■■■■ Ukraine
1 Like
more than that. The soviets top generals were mostly Ukranian. A lot of their equipment was built in Ukraine. Losing Ukraine was a big blow to Russia
1 Like
I’m not concerned about Ukraine. I’m concerned about Russia winning a war of conquest in Europe.
I agree. He’d be in Kiev but that doesn’t change the fact that he is not and is not, without any boots on the ground from other countries. If that’s a “strawman”…k.
…and I’m not. He knows he can’ beat NATO and won’t start down that road.
I’m not getting you. True, no other boots on the ground and they needed our aid to do it, and to maintain it. So what’s the problem?
Our aid has kept Putin from over running Ukraine, which if he had done, or does do, will lead to him doing the same elsewhere. It’s only a matter of time. He will rebuild, and he will try it again. Why wouldn’t he if it works?
He will start with Moldova, and then move on to the Baltics. Little green men will appear out of nowhere and “homegrown” separatist movements will spring up out of nowhere. Rince repeat.
Not stopping him in Ukraine will lead to ww3. We can avoid the whole thing by making sure he does not succeed in Ukraine. And compared to what WW3 will cost, its on the cheap.
Tulsi told him to say that.
I think of supporting Ukraine in this way:
- Russia is an adversary with nukes to boot. And they are run by an authoritarian whose ambitions are simply to resurrect the former Soviet bloc. He is the enemy of our country.
- By funding this war, we are helping dismantle his military, hundreds of thousands of Russian troops are injured or dead. Their armor capabilities are going to be zeroed out next year, they’re using WWII tanks from scrapyards at the moment because they are running thin.
- Stopping them there means we don’t have to deal with Russia possibly trying to reclaim Poland, a NATO nation. That puts us into war, whereas right now, we don’t have to fight to see Russia fail.
- This also sends a message to Xi in China that any aspirations he has of expansion will be met with similar fates. Thus, lowering risks there.
- This is a war of attrition, but we have the upper hand and Ukraine will ultimately survive. Putin will be cast out and the world will be much more stable as a result. We just have to have the will to do it and we should. Russia cannot keep funding this war forever, their economy is smaller than California’s. They are running out of parts and with sanctions, the best stuff is not available. Their populace will not last much longer in terms of patience, their sons are coming home in body bags and nothing is changing.
There are a lot of folks that, for some reason, favor Putin in the US. While I don’t understand their reasoning we cannot allow a strongman fascist to start a global war just because we like cheap gas. You cannot placate a guy like that, you have to stand up and eliminate him. That is what the US is doing now. What I find strange is that some Conservatives, who used to be very anti-Communist and Marxist, who still use those words to attack Democrats, seem fine with lauding and supporting an actual Communist dictator who hates our country.
Dunno why this change has occurred but it is very strange. And I am not addressing this to you, WuWei, just in general.
I think of Ukraine this way:
It’s not the US’ problem.
2 Likes
I’m not really sure why this is a good thing. It’s not like these are Putin’s inner circle getting killed. The vast majority of those people sent to the front are either ethnic minorities or criminals, the rest are plucked off some farm in the middle of nowhere Russia. They’re not sending their city boys from Saint Petersburg and Moscow to the front.
And even if they were, I wouldn’t want to see anybody get killed. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of Ukrainians dying as well. It’s a bad war and one side has enough nukes to kill us all a few times and I have seen zero tries to deescalate just keep seeing how many redlines that can be crossed before one day maybe they find the right one.
2 Likes
We don’t even protect our own borders but the Ukraine is different? You don’t have a problem with that if you’re not a conservative? We’re 35 trillion in debt. Who is paying for this? It’s babies that haven’t even been born yet…you know…taxation without representation…the basis for our Revolutionary War? Where was the left when he took Crimea under the Obama Administration? Why is it more important now, than back then? I do not approve of Putin’s actions but “we” have serious problems of our own right now that aren’t being dealt with, that I find much more important to this nation.
Russia does not want to deescalate.
2 Likes
There are a few reasons this matters. One, in Afghanistan the Soviets lost 15k troops and it led to the entire empire failing. They have lost, by some estimates, over 600k troops here with another 400k wounded. That’s a million young men vs. 15k in Afghanistan. They are going to have to conscript soon, and THAT is when the populace is going to lose it because they, so far, haven’t been affected by a draft.
Two, because of the threat of conscription around 750k young Russian men have emigrated to other countries. Most notably, Germany. These are internet savvy young men and this poses a real brain drain in Russia, they tend to be wealthier and more educated.
And third, if the Ukrainians can hold on, there will either be regime change or a substantial decimation of Russia which will provide stabilization worldwide. Russia loves to meddle in other countries, fund terrorists and supply rogue states. That changes when they are struggling to keep their own lights on.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The US is still the most powerful country in the world and what we do matters, internationally. You can’t bring up the border every time we face a challenge and use it to shy away from our well earned responsibility. There ARE advantages to being king of the hill, our currency is the fiat currency for the world, in example. And we are still buying loads of weapons, have a huge Defense budget, and I don’t think Conservatives are in favor of reducing that budget. So why not use all of those weapons to actually strengthen our hand internationally? We have a million dead or wounded Russians by our weapons and we never put a single US solider at risk. That is money well spent.
Now, if you want to reduce the debt, we have 50 trillion dollars of oil and gas on US held land. Develop means to extract it and sell it. We can generate tons of money that we simply don’t, the US is a very wealthy country in terms of resources.
It’s our number one problem and yes, I’ll continue to bring it up until it’s fixed. Do you believe the “border czar” will do it? This is a serious problem my friend that FAR exceeds the Ukraine. How much violence, murders and rapes does it take from the gangs that have crossed that are just now beginning their rampage in the US? How much?
That’s another very important subject that this Administration is destroying, that systematically is allowing BRICS to grow in their strength. As our debt increases, so does the danger. Now it’s 40% of our tax dollar that’s being wasted on servicing the debt.
This conservative is in favor of reducing the debt and I look at it from the POV of today and tomorrow. I look out into the future, prepare for what I think I’m seeing, so that when it arrives…that preparation becomes a financial success…not an ill prepared disaster.
…cuz there’s a good chance this Administration will simply leave the billions of dollars of weapons behind to fall into the hands of our enemies. This Administration and all those that support it are destroying this nation.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with RFKs statement,
but sometimes you have to stop being a back seat driver and let the President (of either party) act from a position of strength.
The problem with the border talk is just that, it’s just talk. Every election it is brought up by the GOP, like clockwork. And after the election nothing ever gets done. Hell, we just had a border bill which would have really strengthened our immigration system and it was killed by Trump because he wanted it to still BE a problem in order to help him win.
This is like abortion in that way, the GOP wants the issue to complain about but never wants to solve the problem because a solved problem can no longer be used as a cudgel against Democrats. Hell, I remember the “Caravans of diseased immigrants” in one of the former elections. This happens every 2 years, it’s always about immigration, and nothing ever gets done.
Trump had the Senate, House and a Conservative SCOTUS for 2 years. Did they pass a single immigration bill? The Democrats have continually tried to advance immigration bills and nothing ever gets past the GOP members who usually kill it in the Senate before it can even come to a vote.
So I find it hard to reconcile the importance of the border from a party who is deadset against doing anything to fix it, while all the same complaining constantly about it every election cycle.
The Soviets lost more than 15k in Afghanistan. That’s what they publicly acknowledged at that time but hell they lost 15K Armenians just from drunken accidents. They lost closer to 40-50k.
I’m in this weird position where I want Russia to lose but I don’t want them to completely collapse over this. I don’t like the idea of a country with 1500 deployed nuclear warheads collapsing completely into a corpse. We got lucky with the Soviet collapse. It’s a bit too much of a risk for it to happen again.
A key argument from Russia is that Ukrainians cannot fire western long-range high-precision missiles by themselves–they need information from western satellites and western personnel are required to launch the missiles. Unlike random strikes from Ukrainian drones, strikes on strategic targets within Russia using these weapons is amount to direct participation of NATO in a war against, and Russia will respond accordingly.
PUTIN: “When it comes to using high–precision long-range Western-made weapons, it’s a completely different story. The fact is that, as I have already said, and any experts will confirm this (both here and in the West), the Ukrainian army is not able to strike with modern high-precision long-range systems of Western production. It can’t do that. This is possible only with the use of satellite data, which Ukraine does not have — this is data only from satellites of either the European Union or the United States, in general, from NATO satellites. This is the first one.
The second, and very important, perhaps key, is that flight missions to these missile systems can, in fact, only be carried out by military personnel of NATO countries. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this. And therefore, it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not to allow it. It’s about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict or not. If this decision is made, it will mean nothing more than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, and European countries in the war in Ukraine.”
WW3 WATCH: Putin Warns Authorization to Fire Long-Range Missiles Deep Inside Russia Will Mean NATO Is at War With Russia | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Serran
For the video clip and an earlier leaked discussion from German military about the need for direct western involvement in targeting of missiles see:
https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1834325391399428203
The British PM made a special trip to Washington, and there was supposed to be a formal announcement last week about allowing the launch of NATO missiles into Russia. Then Putin’s statement came out and the official announcement has been on hold. It is likely that the Pentagon took Puntin’s statement seriously and warned the White House that we are not prepared to fight a war with Russia.
