their at now. At this point it's a question of how far Trump is going to bend over for a deal, and not just what Ukraine is having to give up but the West.

But back to the original point and not this red herring, you and others have been framing this as U.S. causation, when we aren't the ones who've been killing Ukrainians and annexing their turf for over a decade. So keep blaming the victim.

The fascists are evil. If that really was there agenda then you should believe it. They have no respect for human lives: abortion, fentanyl, covid, the Mengele vaccine, euthanasia, endless wars, BLM, antifa, Biden's illegal alien crime wave, trans suicides, etc. Some of them think the world is overpopulated and needs to be reduced by billions. They have said so publicly.

These people are very evil.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

"And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit"

"[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]"


You say that like it is a bad thing. Russia will invade, it is a given. See Czech, twice. If the Russians have influence, they invade. To keep it simple - Russia = tanks. Not good.

Sorry, served during the Cold War. Took part in REFORGER and was in West Germany. You will not get me to believe that Russia is some victim and the evil Victoria Nuland is the real evil criminal because she got Ukraine voting and moving West. I think those were GOOD things.

---

1. Moving ukriane west was always going to end in bloodshed

2. Nuland (and others like her) used our tax payer dollars to do it

Those alone are stupid and unethical actions

Not to mention if they never intended to use US-NATO groups forces to make sure the split with Moscow was accomplished….then the 3rd reason is crossly immoral

They helped get Ukraine into a bloody war they were never gonna help them win!

I still can't believed they planned a coup….and a proxy war…but never planned to actually win it….i just can't believe it

---

I can't believe you buy into some of the bull**** you put forth.

---

You loving playing dumb on here when it suits you.

Everting in that post is factual.

You just really hate the reality of it.

I honestly have no idea why you continue to have faith in a bunch of foolish female spooks in DC who helped create this mess…and losing war

---

Listen, if you want to stand by and watch the abusive ex boyfriend round table the woman you asked out on a date, and then blame yourself, that's a you problem and reflective of a lack of morals and a constitution. It's the praising him like the woman deserved it that really gets me.

---

This kind of lame liberal moral blackmail has been used to get the American people into conflicts all over the world that don't concern them or their real geo-strategic interests.

But let's say you get your way.

You plan on sending American group troops into the Ukriane war? Your buddy Biden from day one ruled that off the table.

Are you willing to risk a nuclear conflict over Donbas?

30 millions dead? 100 million? Large parts of Europe or the eastern sea board of America possibly turned to ash?

Is that the plan here?

Because just funneling weapon to Kyiv is not winning them this war

---

I've never wanted U.S. soldiers on the ground, but we couldn't even agree to go hard on sanctions. It's a miracle they held up for this long at the lines their at now..

---

Then you never wanted ukriane to win

Because they can not win without direct intervention by US-NATO group forces

So you either want to drag out a futile war or you are being deceitful and really hope US troops eventually get involved

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Ok so do you push for peace or not?

Ukraine can't win with solely financial or military equipment/weaponry assistance from the West. They could win if we have western boots on the ground and air support.
If we opened up the spigots and removed all ROE limitations, Ukraine wins in the 12-24 month window. It's simple logistics. Russia does not have the resources to compete with an even partially mobilized West.

The idea that we keep them afloat only for them to die out and be forced to give up seems pointless. For Ukraine, its government, its people, its culture... there's many different outcomes, some worse some better. Some may be OK for the government, but not the people (losing a war with high casualties), while other may be OK for the people, but not the government, and so on. Certain outcomes may be acceptable to some people but disastrous to others living in different parts.

In short, there's not "one" successful outcome. There isn't a clean Ukrainian victory in which everyone wins. If nothing else, the ones that have already died and their families are already removed from true victory. Plus the generational trauma and mass fatherless homes that will lead to multiple generations of weak unguided men.
Indeed. Unconditional surrender is not the norm in warfare.

For Ukrainians to stand a chance, military history suggests that they would need a 3-to-2 advantage in manpower and considerably more firepower. Ukraine enjoyed these advantages in the first year of the war, but they now lie with Russia, and it is very difficult to see how Ukraine can recover them.
Uh, no. They've fought Russia to a standstill at a 3-1 disadvantage in manpower, with severe logistical constraints and externally imposed ROE that give Russia significant advantages. (the Russian advantage in arty fires has declined from 12-1 to 2-1.)

---

The question of whether to push for peace is the question of how much benefit to us is enough vs making perfect the enemy of good with a splash of concern over Eurasian stability. A peace today leaves a financially enfeebled Russia, with sharply diminished ties to its natural trading partners (the EU) that will limit short-medium term rebuilding efforts. More significantly, Russia has eaten thru many decades of built up weapons & ordnance stores. At their current fully mobilized status (which is not sustainable), it would take them 30-40 years to rebuild the inventory they had at the start of the war = it will not happen. Significance is this: Russia would go to war with Nato WITHOUT a cushion of tens of thousands of tanks, tens of thousands of arty pieces, millions of arty rounds, etc..... It would have to fight Nato on what it can produce (which would be 10% of what a fully mobilized Nato could put up). By that analysis, we've already won the war and are facing diminishing marginal returns.

Against that, we have to balance concerns about what would happen should we continue on for 12/24 months and cause Russia's political collapse.....instability around the periphery, islamist regimes in the Caucus and Trans Volga, nuclear weapons issues - use against west by Russia or Russian factions, theft/sale of them to hostile actors, etc..... If we've achieved 75% of what we needed to by stopping Russia in Ukraine, would it not be prudent to avoid such risks? Hard to say that is not the right question. Only thing to argue about is the percentage of achievement. This is the same dynamic Bush 41 faced in Iraq. Do take Saddam out? All kinds of instability to deal with. Perhaps you leave him in power, weakened, to remain a bulwark against Iran and keep the Sunni islamists at bay. If you break it, you own it......see Bush 43's experience.

And throughout all that is our own fiscal situation = we can't do it all. Perhaps we do a tactical retreat all across the board, get our house in order, and build for the future. Russia is weakened, for decades. So we have some time. And getting our fiscal situation under control strengthens us for the coming contest with China. So it's not like we're doing this in a vacuum, to just wait & see what will happen. We know what China wants to do and have to prepare to resist it.

I think there are good arguments for handing Ukraine another $100b, opening up the floodgates on ordnance and removing all limitations on how it's used, and tightening the financial screws against Russia to the max. That would force Russia to sue for peace or risk total collapse. But it would cost more than $100b and and take a year or two. And then the mid-terms happen. Trump may lose one or more of his congressional majorities. And we would not be as well prepared for China. So it's hard to reject out of hand the argument that we gotten most of what we could hope to accomplish so it's time to transition to other, arguably more important priorities.

Seems clear that is the calculation of the Trump admin.
Hard to say it's unreasonable.

One of the most important keys to being a good artist is knowing when to put down the brush.

Russia could pull out to Ukraine today, and the war ends.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Ok so do you push for peace or not?

Ukraine can't win with solely financial or military equipment/weaponry assistance from the West. They could win if we have western boots on the ground and air support.

The idea that we keep them afloat only for them to die out and be forced to give up seems pointless. For Ukraine, its government, its people, its culture... there's many different outcomes, some worse some better. Some may be OK for the government, but not the people (losing a war with high casualties), while other may be OK for the people, but not the government, and so on. Certain outcomes may be acceptable to some people but disastrous to others living in different parts.

In short, there's not "one" successful outcome. There isn't a clean Ukrainian victory in which everyone wins. If nothing else, the ones that have already died and their families are already removed from true victory. Plus the generational trauma and mass fatherless homes that will lead to multiple generations of weak unguided men.

For Ukrainians to stand a chance, military history suggests that they would need a 3-to-2 advantage in manpower and considerably more firepower. Ukraine enjoyed these advantages in the first year of the war, but they now lie with Russia, and it is very difficult to see how Ukraine can recover them.

---

Ukraine doesn't have to invade Russia to win. They have to outlast Putin. Think of it like a man in a divorce. He could keep fighting, but sometimes, he just wants to move on.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

"And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit"

"[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]"


You say that like it is a bad thing. Russia will invade, it is a given. See Czech, twice. If the Russians have influence, they invade. To keep it simple - Russia = tanks. Not good.

Sorry, served during the Cold War. Took part in REFORGER and was in West Germany. You will not get me to believe that Russia is some victim and the evil Victoria Nuland is the real evil criminal because she got Ukraine voting and moving West. I think those were GOOD things.

---

1. Moving ukriane west was always going to end in bloodshed

2. Nuland (and others like her) used our tax payer dollars to do it

Those alone are stupid and unethical actions

Not to mention the 3rd reason…if they never intended to use US-NATO ground forces to make sure the split with Moscow was accomplished….then this 3rd reason is crossly immoral

They helped get Ukraine into a bloody war they were never gonna help them win!

I still can't believed they planned a coup….and a proxy war…but never planned to actually win it….i just can't believe it

---

Taxpayer dollars??? Does the term "Cold War" mean anything to you? What world do you live? That was the policy of the time and the previous 60 years. Trump and Musk may not agree (Musk wants those dollars for his companies), but the decisions for closer ties with NATO were a fabric of US policy since 1949. US tax dollars? Ever hear of the Marshall Plan, we have been spending money in Europe forever. I would love to see an economic analysis of the money the US spend in Europe versus the revenues gained by the relationship between the economies.

You are looking at this through 2025 glasses when the decisions were made in the 1980's and 90's. This deal was done and approved by Russia. Ukraine, including Crimea, was a sovereign Nation and moving toward Democracy. I am no fan of Nuland, but she was in line with US policy. Obama did the left turn and left those people hanging. Obama is who let this happen.

What this Board believes seems to be pretty irrelevant to the rest of the world. Feel your pain, I can't believe what is going on in numerous areas.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Throw in Nuland made a phone call (the most grievious act in US/Russia history according to some and the US funded efforts to move to a Democracy

---

You bring all your points into disrepute when you treat the involvement of the CIA, State Department, USAID, and God knows who else inside Ukraine with this flippant stuff about Nuland

She was the point person on Ukraine.....and a long time Liberal Hawk

And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit

At some point you have to give up this fantasy that she has doing to do with this conflict

[Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler

Blurting out 'F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style throughout three presidential administrations...

Nuland was a combative liberal hawk during her time in government, and she was consistently one of the most aggressive proponents of U.S. backing for Ukraine and NATO expansion. Her career sometimes exemplified the heedless and arrogant foreign policy worldview that she championed.]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/victoria-nuland-retiring/

[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]

https://editorials.voa.gov/a/nuland-ukraine/2684273.html

---

"And has bragged about her role in pulling Kyiv out of the Russian orbit"

"[Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of...assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.]"


You say that like it is a bad thing. Russia will invade, it is a given. See Czech, twice. If the Russians have influence, they invade. To keep it simple - Russia = tanks. Not good.

Sorry, served during the Cold War. Took part in REFORGER and was in West Germany. You will not get me to believe that Russia is some victim and the evil Victoria Nuland is the real evil criminal because she got Ukraine voting and moving West. I think those were GOOD things.

---

1. Moving ukriane west was always going to end in bloodshed

2. Nuland (and others like her) used our tax payer dollars to do it

Those alone are stupid and unethical actions

Not to mention the 3rd reason…if they never intended to use US-NATO ground forces to make sure the split with Moscow was accomplished….then this 3rd reason is crossly immoral

They helped get Ukraine into a bloody war they were never gonna help them win!

I still can't believed they planned a coup….and a proxy war…but never planned to actually win it….i just can't believe it

---

Taxpayer dollars??? Does the term "Cold War" mean anything to you?

---

1. The Cold war ended in 1991.....30 years ago

Its a different world...one in fact where we might need russia in a potential stand off with the rising power of China or the horror show that is the radicalized and aggressive Islamic world.

2. Certainly turning the largest resource nation on earth for a potential ally to died in the wool enemy is an example of bad US policy since the late 1990s

Bush-Obama-Biden

The Uniparty in DC really helped screw up the middle east and eastern Europe

["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]

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Ok so do you push for peace or not?

Ukraine can't win with solely financial or military equipment/weaponry assistance from the West. They could win if we have western boots on the ground and air support.

The idea that we keep them afloat only for them to die out and be forced to give up seems pointless. For Ukraine, its government, its people, its culture... there's many different outcomes, some worse some better. Some may be OK for the government, but not the people (losing a war with high casualties), while other may be OK for the people, but not the government, and so on. Certain outcomes may be acceptable to some people but disastrous to others living in different parts.

In short, there's not "one" successful outcome. There isn't a clean Ukrainian victory in which everyone wins. If nothing else, the ones that have already died and their families are already removed from true victory. Plus the generational trauma and mass fatherless homes that will lead to multiple generations of weak unguided men.

For Ukrainians to stand a chance, military history suggests that they would need a 3-to-2 advantage in manpower and considerably more firepower. Ukraine enjoyed these advantages in the first year of the war, but they now lie with Russia, and it is very difficult to see how Ukraine can recover them.

---

Ukraine doesn't have to invade Russia to win. They have to outlast Putin.

---

No they have to outlast Russia...not just Putin himself

You fail to under stand that any government that exist in Moscow will look at Ukraine as a vital strategic concern.

Just like any government in DC (of any kind) will look at Mexico or Canada in the same way.

Moscow has been in Ukraine since the 1600s when it was a feudal Tsardom....you think if Putin dies the next government will just give up on the place?

The USA will never care about Ukraine as much as the Russians will

And Russia will never care about Canada/Mexico as much as America will

This whole attempt to wrench Kyiv from the grip of Moscow as been a bloody mess....and probably futile in the long run.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Ok so do you push for peace or not?

Ukraine can't win with solely financial or military equipment/weaponry assistance from the West. They could win if we have western boots on the ground and air support.

The idea that we keep them afloat only for them to die out and be forced to give up seems pointless. For Ukraine, its government, its people, its culture... there's many different outcomes, some worse some better. Some may be OK for the government, but not the people (losing a war with high casualties), while other may be OK for the people, but not the government, and so on. Certain outcomes may be acceptable to some people but disastrous to others living in different parts.

In short, there's not "one" successful outcome. There isn't a clean Ukrainian victory in which everyone wins. If nothing else, the ones that have already died and their families are already removed from true victory. Plus the generational trauma and mass fatherless homes that will lead to multiple generations of weak unguided men.

For Ukrainians to stand a chance, military history suggests that they would need a 3-to-2 advantage in manpower and considerably more firepower. Ukraine enjoyed these advantages in the first year of the war, but they now lie with Russia, and it is very difficult to see how Ukraine can recover them.

---

Ukraine doesn't have to invade Russia to win. They have to outlast Putin.

---

No they have to outlast Russia...not just Putin himself

You fail to under stand that any government that exist in Moscow will look at Ukraine as a vital strategic concern.

Just like any government in DC (of any kind) will look at Mexico or Canada in the same way.

Moscow has been in Ukraine since the 1600s when it was a feudal Tsardom....you think if Putin dies the next government will just give up on the place?

The USA will never care about Ukraine as much as the Russians will

And Russia will never care about Canada/Mexico as much as America will

This whole attempt to wrench Kyiv from the grip of Moscow as been a bloody mess....and probably futile in the long run.

---

This is the first administration in my lifetime that has looked at Mexico or Canada as a vital strategic concern. I'm not sure if you've ever been to the US but no one has more than joked about acquiring Canada until Trump

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

historian said:

---

---

…corollary of which goes like this: "Russia does not now pose nor ever has posed a threat to Europe so we must allow it to reoccupy as many of its former vassal states as it feels it is entitled to in order to avoid nuclear Armageddon…."

---

I don't know of anyone who has made that argument. Anywhere. Ever.

---

that is the underlying them of the most vocal war opponents. It's always OUR fault, never Russia's.

---

Ok so do you push for peace or not?

Ukraine can't win with solely financial or military equipment/weaponry assistance from the West. They could win if we have western boots on the ground and air support.

The idea that we keep them afloat only for them to die out and be forced to give up seems pointless. For Ukraine, its government, its people, its culture... there's many different outcomes, some worse some better. Some may be OK for the government, but not the people (losing a war with high casualties), while other may be OK for the people, but not the government, and so on. Certain outcomes may be acceptable to some people but disastrous to others living in different parts.

In short, there's not "one" successful outcome. There isn't a clean Ukrainian victory in which everyone wins. If nothing else, the ones that have already died and their families are already removed from true victory. Plus the generational trauma and mass fatherless homes that will lead to multiple generations of weak unguided men.

For Ukrainians to stand a chance, military history suggests that they would need a 3-to-2 advantage in manpower and considerably more firepower. Ukraine enjoyed these advantages in the first year of the war, but they now lie with Russia, and it is very difficult to see how Ukraine can recover them.

---

Ukraine doesn't have to invade Russia to win. They have to outlast Putin.

---

No they have to outlast Russia...not just Putin himself

You fail to under stand that any government that exist in Moscow will look at Ukraine as a vital strategic concern.

Just like any government in DC (of any kind) will look at Mexico or Canada in the same way.

Moscow has been in Ukraine since the 1600s when it was a feudal Tsardom....you think if Putin dies the next government will just give up on the place?

The USA will never care about Ukraine as much as the Russians will

And Russia will never care about Canada/Mexico as much as America will

This whole attempt to wrench Kyiv from the grip of Moscow as been a bloody mess....and probably futile in the long run.

---

This is the first administration in my lifetime that has looked at Mexico or Canada as a vital strategic concern. I'm not sure if you've ever been to the US but no one has more than joked about acquiring Canada until Trump

---

No it is not

Both have been very important to the USA for hundreds of years

The USA invaded Canada twice and tried to absorb it (Revolutionary War and War of 1812)

Union with Canada was a long simmering desire

The USA has also intervened in Mexico many times.

And was instrumental in preventing the French for gaining influence in Mexico and brining down Maximilian's Mexican Empire

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times. This includes various military interventions in the country, where U.S. forces have occupied Mexican territory for months, years, and even decades.]

Even during the Civil War both sides took time out to talk about Mexico and possible intervention...Mexico was always that important

[Blair suggested that perhaps an armistice could be immediately arranged, preparatory to a united effort to expel the French from Mexico. The military alliance, he suggested, could be followed soon by the restoration of the Union.

In his response, Davis agreed that "no circumstances would have a greater effect" on European monarchists with ambitions in America "than to see the arms of our countrymen from the North and the South united in a war upon a foreign power assailing principles of government common to both sections and threatening their destruction." The Confederate president, however, summarily rejected the scheme for a joint military expedition against the French in Mexico. The Mexicans themselves, he said, would have to drive out the French puppet regime, after which "no one can foresee how things would shape themselves" in Mexico]

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0021.104/--hampton-roads-peace-conference-a-final-test-of-lincolns?rgn=main;view=fulltext