Quote:

---

There are no guarantees that the Ukrainians can break through, but they have a chance to do so with what is in the pipeline right now. They deserve that chance. Whether it will succeed or not is anyone's guess. The alternative is that we just let the Russians consolidate their gains, and, at best, have a brief interregnum, only to do this all over again 8-10 years from now.

---

What is 'success' in this scenario though? If the Ukrainians succeed in the short-term, whose to say we won't be doing this over again in 8-10 years? It appears their country was on shaky ground anyway.

It just feels like a lose-lose scenario at this point. There's no closing pandora's box on this.

Once again, we're seeing the consequences now of bad decisions and poor leadership (Obama era meddling with Ukrainian leadership...Biden's weak leadership opening the door for Russia to act).

This is where we need moral, competent, leadership...but right now we're rudderless.

Here is another good explanation why the Russia/Ukraine War is happening. It was President Trump who ruined their plans for 4 years. The WEF Globalists final goal which is the Great Reset can only happen by installing their puppet Biden because President Trump stood in their way!… https://t.co/xiOxtEK0tm pic.twitter.com/R97iSEm2rZ

— ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể (@TheThe1776) February 26, 2023

LMCane said:

---

now we finally have the chance to demolish their military- send them to a second rate country which is unable to threaten it's neighbors or the world. and with NO AMERICAN CASUALTIES

---

That's the kind of war hawking brinksmanship that scares the **** out of many of us. I'm not sure how you could be aware of Russia's nuclear stockpile and think they'll ever be in a position where they aren't a threat to the rest of the world.

Many of you like to characterize Putin as a power hungry madman. Pushing a lunatic to the breaking point while he's holding a button that can end the world sounds like suicide to me.

Furthermore, it won't be NATO that occupies a weakened Russian sphere of influence. It'll be China. We're replacing a weak and incompetent foe with one that looks far more capable and intent on global domination

Gigem314 said:

---

twk said:

---

NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Period. That's a Russian propaganda line pure and simple.

Giving arms to Ukraine was precisely the right thing to do. An unchecked Russia would be a threat to the rest of the old Warsaw Pact countries had Putin succeeded in rolling over Ukraine. Now that we have crippled the Russian military, how long we want to send aid, and how much, is very much a legitimate question. My view is that we should send them enough to give them a chance for a breakthrough this year. After that, it it's going to be a long term struggle, the Europeans need to carry the bulk of the load.

---

But what happens when the year runs out and what we're giving is still 'not enough'? Because that's what will likely happen. My concern is that this becomes a boondoggle that just further distracts us from the real threat....China.

Of course, with such poor leadership for the U.S. right now...maybe that doesn't matter.

I just hope we can get some adults back in charge in the next couple of years, because right now there are no good scenarios. We just keep digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole.

---

answer this question:

does Russia successfully attacking and occupying a weaker neighbor with no pushback from free countries-

make it LESS LIKELY or MORE LIKELY

that another larger country sees what is happening and then will attack and occupy a weaker neighbor?

LMCane said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

twk said:

---

NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Period. That's a Russian propaganda line pure and simple.

Giving arms to Ukraine was precisely the right thing to do. An unchecked Russia would be a threat to the rest of the old Warsaw Pact countries had Putin succeeded in rolling over Ukraine. Now that we have crippled the Russian military, how long we want to send aid, and how much, is very much a legitimate question. My view is that we should send them enough to give them a chance for a breakthrough this year. After that, it it's going to be a long term struggle, the Europeans need to carry the bulk of the load.

---

But what happens when the year runs out and what we're giving is still 'not enough'? Because that's what will likely happen. My concern is that this becomes a boondoggle that just further distracts us from the real threat....China.

Of course, with such poor leadership for the U.S. right now...maybe that doesn't matter.

I just hope we can get some adults back in charge in the next couple of years, because right now there are no good scenarios. We just keep digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole.

---

answer this question:

does Russia successfully attacking and occupying a weaker neighbor with no pushback from free countries-

make it LESS LIKELY or MORE LIKELY

that another larger country sees what is happening and then will attack and occupy a weaker neighbor?

---

Answer this: Is going for a 2 mile walk daily, good for you?

Why haven't you walked 25 miles today?

Gigem314 said:

---

Quote:

---

There are no guarantees that the Ukrainians can break through, but they have a chance to do so with what is in the pipeline right now. They deserve that chance. Whether it will succeed or not is anyone's guess. The alternative is that we just let the Russians consolidate their gains, and, at best, have a brief interregnum, only to do this all over again 8-10 years from now.

---

What is 'success' in this scenario though? If the Ukrainians succeed in the short-term, whose to say we won't be doing this over again in 8-10 years? It appears their country was on shaky ground anyway.

It just feels like a lose-lose scenario at this point. There's no closing pandora's box on this.

Once again, we're seeing the consequences now of bad decisions and poor leadership (Obama era meddling with Ukrainian leadership...Biden's weak leadership opening the door for Russia to act).

This is where we need moral, competent, leadership...but right now we're rudderless.

---

Ukraine is on firmer ground now than at any time in the last 25 years (which says something about how bad things have been over there). If some kind of peace were achieved that restored their access to the Sea of Azov, which included a security guarantee from their European neighbors, we might actually see things stabilize. The only way that happens is if the Ukrainians have enough success to force Russia to accept terms of that sort.

I, too, wish that our leadership was discussing these issues instead of talking in platitudes, but, from a negotiating standpoint, even if they were drawing the same conclusions that I am, they would never state it publicly. But, I don't believe that they really have a plan.

Now we got Finland about to join NATO.

Seems like a less than great idea, or no?

Yes, it's an absurd idea/reality.

Here is a good example of what we thought of Ukraine before the Biden Crime Family started brainwashing liberal minds. pic.twitter.com/xDv051hT7q

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) March 3, 2023

LMCane said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

twk said:

---

NATO has never been a threat to Russia. Period. That's a Russian propaganda line pure and simple.

Giving arms to Ukraine was precisely the right thing to do. An unchecked Russia would be a threat to the rest of the old Warsaw Pact countries had Putin succeeded in rolling over Ukraine. Now that we have crippled the Russian military, how long we want to send aid, and how much, is very much a legitimate question. My view is that we should send them enough to give them a chance for a breakthrough this year. After that, it it's going to be a long term struggle, the Europeans need to carry the bulk of the load.

---

But what happens when the year runs out and what we're giving is still 'not enough'? Because that's what will likely happen. My concern is that this becomes a boondoggle that just further distracts us from the real threat....China.

Of course, with such poor leadership for the U.S. right now...maybe that doesn't matter.

I just hope we can get some adults back in charge in the next couple of years, because right now there are no good scenarios. We just keep digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole.

---

answer this question:

does Russia successfully attacking and occupying a weaker neighbor with no pushback from free countries-

make it LESS LIKELY or MORE LIKELY

that another larger country sees what is happening and then will attack and occupy a weaker neighbor?

---

First off you seem to be forgetting that Ukraine was literally part of the USSR. It wasn't a separate country in the Warsaw Pact, it was part of the USSR. So were the Baltics. Russia is a very, very long way from even getting back to having things back to 1991 and is extremely unlikely to ever get there even if the US does nothing. They simply don't have the military capability for it. Then there is the Warsaw Pact countries that would be even more difficult for them to take back. They don't even have enough military capability to occupy those countries anymore.

Second stop bringing up pre WWII examples because they have no bearing. Hitler and Mussolini didn't have nukes and nukes change EVERYTHING. It changes it from winning a war meaning you could actually lose even bigger. If you don't think WWII would have ended differently if Hitler was sitting on nukes as we crossed the Rhine you aren't being honest with yourself. Beyond that though we have at least 10x the conventional capability of Russia and probably closer to 20 or 30x. That's without NATO. We have been massively outspending Russia militarily for decades and we started with a significant lead after the Cold War ended. They are not a conventional threat to the US at all and there isn't anyone really who is..

Third, you are talking about all of this as if either the Cold War is still going and we need to defeat the communists (Russia isn't communist, hell Putin embraces the Russian Orthodox Church and is more like a Tsar) or that somehow if we defeat Russia that everything in Eastern Europe will be stable. History says otherwise. If you defeat Russia that just means someone else fills the void. Maybe Turkey. Maybe each other. They have been fighting forever in those regions due to geography and that isn't changing unless you want to play world cop and expend massive resources to enforce our version of order and peace there. Sorry but those days are over and we have no national interest in who is in power in those countries so long as they aren't interfering with our trading allies. We do virtually no trade in Eastern Europe.

The Ukraine aid narrative crumbling just like the covid narrative.

They suckered naive facebookers and leftists the same way they suckered the "conservative" elements.

To be honest with yourself and everyone else, you need to explain why you were fine with the invasion of Crimea, but you're up in arms now. The fact is that you cannot because you only believe what you believe because you are a sheep that was swayed by propaganda.

Agreed.

Another informative conversation between Judge Napolitano and Scott Ritter:
The main conclusion was, "We need to back off in Ukraine ASAP."https://t.co/NEZEBq4E0u https://t.co/e0555Qe0Nq

— Geoffrey M. Young (@GeoffYoung4KY) March 3, 2023

More are picking up on it by the day though.

since 2020 was a color revolution in our own country, funded by the IG community, Zuckerburg, and NGO nonprofits that "collected mail in ballots" and president Josef Xiaden **** himself in front of the pope, can we officially dub it the "Brown Revolution"?

Or maybe the "Burnt Orange Baby-**** Revolution"?

Dave Smith is probably my favorite podcast listen. He may be wrong on some things, but he ain't lying.

He's a libertarian that's pro life and doesn't believe unfettered immigration is a net positive for America.

If more libertarians were like him, they could gain some ground from republicans.

WW3 will drone on for the rest of our lives.

No talking around that fact.

texagbeliever said:

---

Actually they hold that Russia will take over all of Europe if Ukraine falls but is also on the verge of complete collapse and Ukraine is about to win in 2 weeks. It is logically inconsistent.

TWK, if Russia demographics are so weak then NATO has nothing to fear and therefore Ukraine isn't important. So why does it matter as a strategic point

---

If you want to let Putin conscript the Ukrainains, and the Belarussians, and the residents of the Baltic States, that's about the only thing that would give Russia a lifeline.

Do you think it would have been a good thing to let Russian overrun Ukraine? How exactly would that have benefitted world peace?

Is he worse than Zelensky or Biden to you? Hell I don't pay much attention to analyst names.

texagbeliever said:

---

The better argument is that USA and Russia both abuse Ukraine and are using it as a pawn with no regard to the well being of Ukrainians. If America really cared we could end the war. We don't care enough to release our O&G industry to crush Russia. We don't care enough to bribe NOPEC to help out. We don't care enough to lose a single American life. We do care enough to send the middle classes money though. Lucky. Us.

---

Yes. And I am 100% OK with this. (Edit to clarify: I would have no problem ramping up our O&G to financially cripple the russians, but this admin ain't gonna do it.)

The US has spent anywhere from as high as 9% GDP to as low as 3.5% GDP on the defense budget.
$47 billion in 1960 dollars to the current $800 billion.

The VAST majority of this has been spent countering the USSR, then the russians.

Every major weapons system, Nuc Subs, B2 bombers, ICBMs, F35s, and the amount of complex aircraft carriers (we have way better than we need to keep the seas open) has been developed and procured to fight the russians.

And now we can destroy them through a proxy war that is costing us around 5% of the DOD budget. Not the US budget, just the DOD portion.

Arguing that this isn't a grand bargain for us is either not using critical thinking, or just being disingenuous.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget

twk said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Actually they hold that Russia will take over all of Europe if Ukraine falls but is also on the verge of complete collapse and Ukraine is about to win in 2 weeks. It is logically inconsistent.

TWK, if Russia demographics are so weak then NATO has nothing to fear and therefore Ukraine isn't important. So why does it matter as a strategic point

---

If you want to let Putin conscript the Ukrainains, and the Belarussians, and the residents of the Baltic States, that's about the only thing that would give Russia a lifeline.

Do you think it would have been a good thing to let Russian overrun Ukraine? How exactly would that have benefitted world peace?

---

For the 50th time, the US should have engaged in economic warfare and crippled Russia 6 months ago. We didn't. Therefore I suspect our politicians aren't serious abouting winning the war.

Quite frankly world peace is for Miss America pagents. I want liberty and freedom here in America. That will make us so economically dominante and innovative that Russia will be contained in awe. Just like the USSR was defeated.

As long as we only go after the correct Russians and only protect the good corrupt Ukrainian government officials and their nazi fighters, maybe China won't get more involved.

🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨

Russian billionaires who shopped for US property with Hunter Biden and dined with Joe dodge sanctions https://t.co/VvaZaf0TPF via @nypost

— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) March 3, 2023

Well let me add that I TOTALLY support Ukraine!!

You see, dumbass Dems called me a fascist & a Nazi for supporting Trump (b/c he was hilarious & I loved how he triggered them), so WHY NOT, AS AN ERSATZ NAZI, SUPPORT REAL NAZIS?!?!

That's right you war mongering Libs, you're supporting/ defending Nazis with your rhetoric, so I'll scoot on over and make a seat for you as we head to the Nuremberg Rally together!!!

I've said this from the beginning: I don't mind sending stuff to Ukraine for them to defend themselves.

However, I keep having the same thoughts about the whole "it's a bargain for us" line that gets thrown out on this board:

1) It sounds really damn good. If it sound too good…
2) It's a pretty damn sadistic thought. It's only a bargain for us because our people aren't dying. It's a line that is totally admitting being ok with Ukrainians dying for our benefit. That's really tough.

I've been consistent on this: I don't mind sending aid, but I want to know where the line is, and comments from our government that Russia will never win or our support for Ukraine will never waiver doesn't exactly tell me where that line is.

I also think it's pretty tough to trust anyone in our leadership after the whole COVID debacle and I don't think it's wrong to ask questions and continually evaluate what our country is doing.

Has NATO ever fought a war of aggression?

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Is he worse than Zelensky or Biden to you? Hell I don't pay much attention to analyst names.

---

Obviously. So long as it fits your world view, pedophile Putin supporters will be cited in your posts.

---

This is essentially the exact tone used to insinuate I hate science and want to kill off old people when I pointed out the lockdowns/masks were asinine.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Has NATO ever fought a war of aggression?

---

What wars of aggression, beyond the boundaries of the USSR, has Russia (or the Warsaw Pact) fought?

nortex97 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Has NATO ever fought a war of aggression?

---

What wars of aggression, beyond the boundaries of the USSR, has Russia (or the Warsaw Pact) fought?

---

You mean before they attacked Ukraine? Were they involved in Georgia and Moldova?

Do you have an answer for NATO?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Has NATO ever fought a war of aggression?

---

What wars of aggression, beyond the boundaries of the USSR, has Russia (or the Warsaw Pact) fought?

---

You mean before they attacked Ukraine? Were they involved in Georgia and Moldova?

Do you have an answer for NATO?

---

So your answer is that Ukraine is uniquely important historically to you since Biden took office, has nothing to do with Nato having not launched any similar wars in former nato states lately, and that you lack any kind of historical parallels to cite as to why this particular war is so important as to trigger the aid/escalation we have sent and will continue to do so until such time as something significant changes.

I know you didn't literally say all of that, but really you (and the other war cheerleaders) did and do communicate it.

When the Soviets put a brutal end to the Hungarian revolution in 1956, why didn't Nato then launch an attack? How about the "Prague spring" in 1967? Or any number of craptastic bull happening in the former Yugoslavia over the past 50 years (oh by the way often involving nato)? A lot of Greeks certainly have unfriendly memories/perspectives as to Nato aggressions.

The world is often better left to resolve differences without US interference. I'm hard pressed to identify post-WW2 peoples who benefit significantly from this level of war on 'our support' long term, outside of perhaps South Korea.

InfantryAg said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

I am not proRussia or proPutin but how with this knowledge can you be in favor of continuously cutting checks and support continuing a war with a nuclear power when this war is being fought because 1) dirty American politicans want another ****hole to launder money through 2) we helped instigate this war 3) negotiations would end it quickly and help Ukraine citizens who want to join Russia do that. 4) knowing the events that set off this whole thing were directly orchestrated by George soros.

---

I haven't heard anyone supporting giving unlimited, unchecked money to the ukrainians.
I haven't heard anyone supporting biden escalating this by the dumbs**t way he's handling this.

This isn't an either/or choice, there are other options or combinations thereof.

I support giving very limited money. (also sending IRS agents over there to conduct audits there, instead of on Americans).

I support givng all the munitions ukrain can expend on killing russians, hopefully over the next ten years or until putin is offed or russia goes bankrupt again.

I also support biden + family being investigated and jailed.

The only good communists are dead communists. And a crippled russia allows us to concentrate on defeating (or at least countering) china.

---

Then you aren't listening because Biden and other elected representatives have said just this.

What about when nato member UK attacked Argentinians fighting for freedom/independence? Why was that ok, or would it have been ok if the Russians intervened via military aid directly?

When the US flew bombers to attack 'rebels' fighting for independence in Guatemala, does that count for anything or was that ok because there was a Dem president at the time and it was the CIA? What about the Bay of Pigs? Was Reagan's invasion of Haiti not interventionist foreign expansion?

The US aided Saddam Hussein in his war/invasion of Iran for 10+ years as I recall, and also funded/trained/armed Osama Bin Laden's Taliban to fight the Russians. Not sure those bullets/$$ had the long term desired impact, or not.

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Is he worse than Zelensky or Biden to you? Hell I don't pay much attention to analyst names.

---

Obviously. So long as it fits your world view, pedophile Putin supporters will be cited in your posts.

---

This is essentially the exact tone used to insinuate I hate science and want to kill off old people when I pointed out the lockdowns/masks were asinine.

---

It's actually not. More like if you happened to be pro-vax and we're using quotes from a paid Pfizer spokesperson (and 2 time convicted sex offender) to support your argument.

Next time maybe just do a 5 second search on the source you're posting before you share it.

Calling me a "war cheerleader" is a childish response that is devoid of facts or logic. Be better and act like an adult.

nortex97 said:

---

What about when nato member UK attacked Argentinians fighting for freedom/independence? Why was that ok, or would it have been ok if the Russians intervened via military aid directly?

When the US flew bombers to attack 'rebels' fighting for independence in Guatemala, does that count for anything or was that ok because there was a Dem president at the time and it was the CIA? What about the Bay of Pigs? Was Reagan's invasion of Haiti not interventionist foreign expansion?

The US aided Saddam Hussein in his war/invasion of Iran for 10+ years as I recall, and also funded/trained/armed Osama Bin Laden's Taliban to fight the Russians. Not sure those bullets/$$ had the long term desired impact, or not.

---

No see the only thing more altruistic and good than our federal government has to be an alliance of multiple federal governments. Ergo everything on the other side is evil. Why must you support evil!! /UkraineWarFans