As Thatcher poignantly described ... in Socialism you eventually run out of other people's money.

We just ended our money supply supporting EU Socialism.

Once they start defending themselves, all that "free" Healthcare, PTO, and liberal work benefits should either dry up, or go towards learning Russian.

pagerman @ work said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!

---

explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.

---

What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.

---

Considering the alternate, sending a few troops into Ukraine as a sacrificial tripwire to activate NATO would make Ukraine a de facto NATO nation. I would rather not have that work-around in effect.

---

It doesn't make Ukraine de facto anything.

It does serve as a major deterrent to Russia deciding to continue the war they started once the Ukrainian military has to stand down in some capacity and likely accept some sort of DMZ as a condition of peace.

That said, this is all likely moot as it is unlikely Putin will seriously negotiate a peace deal.

---

Sure, it does. If NATO peacekeepers are present and get attacked and this is a tripwire to invoke a NATO response, then that, in effect, turns Ukraine into a NATO protectorate by default. If NATO peacekeepers are present and get attacked, but there is no NATO response as a result, then the peacekeepers are no deterrent and will have died for no purpose.

Either the threat of a NATO response exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, then how is Ukraine effectively any different from any other NATO country?

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

I read this as Zelensky holding out too ardently during negotiations.

"Fine. You don't want to play ball? Think you can rely on a quiet Dem cabal to undermine efforts at compromise? Your perceived backing is now gone. Get your tiny tyrannical butt back to the table before you lose more."

---

Zelenskyy isn't the one refusing the seat at the table

nortex97 said:

---

He even mouthed off about rare earth metals contra Trump yesterday. Dude's a clown and his show's about over.

Pete/Trump have no patience for the 'security' folks in Europe that want the war grift to go on.

NEW: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth & his wife just landed in Germany after opting to skip the Munich Security Conference to instead talk to American troops throughout Europe, including Poland & Belgium.

"I would much rather talk to troops than go to cocktail parties."… pic.twitter.com/8tsyUdVPJ8

— George (@BehizyTweets) February 11, 2025

---

Don't want to derail... But have a quick question.
Looking at the video in that X as Hegseth gets off his plane, is it typical for active duty to salute SecDef?

Eliminatus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!

---

explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.

---

What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.

---

Europe should pay for the trip wire. Not the US.

American Hardwood said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!

---

explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.

---

What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.

---

Considering the alternate, sending a few troops into Ukraine as a sacrificial tripwire to activate NATO would make Ukraine a de facto NATO nation. I would rather not have that work-around in effect.

---

It doesn't make Ukraine de facto anything.

It does serve as a major deterrent to Russia deciding to continue the war they started once the Ukrainian military has to stand down in some capacity and likely accept some sort of DMZ as a condition of peace.

That said, this is all likely moot as it is unlikely Putin will seriously negotiate a peace deal.

---

Sure, it does. If NATO peacekeepers are present and get attacked and this is a tripwire to invoke a NATO response, then that, in effect, turns Ukraine into a NATO protectorate by default. If NATO peacekeepers are present and get attacked, but there is no NATO response as a result, then the peacekeepers are no deterrent and will have died for no purpose.

Either the threat of a NATO response exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, then how is Ukraine effectively any different from any other NATO country?

---

Peacekeeping is not a permanent situation. At some point, that mission ends, leaving Ukraine alone and a non-NATO member.

The reluctance to have Article 5 as a deterrent is indicative of the conviction that Russia has no intention of keeping any negotiated peace agreement. And given your own assessment, why would any NATO member send troops to serve in this peacekeeping force if their troops will simply be there to "die for no reason"?

GenericAggie said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!

---

explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.

---

What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.

---

Europe should pay for the trip wire. Not the US.

---

Again, keeping Article 5 as a deterrent to Russia costs the US precisely nothing. At all.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

He even mouthed off about rare earth metals contra Trump yesterday. Dude's a clown and his show's about over.

Pete/Trump have no patience for the 'security' folks in Europe that want the war grift to go on.

NEW: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth & his wife just landed in Germany after opting to skip the Munich Security Conference to instead talk to American troops throughout Europe, including Poland & Belgium.

"I would much rather talk to troops than go to cocktail parties."… pic.twitter.com/8tsyUdVPJ8

— George (@BehizyTweets) February 11, 2025

---

Don't want to derail... But have a quick question.
Looking at the video in that X as Hegseth gets off his plane, is it typical for active duty to salute SecDef?

---

AI said:

---

Yes, military members salute the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is the highest ranking civilian in the Department of Defense and is a key advisor to the President.


Explanation

• The Secretary of Defense is a deputy to the President, who is the commander-in-chief of the military.
  
  
• The Secretary of Defense is in the chain of command and has authority over the military branches.
  
  
• The Secretary of Defense is considered a senior figure in the military and gains standing when appointed and confirmed.

---

Ok, thanks!

rgag12 said:

---

I think Europe should guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in a separate agreement outside of NATO. Otherwise Russia will be tempted to recoup what it sees it "lost" in the upcoming treaty in the future.

---

SECDEF alluded to what you said where he stated

it is up to the EUROPEAN countries to guarantee Ukraine's territory and independence and they can station troops there-

but NOT as part of a NATO mission.

KerrAg76 said:

---

And to funnel cash back to the bidens

---

I'd rather have Kash funneled to the bidens

schmellba99 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

**** 'em! We are broke.

Quote:

---

But there has to be some teeth to the peacekeeping force beyond their mere presence. You cannot allow Putin the ability to attack NATO forces and rule out in advance the serious consequences of doing so.

---

Then Europe better get to work on their militaries and figure out what to do to stop Russia.

---

Covering the peacekeeping force made up of NATO countries' militaries with Article 5 costs the US absolutely nothing financially, militarily or in any other way.

---

Incorrect

---

Okay, what does it cost the US?

American Hardwood said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!

---

explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.

---

What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.

---

Considering the alternate, sending a few troops into Ukraine as a sacrificial tripwire to activate NATO would make Ukraine a de facto NATO nation. I would rather not have that work-around in effect.

---

It doesn't make Ukraine de facto anything.

It does serve as a major deterrent to Russia deciding to continue the war they started once the Ukrainian military has to stand down in some capacity and likely accept some sort of DMZ as a condition of peace.

That said, this is all likely moot as it is unlikely Putin will seriously negotiate a peace deal.

---

Sure, it does. If NATO peacekeepers are present and get attacked and this is a tripwire to invoke a NATO response, then that, in effect, turns Ukraine into a NATO protectorate by default. If NATO peacekeepers are present and get attacked, but there is no NATO response as a result, then the peacekeepers are no deterrent and will have died for no purpose.

Either the threat of a NATO response exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, then how is Ukraine effectively any different from any other NATO country?

---

That threat only exists if a NATO soldier get killed/harmed.

Russia could kill tens of thousands of Ukrainians and there is no NATO response.

That is a HUGE difference between being in NATO and not being in NATO.

American Hardwood said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!

---

explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.

---

What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.

---

Considering the alternate, sending a few troops into Ukraine as a sacrificial tripwire to activate NATO would make Ukraine a de facto NATO nation. I would rather not have that work-around in effect.

---

Well, it's a trip wire as much as a deterrent. We are the fist in the gauntlet of NATO. That is no secret. Russia has a MUCH greater chance of staying their hand if the threat of an American response hangs over their head. Russia fears an American backed NATO. Without it, probably not as much. It honestly reverts back to whether you believe if Russia is still a threat to the global peace or not. And that's up to you, I make no motion to move anyone one way or the other.

Personally, I would hedge an escalation that would drag us into a war more likely if we bail completely now but that's just me and why I view this as not great in the long term.

Red Red Wine said:

---

This is actually worse for Russia in the long run.

If Europe actually steps and builds up a coherent fighting force to help support and defend Ukraine, that will mean Russia now has the US and Europe as a problem versus today where they only worry about the US.

VERY GOOD MOVE FOR THE LONG-TERM STABILITY OF THE WORLD.

---

It's a pipe dream with EU economics but I don't care as long as we are not paying for it.

Get back to us when you need some more liberty ships to survive. Until then, Europe is your problem.

Well, Zelensky is a puppet - not so much a clown. He reaped the benefits of being the preferred proxy & has done quite well for himself as such. It may end poorly for him, but he achieved power and wealth and fame beyond what any normal comedian could imagine.

A fair history may well attribute to him significant death and destruction across his homeland as a function of failing to negotiate earlier… but most superficial history will likely tell the tale of a scrappy nation holding against the hoards of a neighboring superpower.

pagerman @ work said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!

---

explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.

---

What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.

---

Europe should pay for the trip wire. Not the US.

---

Again, keeping Article 5 as a deterrent to Russia costs the US precisely nothing. At all.

---

It costs nothing… until the moment it costs everything. It's an obligation I have no interest of hanging around our young men's necks.

Teslag said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

I read this as Zelensky holding out too ardently during negotiations.

"Fine. You don't want to play ball? Think you can rely on a quiet Dem cabal to undermine efforts at compromise? Your perceived backing is now gone. Get your tiny tyrannical butt back to the table before you lose more."

---

Zelenskyy isn't the one refusing the seat at the table

---

Neither of us could possibly know this.

What I do know is that the messaging was intentional and purposeful and degrades Ukraine's perceived negotiating position. If you read between those lines it implies that Trump and Hegseth want to pressure Zelensky to relent on some of his current non-negotiables.

American Hardwood said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!

---

explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.

---

What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.

---

Considering the alternate, sending a few troops into Ukraine as a sacrificial tripwire to activate NATO would make Ukraine a de facto NATO nation. I would rather not have that work-around in effect.

---

This…..NATO troops in UKE is an escalation that drags the US in. If the European countries put troops in under their own flag then it will be on them to respond if Russia attacks them. Russia will definitely have to run the math to see if that is worth it, and the odds aren't good for Russia. Removing NATO from the equation significantly reduces the potential for a nuclear attack from either side.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Well, Zelensky is a puppet - not so much a clown. He reaped the benefits of being the preferred proxy & has done quite well for himself as such. It may end poorly for him, but he achieved power and wealth and fame beyond what any normal comedian could imagine.

A fair history may well attribute to him significant death and destruction across his homeland as a function of failing to negotiate earlier… but most superficial history will likely tell the tale of a scrappy nation holding against the hoards of a neighboring superpower.

---

If he had negotiated earlier millions of Ukrainians would be Russians right now.

Teslag said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Well, Zelensky is a puppet - not so much a clown. He reaped the benefits of being the preferred proxy & has done quite well for himself as such. It may end poorly for him, but he achieved power and wealth and fame beyond what any normal comedian could imagine.

A fair history may well attribute to him significant death and destruction across his homeland as a function of failing to negotiate earlier… but most superficial history will likely tell the tale of a scrappy nation holding against the hoards of a neighboring superpower.

---

If he had negotiated earlier millions of Ukrainians would be Russians right now.

---

…and?

Hundreds of thousands dead. Perhaps a million maimed. Cities destroyed. Livelihoods and swathes of the economy destroyed.

But several million Ukrainians got to remain war-zone-Ukrainians for 4 years before inevitably becoming Russians (once again).

Thats a pretty high cost to benefit on that one. L..

This is what I like to see. This is not our war.

Putin has invaded Ukraine twice in the last 10 years. What logic are you using that tells you he won't invade again? He signed an agreement to not invade further after he seized Crimea. How often has paying off a bully worked to secure a permanent peace? Not once. Anything he agrees to sign won't be worth the paper it's written on. Think back to PM Chamberlain 1938. He gave away Austria and half the Czech Republic. That peace lasted about 2 years. With NATO membership off the table, in 2 years time, Kiev will wake up one morning to Russian troops marching down mainstreet, just like what happened in Crimea.

Understood & appreciated. But a logical counter to your point is that a portion of Zelensky's force is non-volunteer. If Ukrainians truly believed Ukraine's government was worth protection against the Russian invasion: why would Z implement tools like conscription and denying males exodus?

You paint this whole thing as angels v demons and it's just not that clear cut. Yes, Russia was wrong to invade. But that doesn't automatically saint Zelensky.

You don't need a NATO force to dissuade Putin from invading again. Especially if he agrees to terms with a powerful us president that doesn't like being ****ed around.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Understood & appreciated. But a logical counter to your point is that a portion of Zelensky's force is non-volunteer. If Ukrainians truly believed Ukraine's government was worth protection against the Russian invasion: why would Z implement tools like conscription and denying males exodus?

You paint this whole thing as angels v demons and it's just not that clear cut. Yes, Russia was wrong to invade. But that doesn't automatically saint Zelensky.

---

Almost all wars of liberty have used conscription, including our revolutionary war. The south even used it against the north. Regardless , the bulk of their force is voluntary.

We can prevent that.

If I told you that all we need is for your son to go over there and get blown up by a drone or ripped to shreds by a Chinese robo dog, would you do it? What you are proposing is a general war with Russia and China.

If Europe wants to pay that price, fine. I'm not sending my son to protect the Ukes.

I hope the Middle East is now "out" (including Gaza). Africa needs to be a "hell no" as well.

A war of liberty… where the side of liberty suspends elections.

All I'm saying is that there are no solutions: only trade offs. And if Ukrainians were disloyal to their government in sufficient numbers as to pressure Zelensky into marshal law; that speaks to grassroot support.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

A war of liberty… where the side of liberty suspends elections.

All I'm saying is that there are no solutions: only trade offs. And if Ukrainians were disloyal to their government in sufficient numbers as to pressure Zelensky into marshal law; that speaks to grassroot support.

---

The Ukes themselves have polled heavily favoring saying they understand the circumstances and don't want elections right now. The only ones who truly care about it is the opposition here in the states for their talking points.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in your second part tbh.

Either way, the whole discussion is moot. No one can deny that Ukraine is fighting like hell and has done so for three years straight against one of the biggest bogeymen this world has known. They have resoundingly destroyed the very physical army that terrorized the globe for over three generations now. They fought from the first seconds of the invasion and they are fighting as we speak. Trying to speak around that is just politicized nuance that is seeking sound bites to further political aims. Nothing more. That is the general truth of the matter.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Well, Zelensky is a puppet - not so much a clown. He reaped the benefits of being the preferred proxy & has done quite well for himself as such. It may end poorly for him, but he achieved power and wealth and fame beyond what any normal comedian could imagine.

A fair history may well attribute to him significant death and destruction across his homeland as a function of failing to negotiate earlier… but most superficial history will likely tell the tale of a scrappy nation holding against the hoards of a neighboring superpower.

---

If he had negotiated earlier millions of Ukrainians would be Russians right now.

---

…and?

Hundreds of thousands dead. Perhaps a million maimed. Cities destroyed. Livelihoods and swathes of the economy destroyed.

But several million Ukrainians got to remain war-zone-Ukrainians for 4 years before inevitably becoming Russians (once again).

Thats a pretty high cost to benefit on that one. L..

---

Or, Putin simply could have not invaded in the first place and none of what was happened since he invaded would have happened.

"If it hurts when you do this..."