Politics

[Mark A Ouellette]

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.

 

[fourfive8]

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.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

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.

Quagmire for who? If it's a quagmire at this point, it's only for Putin and Russia. Ukraine is fighting for its existence. There are no other countries directly involved in the war that I know of.

Agree with you on learning from history, neglecting to do so is done at your own risk. But to add to your questions, if we say "Okay Vlad, you win, you can have Ukraine, what happens then?"

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

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.

 

[Pondoro]

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.

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..

 

[Newboomer]

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.

Still, it needs to be turned over so your hand falls on it naturally. Butt pointing away from the plate.

 

[Red Leg]

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 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.

Since I am one who has found reprehensible the behavior of much of my party with respect to the defense of Ukraine specifically and our national interests generally with respect to Russia allow me to clarify it one more time. I should note I have done so at least a dozen times previously, but those may have been ignored as mere debate team tactics.

My party, no one else, led by the imbeciles who make up the Freedom Caucus and their supporters, held up all US military aid to Ukraine for half a year. Vladimir Putin and his legions could not have carried out a more successful strategic military strike against the Ukrainian Armed Forces and its people than that. Those who supported that delay provided aid and comfort to Putin and his forces and materially aided Russia in its effort to subjugate the Ukrainian people and Russia's strategic goal to resurrect the threat posed to the West by the Soviet Union. By definition, those politicians and the people who supported them acted as Russian allies. Those are facts. Policy has consequences.

With respect to ignoring history, perhaps your finger is pointing the wrong direction. So let's review the actual performance of the Russian military since the turn of the last century. During the Russo Japanese War of 1904-05, the Russian Navy and Army were soundly defeated by Japan. During WWI 1914-17, the Russian Army, which vastly outnumbered the Central Powers committed to the Eastern Front, was defeated and forced to make a separate peace. During the Russo Polish War of 1919-21, the Polish Republic defeated the Russian host. During the Winter War of 1939-40, Finland, a far smaller nation, fought the Russian Army to bloody standstill and achieved a negotiated settlement. Finland then joined Germany in its invasion of Russia with a peace treaty with the USSR concluded in 1944. While clearly not a Finnish victory, it also did not result in the subjugation of Finland which was a Russian strategic objective. Perhaps putting the icing on that strategic failure, Finland is now a NATO member. The USSR was indeed among the victors in the Second World War, but even most Russian historians will acknowledge that was only possible due to the enormous economic and materiel support of the US, particularly from 1941-43. In Afghanistan, they failed again in spite of their overwhelming numbers. They did eventually succeed in Chechnya, but even there many historians view it as a Pyrrhic victory.

Secondly, it is a false equivalency (one of those cheap debate terms) to equate the Soviet Army and manpower resources to that of Russia. To remind, Ukraine isn't fighting the Soviet Union. In 1989, the Soviet Union had a population of 250 million people. Russia has a population of 144 million. The Soviet Union manned its forces in WWII through draconian mobilization to defend the Motherland. The little KGB thug in the Kremlin does not dare initiate general mobilization in Russian Federation - particularly in the region of the old Duchy of Moscow which includes Moscow and St. Petersburg to press the invasion of Ukraine and snuff out the right of its people to self-determination.

With respect to your imagined conversation with Putin, I think is also largely devoid of factual content. The Russian military is being defeated. They can not even exercise air superiority over their own territory much less Ukraine. Moreover, their fighters, fighter bombers, strategic bombers and the smart munitions that make them effective are being destroyed in their own bases within Russia. Their army essentially has lost all of its pre-war modernized platforms, and the majority of its experienced soldiers and leadership. There are no million troops waiting in the wings. The Black Sea Fleet was defeated and the remnants withdrawn from the Black Sea. The Russian economy is being held together by baling wire and scotch tape.

They aren't going to match expenditures either. The artificial bulwarks that the Russian government put in place in the spring of 2022 are starting to fail. As of this morning, 100 rubles will buy one dollar and nine cents. I think it is also safe to say the likes of South Africa and Venezuela are not going to save the Russian economy. It is also interesting that the Indian prime minister, holder of a major Russian economic lifeline, met with Zelensky last week.

Finally, the last thing Russia can survive is a nuclear exchange with the West. Putin and his military know this. So does China. Additionally, Putin has no assurance of the state of his own nuclear arsenal. What he can be assured of is that virtually every US and British warhead will get through and accurately strike its target and perform as designed. He also has absolute assurance that in such an exchange, however catastrophic for the West, Russia its people and its culture will cease to exist on this planet. It really isn't much of an option.

I'll add that Ukraine knows Russian military history intimately - willingly or unwillingly, they participated in much of it. It is one of the things that drives their determination to defeat Russia and its ambitions to reclaim them into servitude. I just wish this administration and my party showed a few ounces of that commitment.

 

[Red Leg]

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..

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.

Secondly, the naval port, by nuclear standards represents an easily destroyed target. I am confident that they would not launch many missiles from there.