The pistol is a double action semi-auto. Perhaps it is a SIG 226? No need for it to be cocked or the safey locked.That's just silly.
The pistol should be Cocked and Locked.
The pistol is a double action semi-auto. Perhaps it is a SIG 226? No need for it to be cocked or the safey locked.That's just silly.
The pistol should be Cocked and Locked.
Save for the one or two Russia-Putin supporters who speak openly, none here I’m aware of are apologists for or support the current Russian policy in Ukraine. Stating otherwise and accusing those falsely for being on Putin’s side is cheap, junior high debate team theatrics- attempting to create an obviously false narrative.
The questions or recurring thoughts in my mind are very simple: 1) why so many would rather destroy the country than allow Trump back in the WH? 2) why ignore the history of all wars since WW1? Specifically on Russia… answer these questions: realistically, what does the end game in Ukraine look like? What happens if Putin/Russia simply says, “No, you can’t have Eastern Ukraine back”. “If you pour a trillion dollars in aid to Ukraine, we (Russia) and aligned countries will match it to a stalemate.” “If you pour a million troops into the front we will likewise match that to a stalemate.” “If you push into Mother Russia, we will nuke your ass”. Ignoring history usually carries an unintended burden of consequences. Russia/Soviet Union has already demonstrated their cultural mentality, in the plain sight of history. Look no farther back than Stalin. Estimates run as high as 12 million Russian troops were sacrificed to the front lines to stop the German advance. Let the numbers sink in… Does it really matter if that was tactically stupid or not??
In the end, how in hell would WW3 serve the vital national interests of the US? The unsupported false narrative and premise of the verbiage, “vital national interests”, is often used to support the ever increasing US involvement in the Ukraine quagmire.
I’d say the neo-isolationists, libertarians and non-interventionists are refusing to learn from the past and choosing to ignore history. These groups make terrible allies that’s for sure. Being willfully ignorant to their own detriment. This isn’t the same world it once was. The economy is global. Our interests extend beyond our borders. To believe otherwise is incredibly shortsighted and foolish. You ignore reality for too long and the cost in treasure and possibly blood you will potentially pay would be exponentially higher than what we’ve spent so far. Why not use this opportunity to degrade an enemy? If not an outright enemy then at least a bad actor whose interests run counter to ours.Save for the one or two Russia-Putin supporters who speak openly, none here I’m aware of are apologists for or support the current Russian policy in Ukraine. Stating otherwise and accusing those falsely for being on Putin’s side is cheap, junior high debate team theatrics- attempting to create an obviously false narrative.
The questions or recurring thoughts in my mind are very simple: 1) why so many would rather destroy the country than allow Trump back in the WH? 2) why ignore the history of all wars since WW1? Specifically on Russia… answer these questions: realistically, what does the end game in Ukraine look like? What happens if Putin/Russia simply says, “No, you can’t have Eastern Ukraine back”. “If you pour a trillion dollars in aid to Ukraine, we (Russia) and aligned countries will match it to a stalemate.” “If you pour a million troops into the front we will likewise match that to a stalemate.” “If you push into Mother Russia, we will nuke your ass”. Ignoring history usually carries an unintended burden of consequences. Russia/Soviet Union has already demonstrated their cultural mentality, in the plain sight of history. Look no farther back than Stalin. Estimates run as high as 12 million Russian troops were sacrificed to the front lines to stop the German advance. Let the numbers sink in… Does it really matter if that was tactically stupid or not??
In the end, how in hell would WW3 serve the vital national interests of the US? The unsupported false narrative and premise of the verbiage, “vital national interests”, is often used to support the ever increasing US involvement in the Ukraine quagmire.
Well Bob, as a percentage of GDP - which I think you might even agree is the only way to compare contributions from wildly different economies, Norway contributes more to the defense of Ukraine than the United States. Through 30 June of 24, the US has provided roughly .35% of its GDP to supporting Ukraine and Norway has provided 0.5 %. Looking at Scandinavia as a whole, Sweden and Finland are contributing .75% - or twice the US contribution in percentage of GDP. Finally, NATO/the EU as a whole has contributed about 20% more in actual dollars and allocated nearly twice the contribution of the US - facts carefully ignored or of no interest to the don't confuse me with information neo-isolationists.
![]()
Ukraine Support Tracker - A Database of Military, Financial and Humanitarian Aid to Ukraine
The Ukraine Support Tracker lists and quantifies military, financial and humanitarian aid promised by governments to Ukraine.www.ifw-kiel.de
Seriously? Just for future reference, Norway is both a member of NATO and long standing member of the "free world" regardless what definition you use.
Fortunately at least half of the republican party realizes that stopping Russian ambitions in Ukraine and thwarting its reemergence as a real threat alongside an ever more aggressive China is a critical national interest. I frankly think the percentage is actually far higher than that, but a large swath of the party won't acknowledge that criticality thanks to Trump, Carlson, and their ilk. Sadly, far too many people in this country have no understanding of our international interests or how our economic well being is interwoven into the protection of those interests.
Still, it needs to be turned over so your hand falls on it naturally. Butt pointing away from the plate.The pistol is a double action semi-auto. Perhaps it is a SIG 226? No need for it to be cocked or the safey locked.
I think it is excellent that you finally wish to discuss the subject of Ukraine and Russia and employ "facts." I will be happy to debate them with you however cheap and theatrical you may believe such a discussion might be.Save for the one or two Russia-Putin supporters who speak openly, none here I’m aware of are apologists for or support the current Russian policy in Ukraine. Stating otherwise and accusing those falsely for being on Putin’s side is cheap, junior high debate team theatrics- attempting to create an obviously false narrative.
The questions or recurring thoughts in my mind are very simple: 1) why so many would rather destroy the country than allow Trump back in the WH? 2) why ignore the history of all wars since WW1? Specifically on Russia… answer these questions: realistically, what does the end game in Ukraine look like? What happens if Putin/Russia simply says, “No, you can’t have Eastern Ukraine back”. “If you pour a trillion dollars in aid to Ukraine, we (Russia) and aligned countries will match it to a stalemate.” “If you pour a million troops into the front we will likewise match that to a stalemate.” “If you push into Mother Russia, we will nuke your ass”. Ignoring history usually carries an unintended burden of consequences. Russia/Soviet Union has already demonstrated their cultural mentality, in the plain sight of history. Look no farther back than Stalin. Estimates run as high as 12 million Russian troops were sacrificed to the front lines to stop the German advance. Let the numbers sink in… Does it really matter if that was tactically stupid or not??
In the end, how in hell would WW3 serve the vital national interests of the US? The unsupported false narrative and premise of the verbiage, “vital national interests”, is often used to support the ever increasing US involvement in the Ukraine quagmire.
You are correct, though I think of Kaliningrad now more as an indefensible outpost that will suck up enormous Russian resources to maintain. It was always problematic, but they can not now move an asset on or under the Baltic without it being under constant NATO observation. The advantage of the Norwegian base is not so much for strike assets as it will be for reconnaissance capability.What is happening now is because of Sweden and Finland joining NATO, the Baltic Sea is becoming a hotspot.. The Kaliningrad Enclave (russian) is a fortress bristling with navy, army and aircraft.. Russian navy vessels have long range missiles capable of hitting most targets within Scandinavia, Poland and at least the eastern part of Germany..they can launch missiles while docked in Kaliningrad..
USAF is currently investing USD 300 million at an airfield in southern Norway..to fly sorties in the Baltic sea. There are similar operations going on in Sweden, Finland, Poland and Germany..
Unfortunately, the World is our backyard in a global economy. Isolationist policies as we have seen from the likes of Chamberlain prior to WW II does not work as history attests..........this is not our backyard, you guys take care of it...bob
I think this is a good thought experiment for anyone to run, whatever their position, so let us explore options (actual options, not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric).Save for the one or two Russia-Putin supporters who speak openly, none here I’m aware of are apologists for or support the current Russian policy in Ukraine. Stating otherwise and accusing those falsely for being on Putin’s side is cheap, junior high debate team theatrics- attempting to create an obviously false narrative.
The questions or recurring thoughts in my mind are very simple: 1) why so many would rather destroy the country than allow Trump back in the WH? 2) why ignore the history of all wars since WW1? Specifically on Russia… answer these questions: realistically, what does the end game in Ukraine look like? What happens if Putin/Russia simply says, “No, you can’t have Eastern Ukraine back”. “If you pour a trillion dollars in aid to Ukraine, we (Russia) and aligned countries will match it to a stalemate.” “If you pour a million troops into the front we will likewise match that to a stalemate.” “If you push into Mother Russia, we will nuke your ass”. Ignoring history usually carries an unintended burden of consequences. Russia/Soviet Union has already demonstrated their cultural mentality, in the plain sight of history. Look no farther back than Stalin. Estimates run as high as 12 million Russian troops were sacrificed to the front lines to stop the German advance. Let the numbers sink in… Does it really matter if that was tactically stupid or not??
In the end, how in hell would WW3 serve the vital national interests of the US? The unsupported false narrative and premise of the verbiage, “vital national interests”, is often used to support the ever increasing US involvement in the Ukraine quagmire.
You missed the option of increased support, minus boots on the ground. This seems the option with the best opportunity to force Russia to the negotiating table and therefore the best option to end the war.I think this is a good thought experiment for anyone to run, whatever their position, so let us explore options (actual options, not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric).
Option 1: The US explicitly supports Russian goals here.
Pros: The quickest and cheapest way to end the Ukraine war. Better relations with Russia.
Cons: A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO almost certainly dissolves. The US probably faces sanctions from most of its major trade partners. Russia becomes significantly more powerful (do we think they'd be a trustworthy ally in the medium to long term?). Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Also not exactly a popular plan with the US electorate, which would make it very difficult politically.
Conclusion: Probably not aligned to US strategic interests, or the interests of the US people. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. Not a good idea.
Option 2: The US absolves all responsibility, cuts all aid, does nothing.
Pros: Saves some money, Ukraine has a decent chance of winning anyway at this juncture.
Cons: The chances of Russia winning go up dramatically. A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO possibly dissolves. Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Politically divisive, but probably popular enough to be feasible politically.
Conclusion: A viable option. However, it would rather run contrary to all US activity in Europe in the past 70 years and certainly loses the US power and influence abroad. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. If we are to dig into the historical context, this plan hasn't gone well for the US in the past (citation: The 1920's). Probably not smart in a highly interconnected world built on international trade.
Option 3: The US continues to half-ass things as it's doing now.
Pros: Relatively low risk, relatively low cost. Ukraine probably wins, Russia is certainly degraded as a future threat. NATO partners are reassured, US foreign influence is maintained if not strengthened. Encourages other bad actors to tread carefully.
Cons: It costs money. It marginally increases the chance of further US military involvement and sours relations with Russia. The US may not do enough for Ukraine to prevail (although from what we're currently seeing, I think this is a low probability).
Conclusion: A very viable option. Seems to have popular support in the US for the most part, so politically expedient. Achieves US foreign policy goals for minimal expenditure and risk of US servicemen (although, of course not 0 expenditure).
Option 4: The US goes all in, boots on the ground, substantially increased support.
Pros: Ukraine definitely wins, Russia definitely folds, NATO is greatly reassured and US foreign policy is secured. Really, really encourages other bad actors to stay in their lane.
Cons: Hugely unpopular politically. Massively expensive, greatly increases the risk of nuclear war.
Conclusion: Probably not a good idea from a cost / benefit perspective.
Of the options presented here (things that the US can actually do), only 2 or 3 are really options.
The end goal of those options will be some kind of negotiated peace. The only power that the US has here is in dictating what the terms of that agreement look like, and what the country wants to signal to foreign allies and enemies.
Linking this back to the upcoming election, I'm reasonably confident that the Dems will continue with option 3 if they come to power. It is, after all, what they're doing now. I consider this the best option.
Donald Trump is (IMO) far more likely to lean towards option 2. That's popular with his base, it ties in with his generally isolationist foreign policy positions, it's a great political talking point to show he's done something (which continuing the current option 3 approach wouldn't be). I consider this to be an awful option for the US to take from a long term strategic perspective, but realistically doesn't constitute an existential threat to the nation.
If we're to believe that his comments about 'Ending the conflict in a day' are serious instead of just stupid bluster as per usual (for the record, I don't believe this myself), then that actually brings option 1 into play.
That's the ONLY route that the US has to end this quickly and decisively. Pressure Ukraine into folding. The US doesn't have any options to categorically force Russia to capitulate that quickly. Excepting perhaps Option 4, which realistically would be complete political suicide for whomever proposes it, and possibly comes with a nomination for the 'Stupidest Decision Ever Made By A Human' award by bringing about nuclear armageddon.
Overall conclusion: When it comes to Ukraine, I have far more confidence in Harris' administration to handle it competently that I do Trumps'.
If it's an important enough issue to outweigh all the other policies that I think the Dems will do worse is a different question...