Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Or maybe I wouldn't have taken troops, increased weapon support, NATO, security guarantees, etc. off the table so quickly and publicly so you don't lose leverage. I didn't write a book about making deals, but everyone knows leverage matters.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Or maybe I wouldn't have taken troops, increased weapon support, NATO, security guarantees, etc. off the table so quickly and publicly so you don't lose leverage. I didn't write a book about making deals, but everyone knows leverage matters.

---

Is this part where you start spinning the idea that the US has not thrown everything it has into the war to help Ukraine?

The USA has spent hundreds of billions on the Ukraine war

US-NATO forces trained Ukrainian forces to fight

[Ukrainian forces have been receiving training in Poland, as part of the European Union Military Assistance Mission (EUMAM) in support of Ukraine, with Poland playing a key role in training Ukrainian troops]

EU countries have send hundreds of billions in money and equipment.

[between 24 January 2022 and the end of 2024, Europe as a whole spent more than $138.7bn on Ukraine]

The US has been paying to keep their pension and civil service system going.

[American taxpayers are providing more than just weapons. The U.S. has pumped nearly $25 billion of non-military aid into Ukraine's economy since the invasion began....the U.S. government is subsidizing small businesses in Ukraine...The U.S. government has also bought seeds and fertilizer for Ukrainian farmers. America is covering the salaries of Ukraine's first responders, all 57,000 of them.]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/following-american-money-in-ukraine-60-minutes/

Not to mention that the Pentagon has basically been planning and advising and running the war out of Northern Virginia

And what security provisions could NATO give to a country that is not a member of NATO?

The ill-fated Kursk offensive draws to a close:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/whats-happening-russias-kursk-region-why-does-it-matter-2025-03-12/

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.

---

I disagree. Three years and hundreds of thousands dead? This, like many wars, will peter out. I can assure you that Russian moms have had enough.

Mitch Blood Green 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.

---

I disagree. Three years and hundreds of thousands dead? This, like many wars, will peter out. I can assure you that Russian moms have had enough.

---

I agree that all wars end

But I doubt Russia gives up on Ukraine

Long after Putin is dead they will still be very interested in Ukraine and care deeply about it.

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Ron said "in my lifetime." You cited ancient history. I agree with Ron. No president in MY lifetime, has focused so intently on Mexico, for good reason. It's trending toward failed state status due to cartel influence. Trump is going to fix that. Now, is that a parallel to that history you cited? indeed. A failed state on our southern border, de facto controlled by drug cartels, is a very serious problem. Trump is to be commended for focusing on that NOW. I think you will see WOT type responses to drug cartels, to include the drone-strike program we conducted against AQ, ISIS, eieio.....

Canada is not approaching failed state status, but they have become an unhelpful parasite. They are dependent on OUR economy. The converse is not true. That isn't itself a problem so long as they are helpful in other regards, which increasingly they are not, particularly on border issue. Like Mexico, they are letting anyone who can afford a plane ticket transit their country for the purpose of illegally crossing our border. And they are not doing enough to stop drugs. If Mexico is going to be a de facto 51st state economically, then they need to be a de facto 51st state on security related issues. and that's before we get to the authoritarian turn of the Trudeau government, which is not an immaterial concern. Canada is hardly alone in that. Europe is doing the same. And Trump admin has rightly called them out on it (Vance's speech in Munich).

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green 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.

---

I disagree. Three years and hundreds of thousands dead? This, like many wars, will peter out. I can assure you that Russian moms have had enough.

---

I agree that all wars end

But I doubt Russia gives up on Ukraine

Long after Putin is dead they will still be very interested in Ukraine and care deeply about it.

---

Well, of course.. But that does not mean they deserve to have it, or that Nato should let them have it. If they cannot control it, and at this time they cannot, we should deny it to them. (which is not the same thing as "we should take it.") The world of geopolitics is harsh. States control what they can control. Nobody is going to give them anything except by errors of calculation or execution.

I continue to be astounded at how critics of US support for Ukraine are so blind to the strategic consequences of their position. Allowing Russia to have Ukraine, just because they want it and having it is good for them, is zero sum with Nato interests. Ukraine is just as important to Nato - keeping Russian armies 600 miles further east. Adding Ukraine to Russian polity also strengthens the Russian state in numerous ways - larger, stronger, CLOSER. No prudent state (or alliance) will stand by and allow that to happen without taking some kind of preventative measures. Russia, in a nearly fatal analytical error, presumed that Nato would do exactly that - stand by and let Russia have Ukraine back. Nato responded entirely appropriately, albeit far too late to have any deterrent effect.

Mitch Blood Green 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.

---

I disagree. Three years and hundreds of thousands dead? This, like many wars, will peter out. I can assure you that Russian moms have had enough.

---

concluding the current war policy might well take exactly that - 3 years and 7-digits of casualties - before it peters out.

Long but very worthwhile presentation by the leading Russia exert Steven Kotkin on the subject of Russia in the new world order.

Of particular note is his answer to the question re Russia at 1:15 = the "choices" other powers have made in history which richly benefitted them, which stand starkly contrast with the very bad choices Russia is STILL making, almost as if self-defeating bad choices are part of their national character.

🇺🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺 “I’m Ukranian and this is my Porsche”

pic.twitter.com/QLnNMAfvTW

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) March 15, 2025

“I don’t know where all that money went…” -Zelensky to AP regarding $76 BILLION in aid…which is far less than the $177 BILLION cited by American Officials.

SPOTTED in Monaco…a convoy of Luxury Cars with Ukrainian Licence Plates. pic.twitter.com/JbtqonuubY

— Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) March 15, 2025

Assassin said:

---

🇺🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺 “I’m Ukranian and this is my Porsche”

pic.twitter.com/QLnNMAfvTW

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) March 15, 2025

---

They are hiring e-thots to push their messaging…

lololololol

BREAKING:

Ukraine launches another massive drone swarm attack against Russia.

More than 130 suicide drones were launched, with majority targeting the Volgograd region of Russia.

This video shows a fire at an oil refinery in Volgograd. pic.twitter.com/yBXXI4APzQ

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 15, 2025

Zelensky’s backing off the 30-day ceasefire with Russia, saying peace might take longer. He’s asking Europe and the U.S. for major funding for Ukraine’s military and rebuilding. pic.twitter.com/DAXjV1DSHq

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) March 15, 2025

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

that would be the 20th Armored Infantry Brigade. Not quite a QRF, but easily deployable within Nato. I would think you'd more likely see a QRF unit involved. Light combat units placed well to the rear to serve as a trip-wire. Perhaps units from a para regiment dropped in for show as a training exercise then put on rotational TDY, followed by moving armored assets to Poland on standby.

Nato does not have a ton of expeditionary capability outside of Europe. They depend on the US for that. But within Europe, rail & air assets make possible unilateral deployments unthinkable elsewhere.

One must evaluate French & British statements on such deployments as shaping the paramaters of peace talks....the "or else" stick visible for all to see.

It's official. Russia is failing in Romania, Moldova, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine, Serbia and Hungary.

🇷🇴🇲🇩🇬🇪🇸🇾🇺🇦🇷🇸🇭🇺 pic.twitter.com/OrhhU9cL0b

— 𝐀𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐊𝐎𝐌𝐒𝐀 | 🇪🇺🇫🇷🇵🇱🇺🇦 (@tweet4Anna_NAFO) March 15, 2025

Assassin said:

---

It's official. Russia is failing in Romania, Moldova, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine, Serbia and Hungary.

🇷🇴🇲🇩🇬🇪🇸🇾🇺🇦🇷🇸🇭🇺 pic.twitter.com/OrhhU9cL0b

— 𝐀𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐊𝐎𝐌𝐒𝐀 | 🇪🇺🇫🇷🇵🇱🇺🇦 (@tweet4Anna_NAFO) March 15, 2025

---

Nuland the Conqueror continues to demonstrate her prowess . . . .

sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

It's official. Russia is failing in Romania, Moldova, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine, Serbia and Hungary.

🇷🇴🇲🇩🇬🇪🇸🇾🇺🇦🇷🇸🇭🇺 pic.twitter.com/OrhhU9cL0b

— 𝐀𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐊𝐎𝐌𝐒𝐀 | 🇪🇺🇫🇷🇵🇱🇺🇦 (@tweet4Anna_NAFO) March 15, 2025

---

Nuland the Conqueror continues to demonstrate her prowess . . . .

---

Seems like some of you are actually rooting for Putin and Russia. If this is from the Nuland days, that is a hell of PsyOps prowess.

FLBear5630 said:

---

sombear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

It's official. Russia is failing in Romania, Moldova, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine, Serbia and Hungary.

🇷🇴🇲🇩🇬🇪🇸🇾🇺🇦🇷🇸🇭🇺 pic.twitter.com/OrhhU9cL0b

— 𝐀𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐊𝐎𝐌𝐒𝐀 | 🇪🇺🇫🇷🇵🇱🇺🇦 (@tweet4Anna_NAFO) March 15, 2025

---

Nuland the Conqueror continues to demonstrate her prowess . . . .

---

Seems like some of you are actually rooting for Putin and Russia. If this is from the Nuland days, that is a hell of PsyOps prowess.

---

Sombear was mocking the idea….not supporting it


PS

These Serbian demonstrations don't have much of anything to do with Ukraine or Russia

They are about government incompetence, economic stagnation, and corruption

Assassin said:

---

“I don’t know where all that money went…” -Zelensky to AP regarding $76 BILLION in aid…which is far less than the $177 BILLION cited by American Officials.

SPOTTED in Monaco…a convoy of Luxury Cars with Ukrainian Licence Plates. pic.twitter.com/JbtqonuubY

— Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) March 15, 2025

---

Nothing says billion dollar corruption like $80K cars

ron.reagan said:

---

Assassin said:

---

“I don’t know where all that money went…” -Zelensky to AP regarding $76 BILLION in aid…which is far less than the $177 BILLION cited by American Officials.

SPOTTED in Monaco…a convoy of Luxury Cars with Ukrainian Licence Plates. pic.twitter.com/JbtqonuubY

— Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) March 15, 2025

---

Nothing says billion dollar corruption like $80K cars

---

Its an massive luxury in war torn Ukraine

[Taking these factors into consideration, a person working in Ukraine annually earns around 276,000 UAH (Ukrainian Hryvnia). Based on the exchange rate in April 2023, this amounts to USD 7,500 (US Dollars) annually]

Average Ukrainian does not even make $10k a year

There's a very good chance that a tiny number of well connected thieves make between 100 & 1,000 times that, thanks to the U.S. taxpayer.

Well, this is awkward 🗓️ Flashback to 2016, Politico and Maggie Haberman:
"Clinton's Ukraine and 2016 problem"

🔗https://t.co/qQeLVHNU4u pic.twitter.com/Gr0U7UvTgZ

— Adam Townsend (@adamscrabble) March 14, 2025

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

that would be the 20th Armored Infantry Brigade. Not quite a QRF, but easily deployable within Nato. I would think you'd more likely see a QRF unit involved. Light combat units placed well to the rear to serve as a trip-wire. Perhaps units from a para regiment dropped in for show as a training exercise then put on rotational TDY, followed by moving armored assets to Poland on standby.

Nato does not have a ton of expeditionary capability outside of Europe. They depend on the US for that. But within Europe, rail & air assets make possible unilateral deployments unthinkable elsewhere.

One must evaluate French & British statements on such deployments as shaping the paramaters of peace talks....the "or else" stick visible for all to see.

---

Yep, this is likely good in that it pressures Russia to come to the peace table and recognize that compromise must be made.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

It's as bad or worse in Germany.

https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/fit-war-decades-sluggish-german-rearmament-versus-surging-russian-defence-production

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

It's as bad or worse in Germany.

https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/fit-war-decades-sluggish-german-rearmament-versus-surging-russian-defence-production

---

On the other hand, why spend their DM's on military when we send the $s and support the European defense?

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

It's as bad or worse in Germany.

https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/fit-war-decades-sluggish-german-rearmament-versus-surging-russian-defence-production

---

On the other hand, why spend their DM's on military when we send the $s and support the European defense?

---

Can't blame them as long as they don't expect us to back them up. But Americans had better understand that if Europe sends troops to Ukraine, it will be for one and only one purpose--to get the US directly involved.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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

---

Ron said "in my lifetime." You cited ancient history. I agree with Ron. No president in MY lifetime, has focused so intently on Mexico, for good reason. It's trending toward failed state status due to cartel influence. Trump is going to fix that. Now, is that a parallel to that history you cited? indeed. A failed state on our southern border, de facto controlled by drug cartels, is a very serious problem. Trump is to be commended for focusing on that NOW. I think you will see WOT type responses to drug cartels, to include the drone-strike program we conducted against AQ, ISIS, eieio.....

Canada is not approaching failed state status, but they have become an unhelpful parasite. They are dependent on OUR economy. The converse is not true. That isn't itself a problem so long as they are helpful in other regards, which increasingly they are not, particularly on border issue. Like Mexico, they are letting anyone who can afford a plane ticket transit their country for the purpose of illegally crossing our border. And they are not doing enough to stop drugs. If Mexico is going to be a de facto 51st state economically, then they need to be a de facto 51st state on security related issues. and that's before we get to the authoritarian turn of the Trudeau government, which is not an immaterial concern. Canada is hardly alone in that. Europe is doing the same. And Trump admin has rightly called them out on it (Vance's speech in Munich).

---

So to summarize, Canada and Mexico are indeed vital strategic concerns.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

It's as bad or worse in Germany.

https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/fit-war-decades-sluggish-german-rearmament-versus-surging-russian-defence-production

---

On the other hand, why spend their DM's on military when we send the $s and support the European defense?

---

Can't blame them as long as they don't expect us to back them up. But Americans had better understand that if Europe sends troops to Ukraine, it will be for one and only one purpose--to get the US directly involved.

---

I think they understand as long as Trump is in office the US is not going to back them up. That's why they're organizing to make a go of it without us. The EU realizes it may have a window to ramp up and organize the EU economy to a defense/wartime footing, while Russia, in a weakened state, attempts to revamp and reorganize its military and industrial support to finish off Ukraine. The EU has the GDP to overwhelm Russia, if it wants to. Germany, France, GB, and Poland along with Turkey (showing interest in protecting Ukraine) are enough to hold off Russia.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---