"Ukrainian officials are now eying a number of items that, they argue, would allow even more aggressive counter-offensives: modern nato-standard battle tanks, fighter jets such as F-16s, and the long-range atacms for striking logistics and ammunition hubs in Crimea. [Oleksii Reznikov, Ukraine’s defense minister] is certain that such deliveries are inevitable. 'When I was in D.C. in November, before the invasion, and asked for Stingers, they told me it was impossible,' he said. 'Now it’s possible. When I asked for 155-millimetre guns, the answer was no. himars, no. harm, no. Now all of that is a yes.' He added, 'Therefore, I’m certain that tomorrow there will be tanks and atacms and F-16s.' With the help of the U.S. and nato, he went on, Ukraine’s military has shown that Russia can be confronted. 'We are not afraid of Russia,' he said. 'And we are asking our partners in the West to also no longer be afraid.'"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४६ टिप्पण्या:
The is a GREAT IDEA!
if(WHEN!) we give them M-1 Abrams tanks, and F-35's; Crazy Putin's ONLY Option will be:
a Thermonuclear Response. And; Crazy Putin would NEVER do that.. You'd Have to be CRAZY to do it!
Seriously! Let's PUSH the russians into a corner!! And see, what happens!!!
WTF is the $16 billion in the past year?
It's a hell of a lot more than that. I've see $80bn total
There was $40bn in a single tranche in may.
Biden signs $40 billion aid package to Ukraine while in Seoul
By Kaitlan Collins, CNN
Published 7:23 AM EDT, Sat May 21, 2022
Fake news is getting worse and worse
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
#WorstRulingClassEver
Hmmm...we're too poor to pay for things needed here at home but we can, without any debate or noticeable objection by anyone in Congress, hand over tens of billions of dollars to Ukraine to carry on our proxy war against Russia.
Conventional US policy since 1945 continues to be holy writ in Washington and to both parties. (This on top of our squandering trillions over the past 20 years of our own active illegal wars.)
More weapons and funding to abort Ukrainians protesting disenfranchisement and lethal assaults since the 2014 Obama/Biden-backed coup ("Slavic Spring").
Ukraine needs to, in effect, outproduce Russia, using the West as its factory. As Europe depended on the US in WWII for factories to outproduce the Germans.
$16 billion Ukraine / $6.011 trillion total budget = 0.00266178672
A billion isn't really a BILLION anymore.
Do you remember in the Manchurian Candidate, where Johnny can't remember exactly how many 'Card-Carrying Communists' there were - and Angela Lansbury, with that sweet disgusted look, spies the Heinz 57 bottle? That's me, with Ukraine funding. 16 billion? Oh, really? I keep hearing numbers that are much, much higher. So: Rather than parsing it out by department and sub-chapter, what's the all-in number, you know, the one that includes all the categories, including the cash-filled suitcases going across the border in the hands of the Ukrainian politician's wives?
The sinking of the Lusitania helped get us into WWI. The Lusitania was carrying munitions and that is why it was a target by the Germans. All morality aside, us providing materiel to Ukraine makes us an obstacle for the Russians. We need to make decisions mindful of the possible outcomes. I think in general us supporting Ukraine so they can defend themselves is worth the cost we have expended so far. But this article talks about items that would enable Ukraine to launch counter-offensives. The key part of that last word is offensives. We may intend the equipment we supply to Ukraine to help Ukraine defend itself, but Russia may not see it that way. Russia did not see the attacking of the bridge linking Russia to Crimea as a defensive move by the Ukrainians.
$16B would build a lot of brand-new schools and community and recreational facilities here in Detroit. It would probably also pay for a world-class teaching faculty for 10 years or so.
But we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that war is patriotism in its highest form. It is not.
This seems like it might be unwise.
ATACMS are nuclear capable, designed partly to carry the same tactical nukes that the US is braying about. Crimea has been part of Russia for longer than the United States has been a country. Annexed by Ukraine against its will only in the early nineties. Taken back by Russia with no popular uprising against it once the US unleashed civil war in Ukraine in 2014.
If ATACMS are used against Crimea, WWIII will go fully hot. I am not defending the Russian position here, just reporting it. Ukraine has been unable to assert control over the Russian speaking enclaves since the ethnic Ukrainians took control over the government in a coup. They don't consider the overthrow of the elected government legitimate, yet we are told that these same people would vote to be part of Ukraine in a "fair election."
Joe Biden may just be compromised enough by his Ukrainian corruption to give them missiles which cannot be distinguished from tactical nukes in flight, to attack Russia. Most non US commentators are expecting a false flag tactical nuke use, in which, no doubt, the media reports the Russia sets one off that damages their own territory and interests because anybody stupid enough to blow up their own pipeline and shell their own NPP would do that, right?
It's amazing to me that some of you guys believe and trust the same people who have been outright lying to you about Trump for six fucking years.
Putin has been wandering the halls of the Kremlin at night mumbling "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome comic?'
All this to keep 4 remote eastern provinces, that few Americans could find on a map or name, under the dominion of a remote Capital ruled by shadowy foreign interests, one that despises them and has very little in common with them, one that has made war upon them for 9 years, despite the democratically expressed desire of the majority population of those provinces to be free and live in peace.
The red US states are next.
This is the bill for the weapons. Tens of $Billions$ have gone to "Support Ukraine" which means pay for the Ukrainian Government salaries, pensions, and subsidies for various Ukrainian NGO's and Businesses.
Its as if during WW II we had paid for Stalin's Dacha and the Poliboro member's salaries, maids, and pensions.
Sending weapons to Ukraine just escalates the conflict and makes it impossible to reach a peace agreement. Ukraine cannot win. They simply cannot defeat the Russian army. Period. This endless fighting is killing people for no reason. Make peace Zelensky! No more weapons.
the Alexander Vindman dividend
We're funding the continuation of a conflict that could lead to ww3 and nuclear war. And anyone who suggests this conflict should be ended diplomatically is villified by the lapdog media. It's madness.
The other day someone suggested the idea that Biden is being blackmailed by the Ukrainians. He keeps paying and Ukraine won't talk about what Hunter and "The Big Guy" were doing in their country. I don't know if this is true but it sure would explain a lot.
Its as if during WW II we had paid for Stalin's Dacha and the Poliboro member's salaries, maids, and pensions.
To, among others, kill Ukrainians, and again today to kill Ukrainians protesting disenfranchisement and assaults eight years in progress.
"All this to keep 4 remote eastern provinces..."
I actually think the US's response is intended to bleed Russia white. See von Falkenhayn's strategy vs. France at Verdun in WWI. We have no long term interest in Ukraine, and we will dump them when this gets too costly in US lives. See Afghanistan.
Putin made a huge miscalculation when he launched this attack on Ukraine, and then doubled down. We are on very dangerous ground.
$16B would build a lot of brand-new schools and community and recreational facilities here in Detroit
And compensate people... persons for contaminated water in Flint, planned Whitmer's parent/hood, in the Democrat District Justice Act.
This is crazy on so many levels.
Meanwhile we have homeless veterans and an upside down economy. Just HOW MUCH do the Bidens OWE Ukraine??
A lend-lease program to arm the regime in Kiev to defeat Ukrainians operating abortion chambers... uh, protesting the Biden/Maidan/Slavic Spring, disenfranchisement, and assaults eight years in progress, Wuhan-style labs, and other purposes.
Putin didn't invade anyone while Trump was pres. He waited until the crook was installed.
I fear you ignored this because you just didn't see this, Achilles, so I wanted to give you a chance to respond
Achilles said...
So what about Ukraine honoring legal elections?
You mean like the Parliamentary elections that created a Parliament where 70% of the members voted to link up with the West?
Oh, let me guess, THOSE elections don't count
You are both pathetic and dishonest. Let's get some actual history, shall we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
In Feb 2013, "[Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian] Parliament passes statement on Ukraine's aspirations for European integration". Kyiv Post. 22 February 2013. "A total of 315 of the 349 MPs registered in the sitting hall supported the document on Friday. The draft document reads that the Verkhovna Rada "within its powers, will ensure that the recommendations concerning the signing of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU, which are stipulated in the resolutions of the European Parliament and the conclusions of the Council of the EU approved on December 10, 2012, at a meeting of the EU foreign ministers, will be fulfilled."
Apparently the voters who elected these 315 MPs just don't matter
In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests (known as Euromaidan) erupted in response to President Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union.
Wow, that CIA is so powerful! They got to 70%+ of the Ukrainian Parliament, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, all to get them to conspire against poor old Vlad Putin.
In January and February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special riot police resulted in the deaths of 108 protesters and 13 police officers,[20] and the wounding of many others. The first protesters were killed in fierce clashes with police on Hrushevskoho Street on 19–22 January. Following this, protesters occupied government buildings throughout the country. The deadliest clashes were on 18–20 February, which saw the most severe violence in Ukraine since it regained independence.[31] Thousands of protesters advanced towards parliament, led by activists with shields and helmets, and were fired on by police snipers.[20] On 21 February, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition was signed that called for the formation of an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections.[32] The following day, police withdrew from central Kyiv, which came under effective control of the protesters. Yanukovych fled the city.[33] That day, the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Yanukovych from office by 328 to 0 (72.8% of the parliament's 450 members).
So, Yanukovych tries to brutalize the protestors into compliance, that fails, they sign a deal, Yanukovych decides he wants a different deal and bugs out, and it's all an "illegal coup" by people who have the bad taste to not want to be one of Vlad's slaves.
It really must suck to be you. How hard did you have to work to get yourself to pretend to believe the BS you're spouting?
I've pointed this all out before. For some reason you've always left the discussion was I point out the actual history, as opposed to the bullshit you're pushing.
I expect you'll do so again, because even you know what you're pushing is total crap
This is crazy! This is political theater just like the Iran fiasco and Fast and Furious. In 2008, Barack the Great promised accords with Iran. In 2015 he ill-advisably sold us out to the mullahs. He told us the cartels were getting guns from the US. In 2010-11, he, DOJ and DEA arranged for that to happen. In 2012, Barack told Romney and the world that Russia wasn't a great threat to the US. In the aftermath of the 2016 election the Democrats changed that with the Russia Hoax aimed at Trump.
Now, it becomes necessary to spend billions to defend Ukraine, a non-NATO country, from Russia and the Devil Putin. It is important to note that Zelensky failed to honor Trump's request that he investigate the billion dollar bribe Biden authorized to protect his sleazy son from being investigated for grifting in Ukraine.
Billions to Ukraine to protect the Biden Crime Family. How much more will it cost, nuclear war?
gilbar said...
The is a GREAT IDEA!
if(WHEN!) we give them M-1 Abrams tanks, and F-35's; Crazy Putin's ONLY Option will be:
a Thermonuclear Response.
No, Putin's other option is to lose
So, what your'e saying is that Russia should always be allowed to win whenever they invade someone, because otherwise they'll nuke us.
Or, to pull from recent US history: "Better Red than dead!"
Stop being such a pathetic loser. Russia's nukes can protect them from being invaded. they can not and should not enable them to invade anyone with want, and have us just sit back and let them.
What a bunch of pathetic and gutless cowards you people are
This is crazy! This is political theater just like the Iran fiasco and Fast and Furious. In 2008, Barack the Great promised accords with Iran. In 2015 he ill-advisably sold us out to the mullahs. He told us the cartels were getting guns from the US. In 2010-11, he, DOJ and DEA arranged for that to happen. In 2012, Barack told Romney and the world that Russia wasn't a great threat to the US. In the aftermath of the 2016 election the Democrats changed that with the Russia Hoax aimed at Trump.
Now, it becomes necessary to spend billions to defend Ukraine, a non-NATO country, from Russia and the Devil Putin. It is important to note that Zelensky failed to honor Trump's request that he investigate the billion dollar bribe Biden authorized to protect his sleazy son from being investigated for grifting in Ukraine.
Billions to Ukraine to protect the Biden Crime Family. How much more will it cost, nuclear war?
We don't have compelling national interest to justify this level of involvement. Yes, we want to deter military aggression in general, but it seems like that goal has already been met: Russia and Putin have clearly already paid a huge price for this failed invasion. Similarly, we want this campaign to fail so that Putin can't go on and steamroll through other Eastern European countries. That goal has also been met: Putin clearly lacks the (conventional) military might needed to conquer other countries beyond Ukraine.
So why are we escalating our commitment? Why spend the money and why risk unleashing nukes?
The Vault Dweller said...
The sinking of the Lusitania helped get us into WWI. The Lusitania was carrying munitions and that is why it was a target by the Germans. All morality aside, us providing materiel to Ukraine makes us an obstacle for the Russians. We need to make decisions mindful of the possible outcomes. I think in general us supporting Ukraine so they can defend themselves is worth the cost we have expended so far. But this article talks about items that would enable Ukraine to launch counter-offensives. The key part of that last word is offensives
Russia has invaded and conquered parts of Ukraine. Until Russia is completely out of Ukraine, by that I mean honoring the borders Russia and Ukraine agreed to in the Budapest Accords, Ukraine should be engaging in "offensives" against Russia, and the US should be supporting them.
We may intend the equipment we supply to Ukraine to help Ukraine defend itself, but Russia may not see it that way. Russia did not see the attacking of the bridge linking Russia to Crimea as a defensive move by the Ukrainians.
Putin is a lying Communist hack, and his spoke creatures are all lying scum
I dont' care how they "see it", or how they claim to see it.
They have to accept the 1993 Budapest Accords that they signed. Period. Dot.
Until they accept them, they need to be politically, economically, and militarily crushed
They're not going to accept them until they've been "backed into a corner" where giving up Putins dream of a reconstituted "Greater Russa" is dead.
So, either you decide that Putin and Russia must be allowed to conquer and enslave everyone who has the misfortune to be on whatever border "Russia" currently has, or else you want Putin crushed in Ukraine.
There are no in betweens. And anyone who's paid attention to any Russian history (post WWII is particularly instructive) knows it
Biden just cut off all high-end chip sales to China.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/12/biden-china-semiconductor-chips-exports-decouple/
Involved in a protracted war of attrition, a more and more mutinous army, social unrest, economic hardship, led by an obtuse tyrant surrounded by plutocratic lackeys...looks more and more like Russian October 1917
Amadeus 48 said.. "All this to keep 4 remote eastern provinces..."
I actually think the US's response is intended to bleed Russia white.
You are right.
It makes no sense we would go to this length over 4 remote eastern provinces. I phrased it that way to show how ridiculous the underlying justification is for our involvement in this regional conflict, because that's what it was about until we took the opportunity to turn it into something else. Now it's another ambitious regime change operation like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, because those have all gone so well. And it's about raiding the US treasury in the process.
The Russians find themselves in a proxy war with the West, with Ukraine supplying the soldiers and the West supplying the equipment to kill Russians. Proxy war is way more expensive for the Russians than the West, their nation's sons are being left dead.
Back in May Biden signed a bill providing $20 billion for military equipment to Ukraine through September, and the same for humanitarian support. Those funds haven't all been spent yet if the total of military support is now only $16 billion. So the Ukrainians are being controlled by the US, to some extent, by our slow pace of support for their efforts.
So the Ukrainian, Reznikov, is probably correct that we'll eventually get around to giving the Ukrainian military more and more advanced equipment. The only good Russian in Ukraine is, of course, a dead Russian.
And I wonder if the Big Guy is getting his 10% on this, too.
from the intercept sept, 10, 2022...
U.S. Military Aid to Ukraine Grows to Historic Proportions — Along With Risks
Ukraine is on track to become the largest recipient of U.S military assistance in the last century.
The administration noted on that occasion that the total military assistance committed to Ukraine this year had reached $12.9 billion, more than $15.5 billion since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea. And this month, Biden also asked Congress to authorize an additional $13.7 billion for Ukraine, including money for equipment and intelligence.
Because the assistance is drawn from a variety of sources — and because it’s not always easy to distinguish between aid that’s been authorized, pledged, or delivered — some analysts estimate the true figure of the U.S. commitment to Ukraine is much higher: up to $40 billion in security assistance, or $110 million a day over the last year. This assistance is believed to be playing an important role in the advances Ukraine is making in an ongoing offensive to retake territory seized by Russia
You know, if a nuclear war started, they might have to declare martial law and cancel the election!
tim in vermont said...
ATACMS are nuclear capable, designed partly to carry the same tactical nukes that the US is braying about. Crimea has been part of Russia for longer than the United States has been a country. Annexed by Ukraine against its will only in the early nineties. Taken back by Russia with no popular uprising against it once the US unleashed civil war in Ukraine in 2014.
Good God you are so full of shit.
"ATACMS are nuclear capable"? So fucking what? Lots of things are "nuclear capable". The question is "will they have nukes in them?"
And until the answer is something other than "no", it doesn't matter.
"Annexed by Ukraine against its will only in the early nineties"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
In 1783, the Russian Empire annexed Crimea after an earlier war with Turkey. [US became a country in 1776. revolutionary War was won in 1781. So you are lying] Crimea's strategic position led to the 1854 Crimean War and many short lived regimes following the 1917 Russian Revolution. When the Bolsheviks secured Crimea it became an autonomous soviet republic within Russia. During World War II, Crimea was downgraded to an oblast. In 1944 Crimean Tatars were ethnically cleansed and deported under the orders of Joseph Stalin, in what has been described as a cultural genocide. The USSR transferred Crimea to Ukraine on the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Treaty in 1954.
It's amazing how you all have such flexible timelines for when it's an outrage, and when it's "just part of history". "Ethnic cleansing" is bad, unless it was done by Stalin, in which case it's wonderful!
I guess Putin isn't the only one around who idolizes Stalin
"Ukraine has been unable to assert control over the Russian speaking enclaves since the ethnic Ukrainians took control over the government in a coup. They don't consider the overthrow of the elected government legitimate"
Ok, Tim, up above I have a response targeted at Achilles about what actually happened in 2013 and early 2014. Since your'e touting the same bullshit he is, consider it directed at you, too.
In a parliamentary system like Ukraine, Parliament is "the government". 70% of the Ukraine Parliament voted for closer ties with the West (that's 70% of the total members, not just 70% of the ones there for the vote).
It was Yanukovych's attempt to sabotage that that was the "coup against the government".
from the edge June 7, 2022...
What’s in the US’s Massive Military Aid Package to Ukraine
colossal $40 billion Ukraine arms aid package passed by Congress and rushed by plane to Asia for President Joe Biden’s signature
i Guess what i'm getting at; is that EVERY WORD THIS ADMINISTRATION SAYS, IS A LIE: INCLUDING AND AND THE
I actually think the US's response is intended to bleed Russia white.
South Africa for mineral resources. Libya for petroleum. Russia for all of the above is the golden goose that would solve so many self-created problems.
It looks like Greg the Class Traitor's position, can be summed up in these words of his..
The question is "will they have nukes in them?"
And until the answer is something other than "no", it doesn't matter.
THERE you Have it! Until the mushroom clouds start blooming; it doesn't matter
WHEN they do, be assured that Greg will say: "Oops!"
Nowadays, real money doesn't start until you get into the trillions.
We don't have compelling national interest to justify this level of involvement.
Yes, that's why Russia stood their ground and aided people... persons in Crimea, but waited eight years to help Ukrainians (as in South Ossetia/Georgia before) in Donbas etc. The same reasoning in Syria.
I don't know if that 16 billion dollars has done anything for Ukrainians, but it has certainly been a good year to be an American arms merchant.
I would be fine with our contribution to Ukraine if;
1) The people here making these very important strategic decisions were competent.
2) We have some way of accounting for the money/equipment we send
3) I felt that Ukraine was a well governed country deserving of anything other than basic help
4) We didn't have recent history in which the current POTUS and his family wasn't entangled in potential corruption in Ukraine
5) We didn't have a pending more serious, dangerous and important war with China
6) Our enlisted recruiting efforts showed a high level of support for military service in general
Our enemy is China. When I say "our" I mean the people and citizens of the US. Sadly, I fear our leadership does not see China as an enemy. They see them as a model. Russia is a distraction.
The people here concerned about the cost should reflect that it is peanuts considering the geopolitical advantage we get from having somebody else degrade the Russian military threat.
The quote from Reznikov concerns me, however. As we hand over all this cool stuff, we should be quite clear that if one single Ukrainian soldier sets one foot inside Russia's borders, we're done. Ukraine is on its own.
Wars always have unintended consequences. This is especially true of successful ones. Our victory in Kuwait gave us the confidence to invade Iraq. The Franco-Prussian War gave Germany the confidence to initiate the Schlieffen Plan. Russia's easy take over of Crimea allowed Putin to think that further nibbling at the edges of Ukraine would be tolerated.....This hasn't gone as he planned or hoped. He's in a world of hurt now. I don't think anyone knows how long Russia will be able to continue with an unpopular and losing war....I hope he loses and gets forced out of office, but, you know, unintended consequences. Maybe he starts bombing inhabited areas. Maybe the Ukrainains go all Chechen and start setting off bombs in the Russian metro. Maybe it keeps spinning faster and wilder. I wouldn't bet any money on a happy ending to this drama. Well, we don't have to worry about any Dems wanting to defund the Military Industrial Complex, at least for moment, so there's that.
When has a war gone on as planned?
”don’t write off a nuclear war as all negative”
When Tim Dillon is a voice of reason.
Blogger Greg The Class Traitor said...
---------------------------------
You are right but you are pissing into the wind. Their narrative is set and nothing will bring them off of it.
16 Bio. USD in the last year alone? The world has gone mad!
“"ATACMS are nuclear capable"? So fucking what?”
I was going to waste time arguing with you until that one, unless you work in the Kremlin and get a vote on what to do as one of them is inbound.
“The people here concerned about the cost should reflect that it is peanuts considering the geopolitical advantage we get from having somebody else degrade the Russian military threat. ”
To the last Ukrainian, and can any of you neocons explain to me what we are doing in Syria besides taking oil?
I have a question for anyone in the know. Are these x billions for weapons sent to Ukraine just the cost of weapons we send to them, or is money being spent to replace the weapons? In other words are we presently depleting our arsenal? Clinton did it. Obama did it. Bush and Trump had to spend a lot of money rebuilding military strength. Are we going to be faced with the same situation in '24?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/kyiv-hit-by-drone-attacks-as-russia-targets-infrastructure-11665999746?mod=hp_lead_pos6
Russia launched a fresh wave of Iranian-made drones to attack central Kyiv in the early hours of Monday, Ukrainian officials said, as Moscow presses a campaign targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure before the onset of winter.
Not to worry, though! Greg the Class Traitor says that, until Actual NUKES start exploding..
"It Just Doesn't Matter"
No One really has Any Idea; WHY Greg thinks this way.. Just that he does
So, Greg, your argument is that the Russian enclaves who have fought the ethnic Ukrainian army hammer and tongs for eight years do consider Kiev their legitimate masters?
They want to deplete our stores that is the point of the exercise
Geez, they could have hired me as a consultant for a fraction of that, and I could have got them a third world war for free.
Tim in Vermont: Here's yet another request to back up your assertion of a CIA led coup. What evidence is there?
Quayle. "new schools" is a warmfuzzy, like "new hospitals". Detroit's running out of kids to put in the schools they have. The maintenance is terrible because the maintenance budget is a trough for the connected.
Education is hardly happening because disproportionate discipline is forbidden.
Some years back, the Catholic system had to return a ton of textbooks they'd thought were surplus to Detroit's needs. Bought them fair and square. Turns out that was why the Detroit schools didn't have that textbook as planned. Somebody's nephew had sold them out the back door.
People think Ukraine's crooked....
@ Greg the Class traitor. Your arguments might be worth reading if your responses would not include words such as "losers", "cowards", and "you are full of s**t". When I read this, it's not an debate. Are you a table pounder at the office?
pacwest: "I have a question for anyone in the know. Are these x billions for weapons sent to Ukraine just the cost of weapons we send to them, or is money being spent to replace the weapons?"
We are paying for everything. Govt salaries, infrastructure, etc.
Good news! As soon as our $40B+ package was passed Ukrainian officials voted themselves a pay raise. Oh, I'm sure its all a very courageous and inspirational pay raise to be sure.
Plus whatever is being skimmed to funnel back to the establishment grifters here in the US and to fill Ukrainian bank accounts in other nations.
pacwest.
Yes. They are depleting our arsenal in certain weapons. Ukraine got about half of our HIMARS projectile inventory.
The middlemen connected to our congress people are making a fortune and kicking back a percentage to the congress person. So. As someone astutely mentioned above the 16 billion quickly balloons to 32 billion.
How long would it take a fighter pilot trained on MiG-29s to transition to F-16s? It’s my understanding that some of the flight instruments on Russian-built planes work the opposite from the way instruments on Western-built aircraft work. In a dogfight that could mean discovering that the ground is hard and unforgiving.
Hopefully we’ll be sending F-16s that are mothballed out by Tucson, and not our frontline fighters.
I agree with Robert Cook's first paragraph.
Satan puts on a sweater.
Jefferson's Revenge: "Our enemy is China. When I say "our" I mean the people and citizens of the US. Sadly, I fear our leadership does not see China as an enemy. They see them as a model. Russia is a distraction."
This is absolutely true. And as long as we keep our focus on russia, a nation with a GDP that is only 75% that of Italy's, we will never be in a position to even begin to reorient our force strategy and structure to the only real long term threat to the US.
But you will never convince the Lets Nuke Russia crew. They want a permanent Iraq sized footprint in the Balkans and, working with the dems and our pathetic "allies" in the EU/NATO, they will get it while letting the ChiComs roam free.
real money doesn't start until you get into the trillions
Progressive, sustainable prices under Obamacares, Bidencares, "social justice", "Green" deals, and other redistributive schemes.
I love how the Neo-clown crazies just stomp up and down breathing hatred and contempt against Russia, Putin, and anyone who doesn't want WW III. It would be comical, if large numbers, thousands of people are dying in the Ukraine.
Fact: Ukraine could be incorporated into Russia tommorrow and the USA wouldn't be any less safe than it is today. The Russians let go Ukraine go in the early 90s and nobody in the USA cared. If they'd kept them, no one in USA would've cared.
Fact: We are letting in millions walk accross our border. Biden won't spend one additional red cent to secure our border or enforce the immigration laws. Yet, he will dish out BILLIONS to Ukraine to keep a war going.
Opinion: This war should end. If Russia gets the Crimea or the Donbas, who cares? Do you live in the Donbas or Crimea? Why are we risking WW III and wasting Billions? Yes, I know you love playing "RisK' and yapping about "Stopping the aggressor" except that's just hot air.
YOu can see how fake all this "OMG, Putin must be stopped" by the fact that NONE of these American Neo-Clown warmongering chest-thumpers go fight themselves. Nor do their children go and fight. The Ukraine would LOVE to have Adam Kinzinger, for example, picking up a M-16 and reporting for duty in Kiev. But mysteriously, he stays 5,000 miles for the war, and talks tough. Like the keyboard warriors on the internet.
rcocean makes a good point about our (the US) second front: the Mexican/Cartel border.
The ChiCom's and our southern border should be our #1, 2, 3 and 4 priorities.
But neither is a priority at all.
The Russians find themselves in a proxy war with the West
They "find themselves" in a war? Like they were just minding their own business and a war broke out around them? Somehow, no one knows how? And now they just "find themselves" there.
Proxy war is way more expensive for the Russians than the West, their nation's sons are being left dead.
The Russians have an easy way to stop that from happening, though. They could leave Ukraine at any time.
tim in vermont said...
“The people here concerned about the cost should reflect that it is peanuts considering the geopolitical advantage we get from having somebody else degrade the Russian military threat. ”
To the last Ukrainian
That is none of your business or mine and has no place in this conversation. The Ukrainians decide how hard they want to fight to preserve their country. I can't even imagine why you think anybody should care about your opinion on that issue.
Conventional US policy since 1945 continues to be holy writ in Washington and to both parties. (This on top of our squandering trillions over the past 20 years of our own active illegal wars.)
Cook has much better ways of squandering trillions. The last balanced budget was when Eisenhower was president.
I agree with rcocean above. We have no legitimate interest in Ukraine except politicians' graft. Including Mitt Romney, by the way.
Ukraine got about half of our HIMARS projectile inventory.
Thanks for the responses. My question though, is if the inventory is being replaced as rapidly as it is being used. Asking for a CCP friend.
Vaguely related: Is there any plan on refilling the SPR or is that going to fall on the next Republican President's shoulders?
'tim in vermont' repeats (9:37am) his usual Putinite talking points: "Ukraine has been unable to assert control over the Russian speaking enclaves since the ethnic Ukrainians took control over the government in a coup. They don't consider the overthrow of the elected government legitimate, yet we are told that these same people would vote to be part of Ukraine in a "fair election."
What does "would vote" have to do with whether Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea are or are not parts of Ukraine? They DID vote, in 1991, when the USSR broke up, and the voting percentages are easily available on Wikipedia, under "1991 Ukrainian independence referendum". The fact is that 83.9% of the voters in Donetsk and Luhansk did vote to join Ukraine, as did 54.2% in Crimea, and 57.1% in Sevastapol City, a separate jurisdiction. Voting later for a pro-Russian president does not in any way undo a referendum like that. And TIV surely must know that most of the violence in Donetsk and Luhansk was ignited, and often performed, by Putin's agents sent from Russia.
Of course, we're still waiting for TIV to tell us where he gets his utterly false talking points: who told him there's a racial purity clause in the Ukrainian constitution (a lie), who told him Elon Musk is on a Ukrainian death-list (a lie), and a couple more that he even admitted were probably false, without saying who told him they were true. I'd also like to know whether he's ever been paid to post anything here.
The progressives dominate the Democratic Party and are inflicting their bad ideas on the country. The economy is overcooking, in a recession and headed for a depression. A nationalist leader in Europe is invading his neighbors to unify those who speak his language. A crippled American president being protected by his handlers and wife.
The first twenty or so years of the 21st century sure look an awful lot like the first twenty or so years of the 20th century.
Hopefully we’ll be sending F-16s that are mothballed out by Tucson, and not our frontline fighters.
If we send any planes out of current inventory, it will be A-10s. (The Air Force has been trying to get rid of them for years, but Congress won't let them)
Ironically, A-10's are actually exactly what Ukraine needs, given Russia's inability to control the airspace.
How long would it take a fighter pilot trained on MiG-29s to transition to F-16s?
What is most likely to happen is that we send Poland and some other countries that are already in NAtO F-35s and they send their MiGs to Ukraine.
For that amount of money we could build another nuclear carrier. If we have that much to spare, we should be buying military arms for our armed forces.
In July 1945, after Okinawa, the Sun God Emperor of Nippon ordered all civilians to fight to the death despite LeMays B-29s firebombing of Tokyo and other cities. Then Hiroshima opened the nasty little Sun God’s evil,eyes. He noticed his deep under ground shelters were not gonna save his sorry ass from A-Bombs. He suddenly ordered Japan to surrender the next day.
Biden’s warmongers would take nuclear war as seriously as Hirohito did the day after their DUMBS are opened to the public. But that senile old fool will order us to stay on the surface and die as patriots until that day.
pacwest.
It takes awhile. I know Ukraine had made great inroads in our 105 or 155 mm cannon shells( i don't remember which). I know we sent 800,000 of one of those. If I remember right we aren't tooled up to produce more.
Meanwhile, they are sending OUR military down to be servants to the illegals Joe invited in, who are invading our southern border.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/joe-biden-sending-us-military-open-border-run-chores-illegal-aliens-clean-refrigerators-shred-paper-answer-phones/
This is so not our war. Sure, send weapons to Ukraine, but it's hard to get enthusiastic about it, or cheer anybody on, or wish the war to continue.
Vaguely related: Is there any plan on refilling the SPR or is that going to fall on the next Republican President's shoulders?
Will fall on the next Republican's shoulders, who will be stuck paying 500% more than the gas just given away actually cost when it was purchased and stored during the Trump administration. FJB - the gift that keeps on taking.
Start here, original Mike.
“Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
By “glue it” and other places in the transcript, talking about making the government she is overheard approving be recognized by the UN, which is apparently in on it. The EU didn’t want to antagonize Moscow, since they are paying a heavy price, yet somehow a government that seized power in a violent coup was instantly recognized by the US and the UN.
If people want to talk about violence against demonstrators, then we should talk about the snipers who killed fifty anti-coup protesters at Maiden, killings that the new government never investigated
I am on my phone now, but over the next couple of days I will provide plenty of evidence that the US was behind this, meanwhile maybe someone could explain to me why the crisis could not have been solved through the parliament, and instead democracy demanded that it be driven from the building by armed Nazis? (Link coming.)
tim in vermont said...
To the last Ukrainian, and can any of you neocons explain to me what we are doing in Syria besides taking oil?
******************************
Syrian oil is small potatoes. 90% of its exports got to Europe. We aren't "taking" any of it, if you are implying we just steal it. (you might explain how we berth big tankers in the country's tiny harbors to steal the oil while the watching locals seethe.)
OTOH we continue to fight ISIS in Syria.
If you want to talk about ethnic cleansing, you might want to read up on the hero of Ukraine, Stephen Bandera.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Ukrainian independence in 1991 most of the peninsula was reorganized as the Republic of Crimea,[28][29] although in 1995 the Republic was forcibly abolished by Ukraine with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea established firmly under Ukrainian authority - Wikipedia
The article on Ukraine skips over this little detail, but the one on Crimea has it.
Beiden is not the stereotypical 80 year old coupon clipper. He could have taken all the weapons he left in Afghanistan and sent them to Ukraine and been $50 Billion ahead of the game.
Thanks Rusty.
The effects of this invasion need to be so painful that no Russian leader will ever try it again. So far we're getting a bargain.
So is Ukraine our proxy in this war as South Viet Nam was for a while in SE Asia? That did not work out too well did it? Two weeks ago
I expressed concerns about our ability to resupply arms for our own use and I have not seen anything that says we can.
The Ukrainians are plucky and apparently much better led than the Russians. Recall that the Germans pushed the Russians around while we supplied Russia with arms. It was only winter, overwhelming manpower and the Russian's willingness to use it regardless of cost that broke the Germans back. We seem to be willing to fight to the last Ukrainian. Is that a sound strategy?
Vault dweller,
The Lusitania is certainly a good example of never letting a crisis go to waste. Although it was an English ship, with English crew and mostly non-American passengers, it still had a couple hundred Americans aboard.
It was carrying a cargo of munitions. The Germans knew this and published ads in the New York papers to this effect before the sailing. Essentially, they said it was a legitimate target because of the munitions, they would try to sink it and anyone sailing on it did so at their own risk.
Yet Wilson et al used it as an excuse to drag us against our will into WWI.
An even better example is WWII. Starting in 1939, the US supplied armaments to England, first on cash and carry then on the pay when you can. Progressively we invaded Iceland, provided air patrols for British convoys, Started depth charging German submarines (Greer, Ruben James), boarded and seized German merchant ships, implemented a "Sink on Sight" policy against all German warships.
All this while we were neutral and 70-80% of the population were against participation in another Eurowar.
Finally, in a fit of stupidity, Hitler declared war against the US citing these belligerent actions on our part. The German declaration of war, December 1941, is an interesting read. Full text is here:
https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/germany-declares.htm
John Stop fascism, vote republican Henry
Seems like a lot of money being made on this war.
But I think it is peanuts. I think the real money will be made rebuilding Ukraine after the war. With US dollars and US construction companies.
And Jim Biden in charge.
Jim has no expertise in construction but hired on to rebuild Iraq and did quite well at it. If by "well" we mean he filled the Biden family pockets.
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
I've not seen it recently but back when the invasion occurred I remember a lot of people comparing the Ukes to the Finns when Stalin invaded Finland.
The Finns kicked the Soviet ass in the winter war. It was a famous victory.
What we seldom hear about was the result of the famous victory. Russia wound up with the Karelian Penninsula, Vyborg, Petsama and othjer Finnish cities. Finns who lived in the area were sent packing.
Yeah, a Helluva victory. Almost as good as our victories in Vietnam, Korea and other places.
Book recommendation "A Frozen Hell: The Russon Finnish War of 1939-1940" by William Trotter.
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
The point is to win. With Russia on the defensive, now is the time to supply more and more powerful weapon systems and not let our foot off the gas. If the argument is that Putin will not lose without first going nuclear, and thus we must stop supporting Ukraine, why not just give Russia every other country it wants to take over?
Tim - you have a very warped view of the history of the region, Putin's motives and goal, and prior agreements blatantly violated by Russia, such as the Budapest Memorandum. I'm curious who/what is your go-to source on everything Ukraine and Russia? For a different perspective, I suggest you listen to an online course by Timothy Snyder of Yale called "The Making of Ukraine" About 10 classes. You may learn something. Free on YouTube.
We are in a two front economic war with Russia and China. Biden just threw down the gauntlet at Xi's feet who immediately Sabre rattled about Taiwan.
Neither Ukraine or Taiwan is the ARVN.
That said, you Commie Bully Appeasementarians aren't wrong about the threat of nuclear war. It's like the Chi-coms and Soviets are playing the Nixon bluff.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
Teenagers call this game "chicken"
You could learn something, you could watch this video of a Neo Nazi talking about how "Ukraine is going to become a problem for the whole world,"
"If not for the nationalists (He calls the "Neo Nazis in other places) that whole thing [Maiden] would have been a "gay parade."" Quote at end, but if you love Ukraine, watch the whole show video to see what I is that you love.
I just don't think that this whole thing is of vital interest to the United States except as a strategy to destroy Russia, at whatever the cost to Ukrainians. Believe me, I well understand the argument that this is all about destroying Russia, as has been the six years of anti Putin propaganda we have been flooded with as soon as boy scout Obama was out of office and his "reset" was over.
It is not worth the 1% risk of nuclear war to ensure that Ukrainian nationalists have control over Russian speaking enclaves on Russia's border, and certainly not worth proving those nationalists with destabilizing weapons like the ATACMS.
Interesting how Ukraine is already considered a triumph for Biden because he sent them another $16 billion (side note, Trump was impeached over a $1.6 billion military aid package to Ukraine. I guess it is Putin inflation?). Biden gave left much more in military aid in Afghanistan and how did that turn out against the Army of the Taliban?
Are we "fighting ISIS" in Syria? Why is that our business, the Democrats got power in 2006 and Obama was elected in 2008 on platforms of no more Iraq wars to depose middle East dictators we don' like? Do you remember that? Were those elections meaningless? Yes. We are in Syria to push Russia out and to deny them a naval base in the Mediterranean just like we were quick to recognize Ukraine's annexation of The Republic of Crimea to try to deny Russia a major naval base on he Black Sea.
It's a long game the neocons are playing, Iraq, Libya, Syria, all Russian client states, and all attacked on dubious grounds. If you are for his war against Russia, that's fine, but don't mind me if I think that backing Russia into a corner, and the nuclear brinksmanship, is not in the interests of ordinary Americans. What does the guy on Main Street gain from a victory or lose by a loss, but Russia has trillions of dollars in mineral wealth that is much coveted by American oligarchs. Some of the climate obsessed even want control of those vast energy resources to keep them in the ground.
Jim, why don't you watch "Ukraine on Fire," banned on YouTube, but free on Rumble. The fact that your "course" is not banned on YouTube is a black mark against it, right off.
Thank you, Tim. I'll look at what you post.
Doesn't Hunter Biden have significant political connections in the Ukraine??
I liked to see the Venn diagram of Hunter-laptop-email-addresses vs. Ukrainian-politicians.
So 'tim in vermont' thinks I should worry more about an ethnic cleanser some foolishly consider a hero, who's been dead for 63 years - murdered by the KGB as it happens - but doesn't think I should worry about the ethnic cleansing going on right now in Ukraine, performed with enthusiasm by Russians.
1. The number of murdered civilians found in shallow graves in Lyman is now well over 100, to go with the 460+ in Izium and others in other places.
2. Russians are kidnapping 500 Ukrainian children a day, telling them their parents don't want them, and giving them to Russians to adopt. This comes under the U.N. defintion of genocide.
3. Russians are drafting hugely disproportionate percentages of men from ethnic minorities in border regions, thus allowing ethnic Russians to escape getting shot at and reducing the percentage of minorities in Russia. It was reported that 90% of the men drafted in Crimea are Tatars, who are 11-13% of the population.
4. The Russians are terror-bombing civilian apartment buildings with missiles and drones every night.
The fact is that the Russians are behaving like Nazis, and 'tim in vermont' supports them.
Still waiting for him to tell us where he gets his lying talking points.
"there's a racial purity clause in the Ukrainian constitution (a lie)" Google Article 16. You have spin that it's about radiation and DNA, but there are better ways to say that, aren't there?
"who told him Elon Musk is on a Ukrainian death-list (a lie)"
https://twitter.com/EvaKBartlett/status/1580921221310341120
He was quickly taken off that kill list, but many people on it have ended up murdered, including Darya Dugina and some journalists and bloggers who did not toe the ethnic Ukrainian line, but sure, when these people have complete control of the country, Ukraine will be "free,"
im5301 said...
The point is to win. With Russia on the defensive, now is the time to supply more and more powerful weapon systems and not let our foot off the gas. If the argument is that Putin will not lose without first going nuclear, and thus we must stop supporting Ukraine, why not just give Russia every other country it wants to take over?
jim1234 votes for nuclear war. It's amusing to see the left become war mongers.
Dr W, you are just repeating disputed Ukrainian propaganda as if it were Holy Writ. If you believe that stuff unquestioningly, there is no point discussing this with you. Besides, it's none of our business. Did it upset you when Ukraine killed 14,000 civilians in Donbas in the past eight years? No? Well then I guess you understand why I think that this war is not a vital interest of the United States.
Humperdink said...
@ Greg the Class traitor. Your arguments might be worth reading if your responses would not include words such as "losers", "cowards", and "you are full of s**t". When I read this, it's not an debate. Are you a table pounder at the office?
We we get people who aren't calling the Ukrainians "Nazis", then I might feel bad about calling people losers.
We the argument stops being "Putin has nukes, we should let him do whatever he wats",t hen I'll stop calling people cowards
When people stop having their hearts bleed for poor old innocent Putin, I'll stop telling them they're full of s**t
Howard: "We are in a two front economic war with Russia and China."
Front 1 (russkis) pumped $40M into a Hunter investment fund from the same Moscow Mayor's wife that pumped $3.5M directly into Hunter/Big Guy's bank account.
Front 2 (ChiCom's provided over a $1B into Hunter/Big Guy's "investment fund" (wink wink) and also provided unlimited crack/coke and underage trafficked prostitutes for Hunter (with full knowledge of the Big Guy).
There is also a Front 3 (Mad Mullahs of Tehran) that Biden funnels cash to that also ends up in the russkis and ChiCom's coffers.
Something tells me its not really "fronts" being opened up by Dementia Joe. Its a narrative covering action.
rcocean said...
I love how the Neo-clown crazies just stomp up and down breathing hatred and contempt against Russia, Putin, and anyone who doesn't want WW III. It would be comical, if large numbers, thousands of people are dying in the Ukraine.
Those thousands of people are dying because of Putin.
But apparently it's only "Neo-clown crazies" who care about that
Fact: Ukraine could be incorporated into Russia tommorrow and the USA wouldn't be any less safe than it is today. The Russians let go Ukraine go in the early 90s and nobody in the USA cared. If they'd kept them, no one in USA would've cared.
Fact: rewarding expansionist dictators is always a bad idea, and makes the world, including the US, less safe.
Rewarding an expansionist dictator who's spent his enitre life being an enemy of the US rather obviously makes the US less safe.
Fact: We are letting in millions walk accross our border. Biden won't spend one additional red cent to secure our border or enforce the immigration laws. Yet, he will dish out BILLIONS to Ukraine to keep a war going.
The open borders are a bad thing. Having open borders while Putin's carrying out wars that generate millions of refugees would be even worse.
But apparently your'e in favor of that
Opinion: This war should end. If Russia gets the Crimea or the Donbas, who cares? Do you live in the Donbas or Crimea? Why are we risking WW III and wasting Billions? Yes, I know you love playing "RisK' and yapping about "Stopping the aggressor" except that's just hot air.
The war should it. it should end with a complete and total Russian defeat.
because rewarding people for invading their neighbors gets you more invasions. If you think the US, especially an open borders US, is't worse off with lots of invasions, wars, and refugees, your IQ is room temperature, in degrees Centigrade
tim in vermont said...
If people want to talk about violence against demonstrators, then we should talk about the snipers who killed fifty anti-coup protesters at Maiden, killings that the new government never investigated
In January and February 2014, clashes in Kyiv between protesters and Berkut special riot police resulted in the deaths of 108 protesters and 13 police officers
After you've discussed the 108 protesters murdered by Yanukovych's thugs, we'll consider claims about these claimed sniper deaths.
But if you don't have a problem with those 108 dead protesters, I'm not going to waste any tears on dead counter-protesters
I am on my phone now, but over the next couple of days I will provide plenty of evidence that the US was behind this, meanwhile maybe someone could explain to me why the crisis could not have been solved through the parliament, and instead democracy demanded that it be driven from the building by armed Nazis? (Link coming.)
The Parliament DID solve it: 70% of them voted to join with Europe. But Yanukovych sabotaged that.
You've got some amazing fantasy world you're running in
And I was quite politically aware when all this happened. I'm going to Wikipedia for links and data, but I know the story line, because I was watching when it happened.
tim in vermont said...
If you want to talk about ethnic cleansing, you might want to read up on the hero of Ukraine, Stephen Bandera.
So, you simply wish to sweep Stalin's ethnic cleansing under the rug, pretend it never happened, and use the results of it to justify further attacks on Ukraine?
Does it ever bother you, being completely morally wretched?
tim in vermont said...
The article on Ukraine skips over this little detail, but the one on Crimea has it.
The article on Crimea also has this "little detail":
In 1944 Crimean Tatars were ethnically cleansed and deported under the orders of Joseph Stalin, in what has been described as a cultural genocide
But apparently you have no problem with ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide when it's done to non-ethnic Russians.
That would be the correct takeaway from you completely ignoring it, yes?
minnesota farm guy said...
The Ukrainians are plucky and apparently much better led than the Russians. Recall that the Germans pushed the Russians around while we supplied Russia with arms. It was only winter, overwhelming manpower and the Russian's willingness to use it regardless of cost that broke the Germans back. We seem to be willing to fight to the last Ukrainian. Is that a sound strategy?
Well, it strikes me as a better strategy than waiting until Putin gets bigger, and we have to fight him to the last American, instead.
But you do you
tim in vermont said...
I just don't think that this whole thing is of vital interest to the United States except as a strategy to destroy Russia, at whatever the cost to Ukrainians.
Putin rules Russia, and is the lifelong enemy of the US
What sane American would NOT want to cut his power using other people's lives?
Believe me, I well understand the argument that this is all about destroying Russia, as has been the six years of anti Putin propaganda we have been flooded with as soon as boy scout Obama was out of office and his "reset" was over.
Gosh, you mean that the Trump Admin oppose Putin everywhere, successfully? And you have a problem with that?
It is not worth the 1% risk of nuclear war to ensure that Ukrainian nationalists have control over Russian speaking enclaves on Russia's border, and certainly not worth proving those nationalists with destabilizing weapons like the ATACMS.
It's worth a far more than 1% risk to keep our enemy Russia weaker.
It's worth a lot more than 1% for Russia to be taught that it's a bad idea to try to invade its neighbors.
Successful wars of conquest beget more wars of conquest. If Putin gets anything because he attacked Ukraine, then it's a successful war of congestion.
non-morons understand why you want to discourage those
tim in vermont said...
Besides, it's none of our business. Did it upset you when Ukraine killed 14,000 civilians in Donbas in the past eight years?
1: Our enemies trying to militaryily expand is ALWAYS our business
2: how many civilians did Russia kill in Donbas in the past eight years? How many did they ethnically please, forcing them to move to other parts of Ukraine?
It's really "impressive" how you have this longest of evils we're supposed to care about, but you yourself never care when the side your'e supporting does those same evils 2x as much.
It's almost likely you're a completely morally wretched hypocrite, without so much as a single principle.
Note:
2016 US Presidential election was a binary choice. Any time post Convention you attacked Trump, you were supporting Hilary
2020 US Presidential election was a binary choice. Any time you attacked Trump, you were supporting Biden
2020 RUSSIA UKRAINE war is a binary choice. Any time you're attacking Ukraine, or attacking aid to Ukraine, you are supporting Russia
So...how much are the Europeons ponying up again?
'tim in vermont':
You lying piece of shit.
I've read Article 16 and the full context shows that it is not in fact racial. The bit you took out of context could indeed have been expressed better, but it's a translation, and texts do tend to lose a bit in translation. As for my "spin", the reason I think it's about radiation is that it mentions Chernobyl, moron! How fucking stupid can you be to deny that it's about radiation, not race?
Your 'hit list' is an obvious and contemptible fraud, whether pro-Putin or anti-Putin I neither know nor care. A list with Dugina on it? Maybe, but there's no evidence the Ukrainians killed her. Musk? Not plausible. 'Kim DotCom' claims he's on it: hahahaha! like any government would give a damn whether he lives or dies. And the woman you link claims there are 327 children on the list? What kind of fool could believe that? A 'tim in vermont' fool, that's what kind. And isn't it obvious that any government with an actual hit-list of people to be assassinated is unlikely to publish it on Twitter and give targets a chance to get away?
Of course, I do not believe anything from any source as "Holy Writ" or "unquestioningly" - that's another stupid lie. I have previously listed my sources of information, which often disagree with each other, so you have to think about them like a grown-up. If you had bothered to read any of them with an open mind, you would see that there are huge heaps of evidence for all the generalizations I made. The Russian government doesn't even deny most of them.
And you might want to question whether the "14,000 civilian in Donbas" killed "in the past eight years" are Putinite propaganda that you've been swallowing unquestioningly like Holy Writ. Are any of them "civilians" like the Palestinian "soldiers" (not in uniform) who shoot and knife and bomb Israelis, both soldiers and civilians, and then magically turn into "civilians" when the Israelis shoot back? In any case, the Russians have been bombing, murdering, looting, raping, and torturing far more than just the Donbas and Crimea, and have killed far more than 14,000 undoubted civilians in just 8 months. And you approve of that.
madAsHell said...
Doesn't Hunter Biden have significant political connections in the Ukraine??
--
Deputize that genius to settle things down over there. Smartest guy Joementia knows.
He's not joking!
"So, either you decide that Putin and Russia must be allowed to conquer and enslave everyone who has the misfortune to be on whatever border "Russia" currently has, or else you want Putin crushed in Ukraine"
Waiting for Greg and his Class warrior family to sign up and fly over to the Ukraine and get his war on.
Tim in Vermont is just making very solid points and rightly questioning media propaganda and all I see in response is bluster and puffery about "allowing" Putin to get away with it! As if we are some great arbiter of wrong and right in the world. Our complete arrogance will be our ruin.
"So, either you decide that Putin and Russia must be allowed to conquer and enslave everyone who has the misfortune to be on whatever border "Russia" currently has, or else you want Putin crushed in Ukraine"
Waiting for Greg and his Class warrior family to sign up and fly over to the Ukraine and get his war on.
Tim in Vermont is just making very solid points and rightly questioning media propaganda and all I see in response is bluster and puffery about "allowing" Putin to get away with it! As if we are some great arbiter of wrong and right in the world. Our complete arrogance will be our ruin.
https://rumble.com/vwxxi8-ukraine-on-fire.html
Go to around 12:28 for CIA documents admitting use of Ukrainian nationalists for operations against Russia.
Go to around 28:00 for about fifteen minutes to see how the US orchestrated the color revolution in Ukraine in 2014, funding TV stations and using neo-nazis, and he involvement of the US State Department and US politicians in overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine.
Goto around 102 for the events in Crimea in 2014, which, BTW, the Russians came in and never fired a shot.
Seriously if you want to imagine yourself informed, you should watch the whole thing.
Ukraine is a neocon project and does not benefit the American people in any way. In fact it's probably murdered your 401K, and once the election is over, and Biden stops draining the SPR, gas prices will go through the roof again.
Maybe no one in the US knows where Ukraine is but they can still understand the statement by Putin that the invasion of Ukraine is just the first of a series which will restore the Soviet Empire. And I think most people have heard of Germany and Poland which are on Putin's little list of countries to be restored to Russia. And I think that people can understand that an aggressive dictatorship should be stopped sooner rather than later, should be stopped in the Ukraine rather than Germany.
As for the statement that a Ukraine victory is somehow "backing Russia into a corner" - how does that work? Isn't Russia right now the largest country in the world in terms of land area with enormous oil, gas and mineral reserves? Doesn't Russia stretch across 11 time zones. How are is the Ukraine "backing Russia into a corner" by defending its own territory?
And who is Ukraine fighting with our help and that of Europe? Is it really fighting Russia, the largest country in the world with the second largest Armed Forces in the world? Slava Ukraine and good job, US, helping a deserving cause. But Russia is fighting its own people as well as the Ukraine and it has had enormous losses. Isn't the Ukraine war opposed inside Russia as no other war has ever been? Didn't 800,000 to 3,000,000 Russians leave Russia in the months following the invasion of Ukraine? And when Russia mobilized in October another 300,000 people left the country within a week? (97,000 people crossed into Kazakhstan in just three days). Isn't Russia mobilizing men who should be deferred and sending them to war within ten days of mobilization with no training? Is there any country in the world where the men could wake up one day, hear that they might be mobilized, might be sent to combat without training in ten days. They might be dead in ten days! Or twelve! Or twenty! That's going on in Russia. Men without combat training who were happy civilians on September 22 are dead Russian soldiers in the Ukraine on October 17. And all the living men know it.
I think the whole Ukraine war is a little bigger than the Life and Times of Joe Biden and His Boy, Hunter. Maybe the Bidens got some millions from procurement. They would have got them from somewhere. Time for reform here - yes. Time to give Putin another country to loot - no.
Ukraine on Fire is an Oliver Stone piece of propaganda.
No answer regarding Euoropeons' contribution.
Curious.
widswan,
How much do you believe the reporting?
Gk1 said...
"So, either you decide that Putin and Russia must be allowed to conquer and enslave everyone who has the misfortune to be on whatever border "Russia" currently has, or else you want Putin crushed in Ukraine"
Waiting for Greg and his Class warrior family to sign up and fly over to the Ukraine and get his war on.
I'm paying taxes so the US gov't can buy weapons and give them to the Ukrainians so they can fight the Russians.
But thank you for establishing that your'e a dishonest ass, too stupid to update your talking points to reality
Tim in Vermont is just making very solid points and rightly questioning media propaganda
Tim is just spouting BS, which is why he hasn't responded to any of the points I made about Yanukovych and the Maiden revolution: because pretty much everything he's said about it has been a lie
So, Tim, just to confirm:
Over 70% of the Ukraine Parliament, which is the Ukraine government, voted for closer ties to the West.
Which Yanukovych, a mere head of "State", not the head of the government, then worked to sabotage because he was Putin's lackey.
And had his security forces murder over 100 peaceful protesters when they objected.
but it was all "just a CIA plot" in your deluded little world. Right?
And because your position is such total crap, you will no more try to respond to and disprove what I wrote here, than you did for anything else I've written here
Because not only are you in the wrong, you KNOW your'e in the wrong
And just don't care
"Ukraine on Fire is an Oliver Stone piece of propaganda."
You should watch "JFK," like I did, and then research how much of it is true. Which part of "Ukraine on Fire" has been shown to be false? I used to believe the same shit you do, I supported the Iraq War wholeheartedly, but after, I asked myself how I had been manipulated into that position.
It's a very effective propaganda technique to hint that people who look into the narrative that they are pushing are "crazy" and it keeps you from listening to them. Once again I ask you to think about the lies that they have been telling for 6 years now about Trump and Russia, and ask you think about why they chose those particular villains.
"Because not only are you in the wrong, you KNOW your'e in the wrong"
That's laughable. They lie to you every day, and you don't care, I guess. Here are a couple of propaganda techniques they use: "Always accuse the other side of whatever you are doing."
"If you plan to do something that won't play well, say that the other side is planning to "without evidence" accuse you of it."
This cognitive problem, the "attribution error," is exploited by propagandists to prevent people from putting themselves in the shoes of other leaders, like Putin or Trump: Tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior
By demonizing a rival leader enough, you can prevent people from even asking themselves, for instance, "why would Putin accept nuclear capable missiles so close to Moscow?" Or "Why would Donald Trump plan an "insurrection" without any plans to carry it through to actually seize power." You ignore the circumstances and focus on the personality for the source of motivation, therefore you can say that "Crazy Vlad" blew up his own pipeline that gave him a wedge to split to coalition, rather than "The Ukrainians blew it up to remove that threat to the coalition." When you come to these bizarre conclusions, it even feels to you like you have come to them though rational thought.
"Maybe no one in the US knows where Ukraine is but they can still understand the statement by Putin that the invasion of Ukraine is just the first of a series which will restore the Soviet Empire"
Quote, please. Or is it like Trump's thousands of lies... "everybody knows." This is nuclear war we are flirting with, it's important that there are no misunderstandings.
"Our enemies trying to militaryily"
There is a little slieght of hand, assuming what you are tying to prove, that Russia is "our enemy". And it's pretty funny that you don't have any problem with the people who illegally took power in Ukraine, they did not have the votes to remove, fighting a war and killing their fellow Ukrainians, civilians or no, to make their seizure of power "stick," as Victoria Nuland put it.
It's none of our business. Ukraine is a corrupt shithole which has compromising information on Joe Biden, due to his unbridled avarice, and you will look long and hard to find good guys in this conflict. It is not worth the price we are currently paying. Checked your 401K lately? It's certainly not worth WWIII.
$16 billion from the U.S. is almost $50 per person.
“"ATACMS are nuclear capable"? So fucking what?”
I was going to waste time arguing with you until that one, unless you work in the Kremlin and get a vote on what to do as one of them is inbound.
“Inbound” towards what? Moscow? This is nuts. You are conflating two quite (astronomically) different qualities of “nuclear.” The fact is that, while both are technically “nuclear,” there's an enormous qualitative and quantitative difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. No nuclear power is going to respond strategically to simply a detected tactical missile, aimed at a battlefield, not the capital or strategic nuclear forces. Why? Because “tactical” weapons inherently lack the capability of destroying a whole civilization, nation, and regime at a whack that “strategic” weapons are specifically designed to do. That's why the response to detected strategic weapons en route might hair-trigger an almost instantaneous response. Not tactical.
Howard said...
"We are in a two front economic war with Russia and China. Biden just threw down the gauntlet at Xi's feet who immediately Sabre rattled about Taiwan.
Neither Ukraine or Taiwan is the ARVN.
That said, you Commie Bully Appeasementarians aren't wrong about the threat of nuclear war. It's like the Chi-coms and Soviets are playing the Nixon bluff.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
Teenagers call this game "chicken""
You should be thrilled. You voted for this. Isn't this what you wanted? The world is a seething mess all because your ideology had to be appeased.
Swim an extra lap to celebrate.
Left Bank of the Charles: "$16 billion from the U.S. is almost $50 per person."
So, a tank of gas needed to get to work or to the hospital, or food for the kids, or money to purchase baby formula which is still is very short supply thanks to you New Soviet Democraticals purposeful destruction of our baby formula supply chain.
At the same time that inflation is soaring forcing families to weigh eating with other necessities.
And that $16B is only a part of how much we've given the Ukrainian corrupto-crats so that they could vote themselves pay raises and help enlarge their bank accounts.
On the other hand, the Ukrainians did help keep Hunter knee-deep in crack/coke and underage trafficked hookers as well as cash for Hunter and "the Big Guy", so perhaps that's the real good deal for America Left Bank is talking about.
Hey Left Bank, if that was such a fantastic political message, why do you suppose your New Soviet Democratical betters aren't using it?
Probably not the effective hot take you thought it was, is it?
"walter said...
widswan,
How much do you believe the reporting?"
"The reporting" = Whose reporting?
Ukraine was invaded as part of Putin's plan to restore the Soviet Empire. The EU thinks the same. Finland and Sweden think the same and joined NATO for that reason. All the central European states which were part of the former Soviet Empire think the same and are supporting Ukraine for that reason. The whole Ukrainian population thinks the same; that's why Ukraine was able to conduct a general mobilization without all the men fleeing as is happening during the current Russian partial mobilization; that's why as a more motivated army Ukrainians are defeating the Russians.
Ukraine is defeating the Russians due to motivation and new 21st C weapons and intelligence sources. As Russia sees defeat looming it is turning to civilian terror tactics, blitzing Ukrainian cities, not soldiers or forts, with Iranian drones and issuing terroristic threats about nuclear accidents and nuclear weapons.
I could not know about this without the "news" which I distrust. I resolve the issue by believing the same facts as large groups on the "frontline", i.e., the Ukrainians are fighting, exiled, and dying, what are their statements as to why they sustain their pain. Dying declarations - that's what I believe.
You do know that the Black Sea fleet is based within range of those missiles. What if Russia blames us and takes out a carrier group, you know, tit for tat, with hypersonic missiles? We certainly would not further escalate over spilt milk, right? Remember that this is about Ukraine ruling over Russian enclaves that have been fighting them for eight years and a peninsula that Ukraine had annexed by force after it had voted for independence, and which, on outbreak of the civil war triggered by the coup, the Russians moved in without firing a shot. The west says they “sneaked” in, what a funny wording. We can’t forget what is behind this nuclear brinksmanship.
Why did the Ukrainian government never investigate who did the shooting at Euromaiden? Same reason Pelosi won’t investigate honestly, J6.
This is a war between brothers and none of our business.
'walter' is pissed that no one answered his question of 7:32pm yesterday:
"So...how much are the Europeons ponying up again?"
So pissed that he soon commented (10:59pm):
"No answer regarding Euoropeons' contribution.
Curious."
Maybe if he had spelled the name right instead of podicitavily*, a European would have helped him out.
Then again, if he had bothered to get off his fat ass (or maybe we should say get down on his fat ass in front of a web-connected screen) he could have Googled the answer in about 5 minutes, and found that the answer is not the one he obviously wants it to be.
He could even have found out which countries are contributing the most in proportion to their GDPs. Here are the Top 20 most generous countries from this statistics site:
1. Latvia
2. Estonia
3. Poland
4. Lithuania
5. Norway
6. United States
7. United Kingdom
8. Slovakia
9. Canada
10. Czechia
11. Austria
12. Portugal
13. Denmark
14. Slovenia
15. Sweden
16. Greece
17. Germany
18. Luxembourg
19. Netherlands
20. Finland
Anyone notice a pattern? The top 4 most generous countries all have borders with Russia. I'm a little surprised that the 5th European country bordering Russia, the one with the longest border, is way down at #20, but I suspect Finland is spending every Euro they can find or borrow building up their own defenses.
For those too lazy to follow the link, the top two countries are contributing between 3.5 and 4.0 times as large a share of their economies as the U.S.
'walter' now owes me $15 for wasting my valuable time doing his homework for him.
*'Index' is the Latin word for the part of the body you point with. 'Podex' is the part you fart with, so 'podicative' would be a properly-formed English adjective meaning 'of, pertaining to, resembling, or acting like a farthole, butthole, or anus'.
'tim in vermont' is worried that the Ukrainians might sink the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the same fleet that has been slaughtering Ukrainian civilians for months with its missiles.
Hilariously, he seems unbothered by the fact that the Russians stole most of the Ukrainian Navy when they stole Crimea in 2014, grudgingly gave most of those ships back later that year, and have this year sunk most of what was left of the Ukrainian Navy without bothering to declare war first, or any pretense that that would somehow protect their Russian brothers in the Donbas. So much for his concern for international law or decency or common sense.
The Finns have been reorganizing and beefing up their forces since about 2000.
We're seeing Clausewitz's dictum come true before our eyes: Balance of Power only reveals itself when it is challenged. Russia's neighbors are the best judge of Russia's intentions and capabilities, and aren't likely to forget the pleasures of Russian domination any time soon.
@Greg the class traitor
The reality is that Russia will ultimately overpower Ukraine should this mess continue. The population numbers speak for themselves. I am rooting for the Ukrainians and hope that they are able to force Putin to negotiate, but I sincerely doubt that will happen. I firmly believe we should be looking for an appropriate moment when we can urge both parties to negotiate. Unless Putin is removed from office I am guessing that at some point the Russians will essentially blast Ukrainian citizens off the face of their country - Putin doesn't seem to care how many men from the outer provinces he throws into the grinder. Stalin used the same tactics and eventually was able to break the Germans. I sincerely hope that I am wrong and the Ukrainians have the staying power of the NVA. In the meanwhile Ukraine and its citizens are being devastated and it would be nice if we could find a way to stop that.
tim in vermont said...
Me: "Because not only are you in the wrong, you KNOW you're in the wrong"
That's laughable. They lie to you every day, and you don't care, I guess. Here are a couple of propaganda techniques they use: "Always accuse the other side of whatever you are doing."
Gee, you mean like, without any attribution, accusing Ukrainian snipers of having killed pro-Russia protesters, as I pointed out that the pro-Russia security forces had murdered over 100 Ukrainian protesters, WITH attribution?
You mean like writing "Remember that this is about Ukraine ruling over Russian enclaves that have been fighting them for eight years and a peninsula that Ukraine had annexed by force after it had voted for independence"
When the actual situation is that Russia invaded and took over those "enclaves", ethnic cleansed them, and then invaded the rest of Ukraine to try to take the whole country over.
But it's "Ukraine took by force". "Ukraine waged war". Not "Russia attacked and Ukraine defended itself"
What happened in 1991?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_referendum
Following the referendum, the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR passed the law "On Restoration of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialistic Republic as part of USSR" on 12 February 1991, restoring Crimea's autonomous status. In September 1991, the Crimean parliament declared the territory to be a sovereign constituent part of Ukraine
In the 1994 Budapest Accords, Russia agreed that Crimea was part of Ukraine, not Russia.
But none of that matters in Tim's world. Because the only thing that matters is whatever helps Comrade Putin
It's none of our business. Ukraine is a corrupt shithole which has compromising information on Joe Biden, due to his unbridled avarice, and you will look long and hard to find good guys in this conflict.
on one side with have Putin, who bought Obama, bought Hillary, was given a green light to invade "a little bit" by Biden, and who was kept in check by Trump.
He runs a corrupt shithole of a country that has, the entirely of his rule, used its power to oppose the US.
He has publicly mourned the end of the USSR, and had nice things to say about Stalin
Those who are not complete ignoramuses remember the Holodomor, and other ethnic cleansing, cultural and other genocide all carried out under Stalin.
Tim apparently things those are no big deal
On the other side we have Ukraine, which is a less corrupt shithole (Zelensky could never have won if Ukraine was as corrupt as Russia) that has never threatened the West.
If you're an intellectual and emotional 3 year old you demand "good guys".
If your'e an adult American patriot you see an enemy of the US attacking a country that wants to be an ally of the US, and you conclude there are "more bad" and "less bad" sides, and support the less bad side
It is not worth the price we are currently paying. Checked your 401K lately? It's certainly not worth WWIII.
WWIII is what we will get if we let Putin engage in successful expansionist wars in Europe. The way to avoid WWIII is to stop Russia now
Why did the Ukrainian government never investigate who did the shooting at Euromaiden?
Why do you not care about the more than 100 Ukrainian protesters murdered by Yanukovych's security forces?
How many of them were investigated, arrested, tried, and convicted by the Yanukovych government?
What's that? you've decided they were all "CIA plants", so it was ok to kill them?
But excellent display of your propaganda chops there, accusing the other side of what your side is actually guilty of
minnesota farm guy said...
@Greg the class traitor
"The reality is that Russia will ultimately overpower Ukraine should this mess continue. The population numbers speak for themselves."
No Russia won't if for no other reason than they haven't the will to win. There is also the fact that Putin cannot command the number of soldiers Stalin could draw on. The Russian people do not want this war. If they did the Russian military forces wouldn't be stopping trains and buses and "recruiting" every male inside. Russia no longer has a military that can meet a modern battlefield. Putin is losing and losing badly. He doesn't have the materiel. He doesn't have the leadership and he doesn't have the will.
tim in vermont said...
"Maybe no one in the US knows where Ukraine is but they can still understand the statement by Putin that the invasion of Ukraine is just the first of a series which will restore the Soviet Empire"
Tim was asking where Putin made the statement Wild Swan attributes to him. Short answer: Putin's annexation speech and its historical background.
In 2005 at his State of the Union that: “First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin said. “As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory."
Many analysts, including John Bolton, have see Putin's actions since then in relation to former Soviet states, as carrying out a plan to re-establish the Soviet Empire geographically under another name.
In 2014 Bolton said:
"He gave us notice of his strategy seven or eight years ago when he said, in what is now one of the most frequently repeated quotes from his leadership in Russia, when he said, ‘The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.’
It’s clear he wants to re-establish Russian hegemony within the space of the former Soviet Union. Ukraine is the biggest prize, that’s what he’s after. The occupation of the Crimea is a step in that direction."
In 2022 in a speech at the annexation ceremonies for Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhia, Putin said in justifying the annexations: “The battlefield to which fate and history have called us is the battlefield for our people, for great historical Russia, for future generations, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.” (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/30/russia-ukraine-war-putins-annexation-speech-what-did-he-say)
These statements lay out a clear intent to re-establish "historical Russia." Historical Russia included Georgia, Armenia, much of Poland, parts of Finland. And Putin seems to include in "Historical Russia" any area Soviet Russia got. This explains his attack on Chechnya.
So I think in Putin's annexation speech and in its historical background there is a basis for me to say: ""Maybe no one in the US knows where Ukraine is but they can still understand the statement by Putin that the invasion of Ukraine is just the first of a series which will restore the Soviet Empire." I am directly referring to Putin's speeches at the annexation and making the point that he is after the Soviet Union's borders, not Russia in 1914.
"not Russia in 1914."
At least in Soviet times the Finns had a nation and the Poles had a legitimate (if not free) nationhood; under the Tsars there was an increasing Russification effort, as onerous in its way as anything the Reds required.
Once again I repeat Prof. Lukacs: the people of the former Russian/Soviet sphere hate, admire, and respect the Germans. They merely hate the Russians.
minnesota farm guy said...
@Greg the class traitor
The reality is that Russia will ultimately overpower Ukraine should this mess continue. The population numbers speak for themselves
Nope.
1: Russia has commitments (read: borders they have to protect) in a lot of places, so they can't bring their full force to bear anywhere
2: This isn't WWII.
A: Russia is an almost completely atomized society, curtesy of 70 years of Communist rule. "Rally to save the Motherland" doesn't work any more.
B: No one believes in anything "larger than themselves", which means that no one is going to risk their life to advance Putin's dreams
C: Having lots of troops, and no way to get supplies to them, is a guarantee for failure, not crushing the enemy
D: Russia's logistics suck, have consistently gotten worse, and Russia corruption means that's not something Russia can actually fix. Because given a choice between the oligarchs losing their corrupt payoffs, and the oligarchs killing Putin, Putin's toast
All the baby "better Red than Dead" whining about Russia's nukes is coming from the realization that with continued US support of Ukraine, Russia has no way to actually win
I firmly believe we should be looking for an appropriate moment when we can urge both parties to negotiate. Unless Putin is removed from office I am guessing that at some point the Russians will essentially blast Ukrainian citizens off the face of their country
1: They can't, short of nukes. City buster nukes. Not going to happen
2: There is no point in negotiating with Putin. The Budapest Accords, signed by Russia, stated that Russia would respect Ukraine's borders and make no attempt to change them, in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nukes
Ukraine gave up their nukes
If that deal isn't going to be honored, then there's no reason at all to believe that any future deal will be honored
There are two, and only two, possible outcomes:
1: Russia is completely kicked out of Ukraine
2: Ukraine gets destroyed and absorbed by Russia
Oh, I guess there's:
3: Russia gets part of Ukraine, and the rest joins Nato and gets American troops permanently stationed on its Russian borders
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा