I think I'll post in this thread too, thanks

GAC06 said:

---

I think I'll post in this thread too, thanks

---

Awesome! I hope this one draws more views/dialog over time. Thx.

Very interesting podcast/discussion relative to the actual costs (human/$$) of war. I think it's available on all the big podcast platforms, and the author (Stephanie Savell) of course has a book she'd like folks to buy about it.

https://realclear-defense-presents-hot-wash.simplecast.com/episodes/costs-of-war

Excellent.

Just going to quote my own post here from one of the leftist troll threads o' day (which I'm sure will be gone/off page 1 in a day or 3) about hating religiously Putin/Russia/Tucker Carlson/anyone who doesn't agree about all of that regarding Ukraine:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I, also, blame Joe Biden's team (not the senile old poopy pants empty suit himself) for the war. Fall 2021 thru the invasion they did everything possible to stoke the invasion/war.

This is all very well documented, it's just stuff the partisan war cheerleaders (in general whom have zero military or combat experience) are either wholly ignorant of or in abject denial as to any fault of "Dear Leader." Yes, it goes back to Biden's time as (corrupt) the 'special envoy' to Ukraine and Yanukovich etc. when he was VP.

Quote:

---

The Kremlin's decisive action should have alerted even slow-learning U.S. leaders that the days of Russian officials merely issuing verbal protests about the West's steady encroachment into Russia's security sphere were over. Amazingly, though, the Obama administration still sought to turn Ukraine into a NATO political and military asset. In late 2013 and early 2014, the United States and several European governments meddled shamelessly to support the efforts of demonstrators to unseat Ukraine's generally pro-Russia president, Victor Yanukovych, some two years before the expiration of his term.

That campaign was especially inappropriate since Yanukovych became president in 2010 as the result of an election that even the European Union and other international observers acknowledged was reasonably free and fair. In a democratic system, the legal way to remove a president from office is, depending on a specific country's constitutional rules, through a parliamentary vote of no-confidence, impeachment, or defeat in the next election. Angry street demonstrations do not fit into any of those categories, yet the United States and its allies backed that illegal process. A recording of the infamous leaked telephone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt confirmed the extent of Washington's meddling in the affairs of a sovereign country.

The Ukraine episode proved to be an intolerable provocation to neighboring Russia. Putin responded by annexing the strategic Crimea peninsula and the United States and its NATO partners then imposed economic sanctions on Russia. The new cold war was on in earnest.

---

Quote:

---

Moscow's cruel overreaction deserves emphatic condemnation. However, the culpability of the United States and its NATO allies also is sizable. Moving an alliance that one great power dominates to the border of another major power is inherently destabilizing and provocative.

Those people who are familiar with even the basics of international relations should grasp that point; it was inexcusable that so many U.S. and NATO leaders apparently did not do so.

One can readily imagine how Americans would react if Russia, China, India, or another peer competitor admitted countries from Central America and the Caribbean to a security alliance that it ledand then sought to add Canada as an official or de facto military ally. It is highly probable that the United States would have responded by going to war years ago. Yet even though Ukraine has an importance to Russia comparable to Canada's importance to the United States, our leaders expected Moscow to respond passively to the growing encroachment.

They have been proven disastrously wrong, and thanks to their ineptitude, the world is now a far more dangerous place.

---

When our propaganda press really fed their masses red meat about hating Putin for installing Trump etc. (Hillary lies, to cover up her own illegal activities with Russia of course), it became deeply ingrained in the loyalist Dem-Marxist class of true believers that Putin had some sort of super powers and was evil beyond Xi or any communist leader.

So yes, all of this goes back to the corruption in Ukraine and Russia of the Clintons and Bidens, as well as their perfidity/incompetence of the people they hired. That some might be grasping the lies spread by…folks like them or the J6 gulag saga is just stuff that has to be stomped out; twitter and tucker are now also russian stooges/villains to the leftist true believers, past lies be damned as heresies spread by the unfaithful.

---

---

GAC06 said:

---

I'm not saying we should hit them directly. I'm saying we could and they wouldn't respond meaningfully. They know they are our *****.

---

And an adversary being confronted with that attitude is exactly what causes them to tip over the board game and say "**** it. Everybody loses. Start the world over." It's exactly the attitude of the highschool bully who tortures the goth kids "because they aren't going to do anything- they know they are my *****"....... until the goth kids come in and shoot up the school.

Your in good company.

You're right. People never act in a way that ensures their own demise.....until they do. For reference- See kamikaze pilots, suicide bombers, mass school shooters, and the multitude of individuals who get pushed to a point where they believe its better to cause as much destruction as possible before they go out. Because death is preferable to losing and if you are going to die you are going to do as much damage as possible as you go out.

Congrats. I hope you never have any authority to do anything ever.

Yep.

Good thread from Rogoway.

Altitude on their side. Operating at upwards of 60k means very rough to intercept and harass at close range. Foxhounds can get up there no problem but close proximity intercept and maneuvering is a different story. The fact that the Su-27s were pissing fuel onto the Reaper…

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) March 15, 2023

Is an indication of where we are at in terms of decorum out there. It could get pretty tense.

Stay tuned!

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) March 15, 2023

As an example of how this stuff costs a fortune more to sustain than so many realize, a Carrier strike group costs a bundle (around $10 or 12 million/day), and a super hornet (as a cheaper example of a non-stealthy escort fighter if used for 'protection') has around a 6,000 hour fatigue life (comparatively, commercial airliners can operate from 60K to 125K hours typically).

Those (Reaper, for example) drones themselves are what people think of as a 'cost' but the real cost is the procurement, training, operating, maintenance costs of all of the stuff that goes along with the surveillance.

Is there any information indicating the MQ-9 was at 60,000 feet? Open source info from a quick search says 50,000 foot ceiling, and it's not going to be doing much that's useful at that altitude.

Otherwise he's right on the cost savings and logistical advantages of drones, especially for loitering in low threat environments. Once they start getting shot down the math shifts some.

GAC06 said:

---

Is there any information indicating the MQ-9 was at 60,000 feet? Open source info from a quick search says 50,000 foot ceiling, and it's not going to be doing much that's useful at that altitude.

Otherwise he's right on the cost savings and logistical advantages of drones, especially for loitering in low threat environments. Once they start getting shot down the math shifts some.

---

No, of course not, you are just misreading the comments/information.

The point was that fighter escorts could be much higher than the lower flying drones (and/or that the RQ-4, not a reaper, could be used alternatively to gather intel from that altitude.) More here now.

Despite some pretty big names dropping the verdict saying “this is DCS”

This is real.

Hint: Propeller only shows up like this on camera. In popular video games it should show up like a smooth disc.

Plus the Reaper in question is of a newer block. You don’t find it in games. https://t.co/ZZWWe8RBU2

— MelOD/Cirque/シルク (@CirqueduCiel) March 15, 2023

We have layers of options for surveillance in terms of passive/active protection/capabilities, but this can also escalate in costs/ways folks cheering on the war don't plan on/understand. Ramping up longer range weapons deliveries to the Ukrainians is going to make the Russians more and more...aggressive toward any kind of nearby surveillance, logically.

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, Russia's state-run TASS news agency deflects from the collision itself by claiming that "U.S. drones are collecting reconnaissance data to be used by the Kyiv forces for their future strikes on the Russian territory and troops." The agency also quotes the Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov, who said: "The unacceptable actions of the United States military in the close proximity to our borders are cause for concern. We are well aware of the missions such reconnaissance and strike drones are used for."

---

I do feel very bad for the dogs in these war zones.

Feeding homeless pets in Bakhmut is not a part of mission, but pleasure. Keep on little friends!🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/OEP5t2VCYm

— Vsevolod Kozhemyako (@VsevolodKozhem1) March 15, 2023

There's a lot of trash on the internet but it seems like this is a bad portent for the Ukrainians within/about Bakhmut:

🇺🇦 #Ukraine ✌ #Bakhmut https://t.co/jMEfHuvnnD

— Christopher White UK (@C_W_UK) March 16, 2023

How Obama's weak reaction to Crimea referendum set the table for later Ukraine war.

WH says "ok, fine, it's good that they talk, but we'd prefer they agree with us about forever war" regarding pending China-Ukraine-Russia negotiations this month.

Quote:

---

• Russia's defence secretary, Sergei Shoigu, has presented state awards to the pilots of the Su-27 planes involved in the drone incident over the Black Sea for "preventing the violation of the borders of the special operation area by the American MQ-9 Reaper drone".
• China and Russia have confirmed that China's president Xi Jinping will make a state visit to Russia on 20-22 March. "During the talks, they will discuss topical issues of further development of comprehensive partnership relations and strategic cooperation between Russia and China," the Kremlin said. China's foreign ministry said Xi would be exchanging opinions on international and regional issues with Vladimir Putin, and the objective of the visit was to deepen bilateral trust.
• The White House said Thursday that talks between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and China's president would be a "good thing," but warned Beijing against taking a "one-sided" view of the conflict. There has been no confirmation of a call to Zelenskiy by Xi. However, Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang and his Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Kulebatalked by phone Thursday.

---

Ww3 drones on …

Weird that in previous world wars the wars involved virtually the whole world instead of two countries

GAC06 said:

---

Weird that in previous world wars the wars involved virtually the whole world instead of two countries

---

So you disagree with Zelensky again, with China now supplying weapons to Russia? Interesting.

https://t.co/XThQ8ZMHFi

— @amuse (@amuse) March 17, 2023

Based on the war cheerleader thread, I thought lot's of countries are involved. Do you also ascribe to the belief that Putin took out his own pipeline last year?

I disagree with the absurd notion that one country invading one other country constitutes a world war. I hope that clears it up for you.

I didn't think many war supporters thought Zelensky is a liar, is all.

Your thought process is extremely literal.

On one hand you argue losing Ukraine will lead to world War with Poland and other eastern European countries at risk. In the next breath you argue it isn't a world War because it is limited to just one territorial dispute. But you don't call it a territorial dispute.

You are as twisted in knots as power cords sitting in a box.

It can easily be argued that Western Europe, central Europe, Russia, Iran, China, and America are involved in this conflict. It is more of a world War than Korean or Vietnam wars.

GAC06 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

---

By "calling us" I mean escalated to something that would cause us to put boots on the ground.

We do not need boots on the ground because the next step up is nuclear war.

It shocks me that you guys don't seem to care about that at all.

---

Direct conflict results in Russia getting their ass handed to them. The only card they have to play is nukes and guess what, they don't want that either.

We could respond to this incident by annihilating the airbase the flankers came from. Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war over that.

---

Yeah, I really don't want to be combative but everything you said here is genuinely nuts.

On top of everything else, I have no idea why anyone just assumes our military is worth a **** to begin with. I'm pretty sure my 1970s cub scout troop would beat it up and make it cry. But that's beside the point because we shouldn't need to find out. The hardon so many people have in hoping we get in the war is just amazing. You can sense the excitement from lots of people over this drone event that maybe we'll get pulled in directly so we can kill some Russians ourselves. And once people start seriously trying to argue that "our nukes are better than their nukes anyway" then you know you're operating in pure crazy land.

A lot of Nevill Chamberlains on this board...

Ag with kids said:

---

A lot of Nevill Chamberlains on this board...

---

Straw man. The two situations and their causes are not similar. Also there wasn't the threat of nukes back in 1940

texagbeliever said:

---

Your thought process is extremely literal.

On one hand you argue losing Ukraine will lead to world War with Poland and other eastern European countries at risk. In the next breath you argue it isn't a world War because it is limited to just one territorial dispute. But you don't call it a territorial dispute.

You are as twisted in knots as power cords sitting in a box.

It can easily be argued that Western Europe, central Europe, Russia, Iran, China, and America are involved in this conflict. It is more of a world War than Korean or Vietnam wars.

---

Russia invading a NATO country would lead to a wider war. Russia invading Ukraine is not a world war. Not sure what you think is inconsistent there.

Joes said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

---

By "calling us" I mean escalated to something that would cause us to put boots on the ground.

We do not need boots on the ground because the next step up is nuclear war.

It shocks me that you guys don't seem to care about that at all.

---

Direct conflict results in Russia getting their ass handed to them. The only card they have to play is nukes and guess what, they don't want that either.

We could respond to this incident by annihilating the airbase the flankers came from. Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war over that.

---

Yeah, I really don't want to be combative but everything you said here is genuinely nuts.

On top of everything else, I have no idea why anyone just assumes our military is worth a **** to begin with. I'm pretty sure my 1970s cub scout troop would beat it up and make it cry. But that's beside the point because we shouldn't need to find out. The hardon so many people have in hoping we get in the war is just amazing. You can sense the excitement from lots of people over this drone event that maybe we'll get pulled in directly so we can kill some Russians ourselves. And once people start seriously trying to argue that "our nukes are better than their nukes anyway" then you know you're operating in pure crazy land.

---

Don't be stupid. Just because we don't want Russia killing more Ukrainians doesn't mean we want open war with them. And guess what - Russia doesn't want that either because they know its a no win situation for either of us. So proxy war it is.

And unlike Afghanistan and Iran and Vietnam - these Ukrainians actually want to fight for their lives and their own freedom. So let them fight and give them the tools we can spare to do so. Our NATO allies that are closer to this than us also rely on our help.

I know you Trump guys like to be isolationists and think we don't need allies - but we do. China's influence in central and South America should be evidence enough of that.

Joes said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

---

By "calling us" I mean escalated to something that would cause us to put boots on the ground.

We do not need boots on the ground because the next step up is nuclear war.

It shocks me that you guys don't seem to care about that at all.

---

Direct conflict results in Russia getting their ass handed to them. The only card they have to play is nukes and guess what, they don't want that either.

We could respond to this incident by annihilating the airbase the flankers came from. Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war over that.

---

Yeah, I really don't want to be combative but everything you said here is genuinely nuts.

On top of everything else, I have no idea why anyone just assumes our military is worth a **** to begin with. I'm pretty sure my 1970s cub scout troop would beat it up and make it cry. But that's beside the point because we shouldn't need to find out. The hardon so many people have in hoping we get in the war is just amazing. You can sense the excitement from lots of people over this drone event that maybe we'll get pulled in directly so we can kill some Russians ourselves. And once people start seriously trying to argue that "our nukes are better than their nukes anyway" then you know you're operating in pure crazy land.

---

We would annihilate Russia in a direct conflict. No one here is hoping it comes to that.

Ag with kids said:

---

A lot of Nevill Chamberlains on this board...

---

Modern Russia isnt a fraction of the threat of 1930s Germany.

1930s Germany had all the cutting edge science, all the manufacturing, top of the line efficiencies and supply chain, the only thing they lacked was an oil reserve and waves of human bullet-magnets. If they had either of those last two things...we would all be speaking German.

How stupid is it that people think Putin has grand plans of European domination? He only brought in about 1/3rd the forces necessary to defeat Ukraine. Does any rational thinker believe "Poland would have been next" or "he was going to sweep all the way to the Atlantic"? These are the fear-mongering utterances of a concave skull NPC meme. Yet we have these ideas parroted, albeit to less hyperbole, by so many on this board. "Oh he wants to put the Soviet Union back together."

GAC06 said:

---

Joes said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

---

By "calling us" I mean escalated to something that would cause us to put boots on the ground.

We do not need boots on the ground because the next step up is nuclear war.

It shocks me that you guys don't seem to care about that at all.

---

Direct conflict results in Russia getting their ass handed to them. The only card they have to play is nukes and guess what, they don't want that either.

We could respond to this incident by annihilating the airbase the flankers came from. Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war over that.

---

Yeah, I really don't want to be combative but everything you said here is genuinely nuts.

On top of everything else, I have no idea why anyone just assumes our military is worth a **** to begin with. I'm pretty sure my 1970s cub scout troop would beat it up and make it cry. But that's beside the point because we shouldn't need to find out. The hardon so many people have in hoping we get in the war is just amazing. You can sense the excitement from lots of people over this drone event that maybe we'll get pulled in directly so we can kill some Russians ourselves. And once people start seriously trying to argue that "our nukes are better than their nukes anyway" then you know you're operating in pure crazy land.

---

We would annihilate Russia in a direct conflict. No one here is hoping it comes to that.

---

MAD

Noone wins. Everyone loses

javajaws said:

---

Joes said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

---

By "calling us" I mean escalated to something that would cause us to put boots on the ground.

We do not need boots on the ground because the next step up is nuclear war.

It shocks me that you guys don't seem to care about that at all.

---

Direct conflict results in Russia getting their ass handed to them. The only card they have to play is nukes and guess what, they don't want that either.

We could respond to this incident by annihilating the airbase the flankers came from. Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war over that.

---

Yeah, I really don't want to be combative but everything you said here is genuinely nuts.

On top of everything else, I have no idea why anyone just assumes our military is worth a **** to begin with. I'm pretty sure my 1970s cub scout troop would beat it up and make it cry. But that's beside the point because we shouldn't need to find out. The hardon so many people have in hoping we get in the war is just amazing. You can sense the excitement from lots of people over this drone event that maybe we'll get pulled in directly so we can kill some Russians ourselves. And once people start seriously trying to argue that "our nukes are better than their nukes anyway" then you know you're operating in pure crazy land.

---

Don't be stupid. Just because we don't want Russia killing more Ukrainians doesn't mean we want open war with them. And guess what - Russia doesn't want that either because they know its a no win situation for either of us. So proxy war it is.

And unlike Afghanistan and Iran and Vietnam - these Ukrainians actually want to fight for their lives and their own freedom. So let them fight and give them the tools we can spare to do so. Our NATO allies that are closer to this than us also rely on our help.

I know you Trump guys like to be isolationists and think we don't need allies - but we do. China's influence in central and South America should be evidence enough of that.

---

With China's influence expanding as you freely admitted then why are we throwing a trillion dollars at Ukraine when we should be doing everything we can to counter their moves especially when yall claim that we can pivot and take on Russia and annihilate them no problem?

Oh wait because that has become the swamp's new money laundering playground.

Ag with kids said:

---

A lot of Nevill Chamberlains on this board...

---

England and France couldn't have stopped Germany. They lacked the moral will to prevent Germany's rise. Before Germany had the power to be a threat, there was no reason for England and France to get involved. Add in that England and France kept the same military leadership style of WW1 and Germany cleaned house and you see why Germany took France with minimal effort.

Sorry that our history failed to teach the reality of WW2 buildup.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

A lot of Nevill Chamberlains on this board...

---

Straw man. The two situations and their causes are not similar. Also there wasn't the threat of nukes back in 1940

---

You mean a country that wanted to reclaim property it said was rightfully theirs and invaded it and everyone blew it off because, well, that's all they wanted? Yep. Totally different....

The Nevill chamberlain stuff is just ignorant and lazy. Russia is a beat up has-been. They are mid-30s Joe Namath in a Rams uniform. The nearby Euros have more than enough to provide the support necessary to keep them at bay and bogged in Ukraine. They just love how our US teat tastes and are happy to take what we give instead

GAC06 said:

---

Joes said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

---

By "calling us" I mean escalated to something that would cause us to put boots on the ground.

We do not need boots on the ground because the next step up is nuclear war.

It shocks me that you guys don't seem to care about that at all.

---

Direct conflict results in Russia getting their ass handed to them. The only card they have to play is nukes and guess what, they don't want that either.

We could respond to this incident by annihilating the airbase the flankers came from. Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war over that.

---

Yeah, I really don't want to be combative but everything you said here is genuinely nuts.

On top of everything else, I have no idea why anyone just assumes our military is worth a **** to begin with. I'm pretty sure my 1970s cub scout troop would beat it up and make it cry. But that's beside the point because we shouldn't need to find out. The hardon so many people have in hoping we get in the war is just amazing. You can sense the excitement from lots of people over this drone event that maybe we'll get pulled in directly so we can kill some Russians ourselves. And once people start seriously trying to argue that "our nukes are better than their nukes anyway" then you know you're operating in pure crazy land.

---

We would annihilate Russia in a direct conflict. No one here is hoping it comes to that.

---

I hate to break it to ya....but America can only "defeat" the current government they are fighting. America cannot win wars against a country. We havent since ww2. Korea...fought and lost. Vietnam...fought and lost. Persian Gulf...fought and rainchecked. Somalia....fought and lost. Afghanistan....fought and lost. Iraq....beat Saddam (yay) lost the war.

In order to actually win modern wars, you have to do "unspeakable things."...things that our current culture does not have the stomach to do, but non-Western countries wouldnt blink twice to do. Any student of history knows how you win wars. But "Geneva"...


"You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." - Ho Chi Mihn.

What I think is more dangerous is lulling the surrounding Euros into a sense that we'll always do it all. Makes them more soft and unprepared.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

What I think is more dangerous is lulling the surrounding Euros into a sense that we'll always do it all. Makes them more soft and unprepared.

---

I think Biden's efforts are to help out the progressive leaders in western Europe. Nationalism which often manifests itself in populist style movements is a direct threat to the progressive agenda. So by preventing a rise of nationalism it helps the current political power to stay in place.

We are paying for progressives to stay in power.

Ag with kids said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

A lot of Nevill Chamberlains on this board...

---

Straw man. The two situations and their causes are not similar. Also there wasn't the threat of nukes back in 1940

---

You mean a country that wanted to reclaim property it said was rightfully theirs and invaded it and everyone blew it off because, well, that's all they wanted? Yep. Totally different....

---

Noone is blowing this off. We just sunk a couple hundred billion dollars in support to Ukraine. Europe is helping as well.

Additionally 1940- no nukes.
1940- noone had just orchestrated a couple against Germany biggest ally like we did against Russia.
1940- global elites weren't pushing for war against Germany to protect their money laundering states.

There are alot of differences here.

But SOME similarities.

Dumbass foreign policy moves that forced ridiculously punitive war reparations set the stage for the Nazis to take over. If this had been relaxed and calmer heads prevailed then the Nazis would not have been able to gain traction.

Dumbass foreign policy post WW1 and global elites sought to break up Germany's empire and cripple it.

In this case Russia broke up the empire voluntarily on the understanding that NATO would not aggressively expand. Yet NATO did up to its back door. Making the Coup in Ukraine a security issue for russia.

So some similarities and some differences.

WW2 could have been avoided by better policy decisions less punitive toward Germany.

This could have been avoided by less aggressive NATO expansion and not creating security issues for Russia that it felt like it needed to go to war and annex land to solve.

Do you criticize the US for the Mexican American War which we basically instigated in order to expand all the way to the pacific because American presidents realized it was a security threat to not have control of our land from Atlantic to pacific?

Ukraine being Russia friendly and giving it access to the sea is a security issue for them.

When the US orchestrated the Ukraine coup and installed antiquarian Russian pro American stooges they directly threatened Russia's security.

When you do that it's gonna push people to war.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

A lot of Nevill Chamberlains on this board...

---

Straw man. The two situations and their causes are not similar. Also there wasn't the threat of nukes back in 1940

---

You mean a country that wanted to reclaim property it said was rightfully theirs and invaded it and everyone blew it off because, well, that's all they wanted? Yep. Totally different....

---

Noone is blowing this off. We just sunk a couple hundred billion dollars in support to Ukraine. Europe is helping as well.

Additionally 1940- no nukes.
1940- noone had just orchestrated a couple against Germany biggest ally like we did against Russia.
1940- global elites weren't pushing for war against Germany to protect their money laundering states.

There are alot of differences here.

But SOME similarities.

Dumbass foreign policy moves that forced ridiculously punitive war reparations set the stage for the Nazis to take over. If this had been relaxed and calmer heads prevailed then the Nazis would not have been able to gain traction.

Dumbass foreign policy post WW1 and global elites sought to break up Germany's empire and cripple it.

In this case Russia broke up the empire voluntarily on the understanding that NATO would not aggressively expand. Yet NATO did up to its back door. Making the Coup in Ukraine a security issue for russia.

So some similarities and some differences.

WW2 could have been avoided by better policy decisions less punitive toward Germany.

This could have been avoided by less aggressive NATO expansion and not creating security issues for Russia that it felt like it needed to go to war and annex land to solve.

Do you criticize the US for the Mexican American War which we basically instigated in order to expand all the way to the pacific because American presidents realized it was a security threat to not have control of our land from Atlantic to pacific?

Ukraine being Russia friendly and giving it access to the sea is a security issue for them.

When the US orchestrated the Ukraine coup and installed antiquarian Russian pro American stooges they directly threatened Russia's security.

When you do that it's gonna push people to war.

---

I see you've got Putin's talking point down to a T...

Can't argue any of the points, but you can accuse the person of falling for Putin propaganda. You won the debate. So smart. So brave.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Joes said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

---

By "calling us" I mean escalated to something that would cause us to put boots on the ground.

We do not need boots on the ground because the next step up is nuclear war.

It shocks me that you guys don't seem to care about that at all.

---

Direct conflict results in Russia getting their ass handed to them. The only card they have to play is nukes and guess what, they don't want that either.

We could respond to this incident by annihilating the airbase the flankers came from. Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war over that.

---

Yeah, I really don't want to be combative but everything you said here is genuinely nuts.

On top of everything else, I have no idea why anyone just assumes our military is worth a **** to begin with. I'm pretty sure my 1970s cub scout troop would beat it up and make it cry. But that's beside the point because we shouldn't need to find out. The hardon so many people have in hoping we get in the war is just amazing. You can sense the excitement from lots of people over this drone event that maybe we'll get pulled in directly so we can kill some Russians ourselves. And once people start seriously trying to argue that "our nukes are better than their nukes anyway" then you know you're operating in pure crazy land.

---

Don't be stupid. Just because we don't want Russia killing more Ukrainians doesn't mean we want open war with them. And guess what - Russia doesn't want that either because they know its a no win situation for either of us. So proxy war it is.

And unlike Afghanistan and Iran and Vietnam - these Ukrainians actually want to fight for their lives and their own freedom. So let them fight and give them the tools we can spare to do so. Our NATO allies that are closer to this than us also rely on our help.

I know you Trump guys like to be isolationists and think we don't need allies - but we do. China's influence in central and South America should be evidence enough of that.

---

With China's influence expanding as you freely admitted then why are we throwing a trillion dollars at Ukraine when we should be doing everything we can to counter their moves especially when yall claim that we can pivot and take on Russia and annihilate them no problem?

Oh wait because that has become the swamp's new money laundering playground.

---

Oh I don't know - maybe because our problems closer to home are more political in nature than military? Or do you want to give military hardware (that they don't need) to central/south american countries that are even more corrupt than Ukraine could ever dream of being?

And you seem to be oversimplifying things and assuming we can only address one problem at a time. I guess that might be true for brain dead Biden but I assure you that is not how an effective government operates. You have to multi-task.