Trump's Russian Collusion

[Typical Lax Dad]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

So this is a competition now MR you definitely stated on the record your order dogs to people and are absolutely lying now? Unambiguously.

And plenty you fuxk face price of turd. Complete trash.

You purposely don't get it. I am able to rescue dogs & cats, myself. Not so with people. I do what I can.

Uh huh. So you’re saying you are weak in ineffective within human society? Cool that makes sense and tracks.

I can still save the lives of cats & dogs. Give them a new life. Ensure their survival. Helping the people they matter to in the process.
I am no longer able to protect or rescue people. It's not that complicated. I volunteer where I feel I can do the most good.
obtw -- the dogs bring their people with them to the dog park.

Isn’t that called food in many places on this planet?

[old salt]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

So this is a competition now MR you definitely stated on the record your order dogs to people and are absolutely lying now? Unambiguously.

And plenty you fuxk face price of turd. Complete trash.

You purposely don't get it. I am able to rescue dogs & cats, myself. Not so with people. I do what I can.

Uh huh. So you’re saying you are weak in ineffective within human society? Cool that makes sense and tracks.

I can still save the lives of cats & dogs. Give them a new life. Ensure their survival. Helping the people they matter to in the process.
I am no longer able to protect or rescue people. It's not that complicated. I volunteer where I feel I can do the most good.
obtw -- the dogs bring their people with them to the dog park.

Isn’t that called food in many places on this planet?

Not that many, & fewer every day.

[Typical Lax Dad]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

So this is a competition now MR you definitely stated on the record your order dogs to people and are absolutely lying now? Unambiguously.

And plenty you fuxk face price of turd. Complete trash.

You purposely don't get it. I am able to rescue dogs & cats, myself. Not so with people. I do what I can.

Uh huh. So you’re saying you are weak in ineffective within human society? Cool that makes sense and tracks.

I can still save the lives of cats & dogs. Give them a new life. Ensure their survival. Helping the people they matter to in the process.
I am no longer able to protect or rescue people. It's not that complicated. I volunteer where I feel I can do the most good.
obtw -- the dogs bring their people with them to the dog park.

Isn’t that called food in many places on this planet?

Not that many, & fewer every day.

Aren’t illicit drugs illegal here?

[old salt]

Salty's been correct that France and Germany are influenced by their economic interests, gas pipeline etc. What he doesn't recognize is that Trump has pushed them very hard to no longer see their alliance with the US as dependable, thus they need to make it non-essential

Note date...

That part did not age well.

From Defense One's D brief :

One year into efforts to boost production of artillery rounds for Ukraine, the United States and Europe are seeing radically different results, Defense One’s Sam Skove reported Monday.

The gist: The U.S. has increased its output of 155mm shells far faster than it originally forecasted, and plans to increase it further. But Europe has moved more slowly than it intended to, hampered by the consensus-focused nature of regional alliances. Meanwhile NATO, whose own procurement agency is also pursuing the acquisition of more 155mm rounds, is finding that prices have quadrupled.

For one fairly dramatic illustration of the differences, consider this: In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,170) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,500). For comparison, the U.S. currently pays $3,000 for its most modern shells, according to an Army spokesperson.

Scholz spoke to lawmakers as Germany faces a dire financial crunch, which is forcing the country to take on more debt for the fourth consecutive year,

NATO’s battlefield assessment for Ukraine: “Even though the frontline has not moved so much, the Ukrainians have been able to inflict heavy losses on the Russian forces,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Tuesday during a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.

Reminder: “Most people in non-Western countries want Russia’s war on Ukraine to end as soon as possible, even if it means Kyiv ceding territory,” according to pollsters with the European Council on Foreign Relations, writing about two weeks ago.

Additional reading: “'At what cost?' Ukraine strains to bolster its army as war fatigue weighs,” Reuters reported Tuesday from Kyiv.

Yup, the NATO alliance has rebounded from Trump's attempt to break it. Good thing for the Ukrainians, good thing for western democracies.

But hey, obviously the production of artillery shells is a challenge that had not seen such a strain since WWII. Darn "regional alliances", everyone should be on their own...let Ukraine fall to Putin's aggression. Baltics? who cares? Poland? They were part of Russia weren't they?

Trump would have said "not our problem, let Putin have Ukraine, I get along with Vlad". Upside, lots of artillery shells left in the stockpile...

Tucker Carlson now arguing that he doesn't see why we shouldn't support Russia over Ukraine...
Any real doubt about where Hannity will be?

And look what Trump and MAGA are saying now...

So why didn't Putin just seize Ukraine when Trump was President ?

Artillery shells aren't the only expensive critical shortage. Reloads for air defense systems are a concern.
Our (& allied} defense industrial base can't keep up.

I've answered your question now dozens of times.

Putin thought he could achieve the incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian sphere without the huge expenditure of arms and men from his side...with Trump's help in dismantling NATO, undermining Ukraine's resistance and desires to turn westward. NATO in disarray was good for Putin domestically, especially within the hard line folks. That changed when Trump lost in 2020. Putin saw Biden reenergizing the alliance, rebuilding trust between allies, and decided that the situation would get harder for Russia, and for him personally, if he didn't act...part of that was cracking down on all dissent within Russia and the other was to show his hard liners he would act...

Yes, our industrial base is strained to keep up...so is Russia's.
What's the takeaway, Russia should just expand its borders because it's costly to stop them?

Another winter is arriving. The long hyped counter offensive (which we pushed them into) has failed. Casualties remain high on both sides. Shortages of critical munitions persist. Small tactical victories, like securing a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro or drone boat attacks, are hyped, but aren't game changers. The line of control is not changing significantly.

Political support in the west is dissipating. Continued funding is being debated in the US & EU.
Have you given any realistic thought as to how this ends & if it is worth the cost in blood & treasure ?

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

So your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?
My preferred course of action is that we help Ukraine consolidate their hold on the territory they've recovered & devote our mutual resources to continuing to bolster their defensive capabilities to deter future Russian incursions & better defend against attacks from the air.

Yes, it's likely to be another long, cold winter for Ukraine...made much colder and bloodier if we lose our resolve to support their defense of their country.The Ukrainian forces need to hunker down & survive. It is futile, at this point, to seize a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro, then have to hold it all winter, without the ability to reinforce it or strike Crimea from there.

BTW, though we haven't discussed it, I don't admire Kissinger nor would I ever place trust in his judgment. Too much history there.
He was a pragmatic realist, not an idealist. The good far outweighed any bad. Thanks to him, I never had to drop a torpedo on a Russian sub & I always had a ship to return to. He did more for arms control & detente than any other official. We've since squandered some of the good that he achieved.

I do respect his capacity to maintain relationships with leaders, both authoritarian and democratic, across the world over many decades. But not his judgment or personal ethics.

[old salt]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

So this is a competition now MR you definitely stated on the record your order dogs to people and are absolutely lying now? Unambiguously.

And plenty you fuxk face price of turd. Complete trash.

You purposely don't get it. I am able to rescue dogs & cats, myself. Not so with people. I do what I can.

Uh huh. So you’re saying you are weak in ineffective within human society? Cool that makes sense and tracks.

I can still save the lives of cats & dogs. Give them a new life. Ensure their survival. Helping the people they matter to in the process.
I am no longer able to protect or rescue people. It's not that complicated. I volunteer where I feel I can do the most good.
obtw -- the dogs bring their people with them to the dog park.

Isn’t that called food in many places on this planet?

Not that many, & fewer every day.

Aren’t illicit drugs illegal here?

Based on this post, which illicit drug are presently using ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

So this is a competition now MR you definitely stated on the record your order dogs to people and are absolutely lying now? Unambiguously.

And plenty you fuxk face price of turd. Complete trash.

You purposely don't get it. I am able to rescue dogs & cats, myself. Not so with people. I do what I can.

Uh huh. So you’re saying you are weak in ineffective within human society? Cool that makes sense and tracks.

I can still save the lives of cats & dogs. Give them a new life. Ensure their survival. Helping the people they matter to in the process.
I am no longer able to protect or rescue people. It's not that complicated. I volunteer where I feel I can do the most good.
obtw -- the dogs bring their people with them to the dog park.

Isn’t that called food in many places on this planet?

Not that many, & fewer every day.

Aren’t illicit drugs illegal here?

Based on this post, which illicit drug are presently using ?

[MDlaxfan76]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

Serious question: Assuming you mean memorial services for those who lost their lives fighting one or another authoritarians, were their sacrifices "stupid"? Were they "losers"?

Or were those sacrifices important to America and to the freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for 70+ years and today?

I'm referring to lives lost in the line of duty, performing service for the safety & protection of others.

So, including police and fire etc.

But not fighting authoritarian foes, ala the Cold War, etc.

My question still applies, but feel free to limit it to Military. I’d prefer that you further limit it to those fighting authoritarian foes as I asked.

[MDlaxfan76]

Salty's been correct that France and Germany are influenced by their economic interests, gas pipeline etc. What he doesn't recognize is that Trump has pushed them very hard to no longer see their alliance with the US as dependable, thus they need to make it non-essential

Note date...

That part did not age well.

From Defense One's D brief :

One year into efforts to boost production of artillery rounds for Ukraine, the United States and Europe are seeing radically different results, Defense One’s Sam Skove reported Monday.

The gist: The U.S. has increased its output of 155mm shells far faster than it originally forecasted, and plans to increase it further. But Europe has moved more slowly than it intended to, hampered by the consensus-focused nature of regional alliances. Meanwhile NATO, whose own procurement agency is also pursuing the acquisition of more 155mm rounds, is finding that prices have quadrupled.

For one fairly dramatic illustration of the differences, consider this: In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,170) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,500). For comparison, the U.S. currently pays $3,000 for its most modern shells, according to an Army spokesperson.

Scholz spoke to lawmakers as Germany faces a dire financial crunch, which is forcing the country to take on more debt for the fourth consecutive year,

NATO’s battlefield assessment for Ukraine: “Even though the frontline has not moved so much, the Ukrainians have been able to inflict heavy losses on the Russian forces,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Tuesday during a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.

Reminder: “Most people in non-Western countries want Russia’s war on Ukraine to end as soon as possible, even if it means Kyiv ceding territory,” according to pollsters with the European Council on Foreign Relations, writing about two weeks ago.

Additional reading: “'At what cost?' Ukraine strains to bolster its army as war fatigue weighs,” Reuters reported Tuesday from Kyiv.

Yup, the NATO alliance has rebounded from Trump's attempt to break it. Good thing for the Ukrainians, good thing for western democracies.

But hey, obviously the production of artillery shells is a challenge that had not seen such a strain since WWII. Darn "regional alliances", everyone should be on their own...let Ukraine fall to Putin's aggression. Baltics? who cares? Poland? They were part of Russia weren't they?

Trump would have said "not our problem, let Putin have Ukraine, I get along with Vlad". Upside, lots of artillery shells left in the stockpile...

Tucker Carlson now arguing that he doesn't see why we shouldn't support Russia over Ukraine...
Any real doubt about where Hannity will be?

And look what Trump and MAGA are saying now...

So why didn't Putin just seize Ukraine when Trump was President ?

Artillery shells aren't the only expensive critical shortage. Reloads for air defense systems are a concern.
Our (& allied} defense industrial base can't keep up.

I've answered your question now dozens of times.

Putin thought he could achieve the incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian sphere without the huge expenditure of arms and men from his side...with Trump's help in dismantling NATO, undermining Ukraine's resistance and desires to turn westward. NATO in disarray was good for Putin domestically, especially within the hard line folks. That changed when Trump lost in 2020. Putin saw Biden reenergizing the alliance, rebuilding trust between allies, and decided that the situation would get harder for Russia, and for him personally, if he didn't act...part of that was cracking down on all dissent within Russia and the other was to show his hard liners he would act...

Yes, our industrial base is strained to keep up...so is Russia's.
What's the takeaway, Russia should just expand its borders because it's costly to stop them?

Another winter is arriving. The long hyped counter offensive (which we pushed them into) has failed. Casualties remain high on both sides. Shortages of critical munitions persist. Small tactical victories, like securing a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro or drone boat attacks, are hyped, but aren't game changers. The line of control is not changing significantly.

Political support in the west is dissipating. Continued funding is being debated in the US & EU.
Have you given any realistic thought as to how this ends & if it is worth the cost in blood & treasure ?

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

So your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?
My preferred course of action is that we help Ukraine consolidate their hold on the territory they've recovered & devote our mutual resources to continuing to bolster their defensive capabilities to deter future Russian incursions & better defend against attacks from the air.

Yes, it's likely to be another long, cold winter for Ukraine...made much colder and bloodier if we lose our resolve to support their defense of their country.The Ukrainian forces need to hunker down & survive. It is futile, at this point, to seize a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro, then have to hold it all winter, without the ability to reinforce it or strike Crimea from there.

BTW, though we haven't discussed it, I don't admire Kissinger nor would I ever place trust in his judgment. Too much history there.
He was a pragmatic realist, not an idealist. The good far outweighed any bad. Thanks to him, I never had to drop a torpedo on a Russian sub & I always had a ship to return to. He did more for arms control & detente than any other official. We've since squandered some of the good that he achieved.

I do respect his capacity to maintain relationships with leaders, both authoritarian and democratic, across the world over many decades. But not his judgment or personal ethics.

I’m not surprised by your opinion on Kissinger, certainly complicated. But a heck of a lot of Americans and many more Vietnamese and Cambodians would strongly disagree. Think of him as a war criminal. His involvement in the Pentagon Papers, disgraceful.

But complicated.

You avoided the implication of what you had specifically said you would prefer to have happened with Ukraine ala Belarus.

I hear you say to support Ukraine only enough to freeze the current status quo (ignoring that the high likelihood of such restriction would result in you original preference for the expansion of Russian hegemony), but I don’t really believe that Ukraine being free of Russian threat or domination is your goal.

I thought you said it would be impossible for Ukraine to cross the river?
I tend to agree that maintaining that foothold will be difficult and it may make sense to pull back for the winter, but it does demonstrate that it could be done again in the spring. I don’t like to predict specific tactics which may or may not be successful in a particular time frame, but what we do know is that Ukraine has generally over performed versus a much more powerful aggressor.

[cradleandshoot]

Salty's been correct that France and Germany are influenced by their economic interests, gas pipeline etc. What he doesn't recognize is that Trump has pushed them very hard to no longer see their alliance with the US as dependable, thus they need to make it non-essential

Note date...

That part did not age well.

From Defense One's D brief :

One year into efforts to boost production of artillery rounds for Ukraine, the United States and Europe are seeing radically different results, Defense One’s Sam Skove reported Monday.

The gist: The U.S. has increased its output of 155mm shells far faster than it originally forecasted, and plans to increase it further. But Europe has moved more slowly than it intended to, hampered by the consensus-focused nature of regional alliances. Meanwhile NATO, whose own procurement agency is also pursuing the acquisition of more 155mm rounds, is finding that prices have quadrupled.

For one fairly dramatic illustration of the differences, consider this: In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,170) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,500). For comparison, the U.S. currently pays $3,000 for its most modern shells, according to an Army spokesperson.

Scholz spoke to lawmakers as Germany faces a dire financial crunch, which is forcing the country to take on more debt for the fourth consecutive year,

NATO’s battlefield assessment for Ukraine: “Even though the frontline has not moved so much, the Ukrainians have been able to inflict heavy losses on the Russian forces,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Tuesday during a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.

Reminder: “Most people in non-Western countries want Russia’s war on Ukraine to end as soon as possible, even if it means Kyiv ceding territory,” according to pollsters with the European Council on Foreign Relations, writing about two weeks ago.

Additional reading: “'At what cost?' Ukraine strains to bolster its army as war fatigue weighs,” Reuters reported Tuesday from Kyiv.

Yup, the NATO alliance has rebounded from Trump's attempt to break it. Good thing for the Ukrainians, good thing for western democracies.

But hey, obviously the production of artillery shells is a challenge that had not seen such a strain since WWII. Darn "regional alliances", everyone should be on their own...let Ukraine fall to Putin's aggression. Baltics? who cares? Poland? They were part of Russia weren't they?

Trump would have said "not our problem, let Putin have Ukraine, I get along with Vlad". Upside, lots of artillery shells left in the stockpile...

Tucker Carlson now arguing that he doesn't see why we shouldn't support Russia over Ukraine...
Any real doubt about where Hannity will be?

And look what Trump and MAGA are saying now...

So why didn't Putin just seize Ukraine when Trump was President ?

Artillery shells aren't the only expensive critical shortage. Reloads for air defense systems are a concern.
Our (& allied} defense industrial base can't keep up.

I've answered your question now dozens of times.

Putin thought he could achieve the incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian sphere without the huge expenditure of arms and men from his side...with Trump's help in dismantling NATO, undermining Ukraine's resistance and desires to turn westward. NATO in disarray was good for Putin domestically, especially within the hard line folks. That changed when Trump lost in 2020. Putin saw Biden reenergizing the alliance, rebuilding trust between allies, and decided that the situation would get harder for Russia, and for him personally, if he didn't act...part of that was cracking down on all dissent within Russia and the other was to show his hard liners he would act...

Yes, our industrial base is strained to keep up...so is Russia's.
What's the takeaway, Russia should just expand its borders because it's costly to stop them?

Another winter is arriving. The long hyped counter offensive (which we pushed them into) has failed. Casualties remain high on both sides. Shortages of critical munitions persist. Small tactical victories, like securing a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro or drone boat attacks, are hyped, but aren't game changers. The line of control is not changing significantly.

Political support in the west is dissipating. Continued funding is being debated in the US & EU.
Have you given any realistic thought as to how this ends & if it is worth the cost in blood & treasure ?

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

So your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?
My preferred course of action is that we help Ukraine consolidate their hold on the territory they've recovered & devote our mutual resources to continuing to bolster their defensive capabilities to deter future Russian incursions & better defend against attacks from the air.

Yes, it's likely to be another long, cold winter for Ukraine...made much colder and bloodier if we lose our resolve to support their defense of their country.The Ukrainian forces need to hunker down & survive. It is futile, at this point, to seize a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro, then have to hold it all winter, without the ability to reinforce it or strike Crimea from there.

BTW, though we haven't discussed it, I don't admire Kissinger nor would I ever place trust in his judgment. Too much history there.
He was a pragmatic realist, not an idealist. The good far outweighed any bad. Thanks to him, I never had to drop a torpedo on a Russian sub & I always had a ship to return to. He did more for arms control & detente than any other official. We've since squandered some of the good that he achieved.

I do respect his capacity to maintain relationships with leaders, both authoritarian and democratic, across the world over many decades. But not his judgment or personal ethics.

I’m not surprised by your opinion on Kissinger, certainly complicated. But a heck of a lot of Americans and many more Vietnamese and Cambodians would strongly disagree. Think of him as a war criminal. His involvement in the Pentagon Papers, disgraceful.

But complicated.

You avoided the implication of what you had specifically said you would prefer to have happened with Ukraine ala Belarus.

I hear you say to support Ukraine only enough to freeze the current status quo (ignoring that the high likelihood of such restriction would result in you original preference for the expansion of Russian hegemony), but I don’t really believe that Ukraine being free of Russian threat or domination is your goal.

I thought you said it would be impossible for Ukraine to cross the river?
I tend to agree that maintaining that foothold will be difficult and it may make sense to pull back for the winter, but it does demonstrate that it could be done again in the spring. I don’t like to predict specific tactics which may or may not be successful in a particular time frame, but what we do know is that Ukraine has generally over performed versus a much more powerful aggressor.

So what your advocating the Ukrainian military should do resembles spot on the definition of insanity. You keep making the same mistake over and over and over expecting a different result. The Ukrainian army is certainly putting up an incredible fight. The reality is the Ukrainians have zero chance of defeating the Russian invaders. An ongoing stalemate is the reality on the front lines. All the 155 mm artillery rounds in the world are not going to change that fact.

[old salt]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

Serious question: Assuming you mean memorial services for those who lost their lives fighting one or another authoritarians, were their sacrifices "stupid"? Were they "losers"?

Or were those sacrifices important to America and to the freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for 70+ years and today?

I'm referring to lives lost in the line of duty, performing service for the safety & protection of others.

So, including police and fire etc.

But not fighting authoritarian foes, ala the Cold War, etc.

My question still applies, but feel free to limit it to Military. I’d prefer that you further limit it to those fighting authoritarian foes as I asked.

Anyone who puts themselves at risk to help or protect others.
All military -- peacetime or war, first responders, NGO workers in war zones.
I don't know where you came up with the jibberish about authoritarian foes or stupid losers.

[old salt]

Salty's been correct that France and Germany are influenced by their economic interests, gas pipeline etc. What he doesn't recognize is that Trump has pushed them very hard to no longer see their alliance with the US as dependable, thus they need to make it non-essential

Note date...

That part did not age well.

From Defense One's D brief :

One year into efforts to boost production of artillery rounds for Ukraine, the United States and Europe are seeing radically different results, Defense One’s Sam Skove reported Monday.

The gist: The U.S. has increased its output of 155mm shells far faster than it originally forecasted, and plans to increase it further. But Europe has moved more slowly than it intended to, hampered by the consensus-focused nature of regional alliances. Meanwhile NATO, whose own procurement agency is also pursuing the acquisition of more 155mm rounds, is finding that prices have quadrupled.

For one fairly dramatic illustration of the differences, consider this: In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,170) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,500). For comparison, the U.S. currently pays $3,000 for its most modern shells, according to an Army spokesperson.

Scholz spoke to lawmakers as Germany faces a dire financial crunch, which is forcing the country to take on more debt for the fourth consecutive year,

NATO’s battlefield assessment for Ukraine: “Even though the frontline has not moved so much, the Ukrainians have been able to inflict heavy losses on the Russian forces,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Tuesday during a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.

Reminder: “Most people in non-Western countries want Russia’s war on Ukraine to end as soon as possible, even if it means Kyiv ceding territory,” according to pollsters with the European Council on Foreign Relations, writing about two weeks ago.

Additional reading: “'At what cost?' Ukraine strains to bolster its army as war fatigue weighs,” Reuters reported Tuesday from Kyiv.

Yup, the NATO alliance has rebounded from Trump's attempt to break it. Good thing for the Ukrainians, good thing for western democracies.

But hey, obviously the production of artillery shells is a challenge that had not seen such a strain since WWII. Darn "regional alliances", everyone should be on their own...let Ukraine fall to Putin's aggression. Baltics? who cares? Poland? They were part of Russia weren't they?

Trump would have said "not our problem, let Putin have Ukraine, I get along with Vlad". Upside, lots of artillery shells left in the stockpile...

Tucker Carlson now arguing that he doesn't see why we shouldn't support Russia over Ukraine...
Any real doubt about where Hannity will be?

And look what Trump and MAGA are saying now...

So why didn't Putin just seize Ukraine when Trump was President ?

Artillery shells aren't the only expensive critical shortage. Reloads for air defense systems are a concern.
Our (& allied} defense industrial base can't keep up.

I've answered your question now dozens of times.

Putin thought he could achieve the incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian sphere without the huge expenditure of arms and men from his side...with Trump's help in dismantling NATO, undermining Ukraine's resistance and desires to turn westward. NATO in disarray was good for Putin domestically, especially within the hard line folks. That changed when Trump lost in 2020. Putin saw Biden reenergizing the alliance, rebuilding trust between allies, and decided that the situation would get harder for Russia, and for him personally, if he didn't act...part of that was cracking down on all dissent within Russia and the other was to show his hard liners he would act...

Yes, our industrial base is strained to keep up...so is Russia's.
What's the takeaway, Russia should just expand its borders because it's costly to stop them?

Another winter is arriving. The long hyped counter offensive (which we pushed them into) has failed. Casualties remain high on both sides. Shortages of critical munitions persist. Small tactical victories, like securing a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro or drone boat attacks, are hyped, but aren't game changers. The line of control is not changing significantly.

Political support in the west is dissipating. Continued funding is being debated in the US & EU.
Have you given any realistic thought as to how this ends & if it is worth the cost in blood & treasure ?

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

So your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?
My preferred course of action is that we help Ukraine consolidate their hold on the territory they've recovered & devote our mutual resources to continuing to bolster their defensive capabilities to deter future Russian incursions & better defend against attacks from the air.

Yes, it's likely to be another long, cold winter for Ukraine...made much colder and bloodier if we lose our resolve to support their defense of their country.The Ukrainian forces need to hunker down & survive. It is futile, at this point, to seize a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro, then have to hold it all winter, without the ability to reinforce it or strike Crimea from there.

BTW, though we haven't discussed it, I don't admire Kissinger nor would I ever place trust in his judgment. Too much history there.
He was a pragmatic realist, not an idealist. The good far outweighed any bad. Thanks to him, I never had to drop a torpedo on a Russian sub & I always had a ship to return to. He did more for arms control & detente than any other official. We've since squandered some of the good that he achieved.

I do respect his capacity to maintain relationships with leaders, both authoritarian and democratic, across the world over many decades. But not his judgment or personal ethics.

I’m not surprised by your opinion on Kissinger, certainly complicated. But a heck of a lot of Americans and many more Vietnamese and Cambodians would strongly disagree. Think of him as a war criminal. His involvement in the Pentagon Papers, disgraceful.

But complicated.

You avoided the implication of what you had specifically said you would prefer to have happened with Ukraine ala Belarus.
I have no idea what you are implying. I want stability & peace. I do not advocate fomenting revolution & regime change under the guise of spreading democracy. I do not consider it our responsibility to manage the dissolution of the USSR.

I hear you say to support Ukraine only enough to freeze the current status quo (ignoring that the high likelihood of such restriction would result in you original preference for the expansion of Russian hegemony), but I don’t really believe that Ukraine being free of Russian threat or domination is your goal.I don't give a fig about your fevered dreams about what I think. As always, I want stability & the fighting & dying to stop.

I thought you said it would be impossible for Ukraine to cross the river?
It still is. They have small units, on the L bank. They have not established a crossing. Any bridge will be targeted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/02/worl ... attle.html
The ultimate objectives of the Ukrainian campaign remain unclear: Is it aimed mainly at unbalancing Russian forces — using limited assaults to force the Kremlin to move troops to the area, hoping to create weaknesses along other parts of the front? Or does Ukraine have more ambitious objectives, like trying to mount a major cross-river assault aimed at taking back a substantial amount of territory and dramatically reshaping a front line that has barely moved in a year?

Many Western military analysts have voiced skepticism that Ukraine can establish the kind of bridgehead that would allow its forces to move artillery and heavy armor across the river, which they would need to carry out large-scale offensive operations.

...the fighting is taking a heavy toll on Ukrainian forces, with soldiers releasing combat footage of fierce fighting and harsh living conditions. To expand their tenuous hold on the Dnipro’s eastern bank, the Ukrainians need to find reliable ways to get supplies and reinforcements across the river — no easy task. “A river crossing under fire is one of the most difficult operations in land warfare,” said John D. Hosler, a professor of military history at the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. “Imagine an hourglass, in which the sand flows from one large container through a narrow channel into another: River crossings are the horizontal expression of the same.”

I tend to agree that maintaining that foothold will be difficult and it may make sense to pull back for the winter, but it does demonstrate that it could be done again in the spring. I don’t like to predict specific tactics which may or may not be successful in a particular time frame, but what we do know is that Ukraine has generally over performed versus a much more powerful aggressor.

[MDlaxfan76]

Salty's been correct that France and Germany are influenced by their economic interests, gas pipeline etc. What he doesn't recognize is that Trump has pushed them very hard to no longer see their alliance with the US as dependable, thus they need to make it non-essential

Note date...

That part did not age well.

From Defense One's D brief :

One year into efforts to boost production of artillery rounds for Ukraine, the United States and Europe are seeing radically different results, Defense One’s Sam Skove reported Monday.

The gist: The U.S. has increased its output of 155mm shells far faster than it originally forecasted, and plans to increase it further. But Europe has moved more slowly than it intended to, hampered by the consensus-focused nature of regional alliances. Meanwhile NATO, whose own procurement agency is also pursuing the acquisition of more 155mm rounds, is finding that prices have quadrupled.

For one fairly dramatic illustration of the differences, consider this: In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,170) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,500). For comparison, the U.S. currently pays $3,000 for its most modern shells, according to an Army spokesperson.

Scholz spoke to lawmakers as Germany faces a dire financial crunch, which is forcing the country to take on more debt for the fourth consecutive year,

NATO’s battlefield assessment for Ukraine: “Even though the frontline has not moved so much, the Ukrainians have been able to inflict heavy losses on the Russian forces,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Tuesday during a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.

Reminder: “Most people in non-Western countries want Russia’s war on Ukraine to end as soon as possible, even if it means Kyiv ceding territory,” according to pollsters with the European Council on Foreign Relations, writing about two weeks ago.

Additional reading: “'At what cost?' Ukraine strains to bolster its army as war fatigue weighs,” Reuters reported Tuesday from Kyiv.

Yup, the NATO alliance has rebounded from Trump's attempt to break it. Good thing for the Ukrainians, good thing for western democracies.

But hey, obviously the production of artillery shells is a challenge that had not seen such a strain since WWII. Darn "regional alliances", everyone should be on their own...let Ukraine fall to Putin's aggression. Baltics? who cares? Poland? They were part of Russia weren't they?

Trump would have said "not our problem, let Putin have Ukraine, I get along with Vlad". Upside, lots of artillery shells left in the stockpile...

Tucker Carlson now arguing that he doesn't see why we shouldn't support Russia over Ukraine...
Any real doubt about where Hannity will be?

And look what Trump and MAGA are saying now...

So why didn't Putin just seize Ukraine when Trump was President ?

Artillery shells aren't the only expensive critical shortage. Reloads for air defense systems are a concern.
Our (& allied} defense industrial base can't keep up.

I've answered your question now dozens of times.

Putin thought he could achieve the incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian sphere without the huge expenditure of arms and men from his side...with Trump's help in dismantling NATO, undermining Ukraine's resistance and desires to turn westward. NATO in disarray was good for Putin domestically, especially within the hard line folks. That changed when Trump lost in 2020. Putin saw Biden reenergizing the alliance, rebuilding trust between allies, and decided that the situation would get harder for Russia, and for him personally, if he didn't act...part of that was cracking down on all dissent within Russia and the other was to show his hard liners he would act...

Yes, our industrial base is strained to keep up...so is Russia's.
What's the takeaway, Russia should just expand its borders because it's costly to stop them?

Another winter is arriving. The long hyped counter offensive (which we pushed them into) has failed. Casualties remain high on both sides. Shortages of critical munitions persist. Small tactical victories, like securing a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro or drone boat attacks, are hyped, but aren't game changers. The line of control is not changing significantly.

Political support in the west is dissipating. Continued funding is being debated in the US & EU.
Have you given any realistic thought as to how this ends & if it is worth the cost in blood & treasure ?

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

So your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?
My preferred course of action is that we help Ukraine consolidate their hold on the territory they've recovered & devote our mutual resources to continuing to bolster their defensive capabilities to deter future Russian incursions & better defend against attacks from the air.

Yes, it's likely to be another long, cold winter for Ukraine...made much colder and bloodier if we lose our resolve to support their defense of their country.The Ukrainian forces need to hunker down & survive. It is futile, at this point, to seize a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro, then have to hold it all winter, without the ability to reinforce it or strike Crimea from there.

BTW, though we haven't discussed it, I don't admire Kissinger nor would I ever place trust in his judgment. Too much history there.
He was a pragmatic realist, not an idealist. The good far outweighed any bad. Thanks to him, I never had to drop a torpedo on a Russian sub & I always had a ship to return to. He did more for arms control & detente than any other official. We've since squandered some of the good that he achieved.

I do respect his capacity to maintain relationships with leaders, both authoritarian and democratic, across the world over many decades. But not his judgment or personal ethics.

I’m not surprised by your opinion on Kissinger, certainly complicated. But a heck of a lot of Americans and many more Vietnamese and Cambodians would strongly disagree. Think of him as a war criminal. His involvement in the Pentagon Papers, disgraceful.

But complicated.

You avoided the implication of what you had specifically said you would prefer to have happened with Ukraine ala Belarus.

I hear you say to support Ukraine only enough to freeze the current status quo (ignoring that the high likelihood of such restriction would result in you original preference for the expansion of Russian hegemony), but I don’t really believe that Ukraine being free of Russian threat or domination is your goal.

I thought you said it would be impossible for Ukraine to cross the river?
I tend to agree that maintaining that foothold will be difficult and it may make sense to pull back for the winter, but it does demonstrate that it could be done again in the spring. I don’t like to predict specific tactics which may or may not be successful in a particular time frame, but what we do know is that Ukraine has generally over performed versus a much more powerful aggressor.

So what your advocating the Ukrainian military should do resembles spot on the definition of insanity. You keep making the same mistake over and over and over expecting a different result. The Ukrainian army is certainly putting up an incredible fight. The reality is the Ukrainians have zero chance of defeating the Russian invaders. An ongoing stalemate is the reality on the front lines. All the 155 mm artillery rounds in the world are not going to change that fact.

If the Ukrainians "have zero chances of defeating the Russian invaders" why would you think this ends in a stalemate rather than Russia simply bludgeoning them into submission? Putin's ambitions don't include a stalemate.

My issue with Salty's argument is that he would have preferred Ukraine's submission without a fight. Said so.

[MDlaxfan76]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

Serious question: Assuming you mean memorial services for those who lost their lives fighting one or another authoritarians, were their sacrifices "stupid"? Were they "losers"?

Or were those sacrifices important to America and to the freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for 70+ years and today?

I'm referring to lives lost in the line of duty, performing service for the safety & protection of others.

So, including police and fire etc.

But not fighting authoritarian foes, ala the Cold War, etc.

My question still applies, but feel free to limit it to Military. I’d prefer that you further limit it to those fighting authoritarian foes as I asked.

Anyone who puts themselves at risk to help or protect others.
All military -- peacetime or war, first responders, NGO workers in war zones.
I don't know where you came up with the jibberish about authoritarian foes or stupid losers.

Ukrainians fighting Putin's Russia was the topic, you threw in "Cold War"...are those who fight authoritarians losers and suckers as Trump says?

[old salt]

My issue with Salty's argument is that he would have preferred Ukraine's submission without a fight. Said so.

Which you mischaracterize, as usual. I would have preferred that Ukraine find a way to peacefully coexist with Russia, like the rest of the former Russian Soviet Republics did, but we interfered to prevent that. I preferred a peaceful solution via the Minsk process & non-NATO neutrality.

[old salt]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

Serious question: Assuming you mean memorial services for those who lost their lives fighting one or another authoritarians, were their sacrifices "stupid"? Were they "losers"?

Or were those sacrifices important to America and to the freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for 70+ years and today?

I'm referring to lives lost in the line of duty, performing service for the safety & protection of others.

So, including police and fire etc.

But not fighting authoritarian foes, ala the Cold War, etc.

My question still applies, but feel free to limit it to Military. I’d prefer that you further limit it to those fighting authoritarian foes as I asked.

Anyone who puts themselves at risk to help or protect others.
All military -- peacetime or war, first responders, NGO workers in war zones.
I don't know where you came up with the jibberish about authoritarian foes or stupid losers.

Ukrainians fighting Putin's Russia was the topic, you threw in "Cold War"...are those who fight authoritarians losers and suckers as Trump says?

Mr self-anointed forum moderator -- I was responding to a personal attack unrelated to the topic.

[Typical Lax Dad]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

Serious question: Assuming you mean memorial services for those who lost their lives fighting one or another authoritarians, were their sacrifices "stupid"? Were they "losers"?

Or were those sacrifices important to America and to the freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for 70+ years and today?

I'm referring to lives lost in the line of duty, performing service for the safety & protection of others.

So, including police and fire etc.

But not fighting authoritarian foes, ala the Cold War, etc.

My question still applies, but feel free to limit it to Military. I’d prefer that you further limit it to those fighting authoritarian foes as I asked.

Anyone who puts themselves at risk to help or protect others.
All military -- peacetime or war, first responders, NGO workers in war zones.
I don't know where you came up with the jibberish about authoritarian foes or stupid losers.

Ukrainians fighting Putin's Russia was the topic, you threw in "Cold War"...are those who fight authoritarians losers and suckers as Trump says?

Mr self-anointed forum moderator -- I was responding to a personal attack unrelated to the topic.

[cradleandshoot]

Salty's been correct that France and Germany are influenced by their economic interests, gas pipeline etc. What he doesn't recognize is that Trump has pushed them very hard to no longer see their alliance with the US as dependable, thus they need to make it non-essential

Note date...

That part did not age well.

From Defense One's D brief :

One year into efforts to boost production of artillery rounds for Ukraine, the United States and Europe are seeing radically different results, Defense One’s Sam Skove reported Monday.

The gist: The U.S. has increased its output of 155mm shells far faster than it originally forecasted, and plans to increase it further. But Europe has moved more slowly than it intended to, hampered by the consensus-focused nature of regional alliances. Meanwhile NATO, whose own procurement agency is also pursuing the acquisition of more 155mm rounds, is finding that prices have quadrupled.

For one fairly dramatic illustration of the differences, consider this: In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,170) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,500). For comparison, the U.S. currently pays $3,000 for its most modern shells, according to an Army spokesperson.

Scholz spoke to lawmakers as Germany faces a dire financial crunch, which is forcing the country to take on more debt for the fourth consecutive year,

NATO’s battlefield assessment for Ukraine: “Even though the frontline has not moved so much, the Ukrainians have been able to inflict heavy losses on the Russian forces,” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Tuesday during a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels.

Reminder: “Most people in non-Western countries want Russia’s war on Ukraine to end as soon as possible, even if it means Kyiv ceding territory,” according to pollsters with the European Council on Foreign Relations, writing about two weeks ago.

Additional reading: “'At what cost?' Ukraine strains to bolster its army as war fatigue weighs,” Reuters reported Tuesday from Kyiv.

Yup, the NATO alliance has rebounded from Trump's attempt to break it. Good thing for the Ukrainians, good thing for western democracies.

But hey, obviously the production of artillery shells is a challenge that had not seen such a strain since WWII. Darn "regional alliances", everyone should be on their own...let Ukraine fall to Putin's aggression. Baltics? who cares? Poland? They were part of Russia weren't they?

Trump would have said "not our problem, let Putin have Ukraine, I get along with Vlad". Upside, lots of artillery shells left in the stockpile...

Tucker Carlson now arguing that he doesn't see why we shouldn't support Russia over Ukraine...
Any real doubt about where Hannity will be?

And look what Trump and MAGA are saying now...

So why didn't Putin just seize Ukraine when Trump was President ?

Artillery shells aren't the only expensive critical shortage. Reloads for air defense systems are a concern.
Our (& allied} defense industrial base can't keep up.

I've answered your question now dozens of times.

Putin thought he could achieve the incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian sphere without the huge expenditure of arms and men from his side...with Trump's help in dismantling NATO, undermining Ukraine's resistance and desires to turn westward. NATO in disarray was good for Putin domestically, especially within the hard line folks. That changed when Trump lost in 2020. Putin saw Biden reenergizing the alliance, rebuilding trust between allies, and decided that the situation would get harder for Russia, and for him personally, if he didn't act...part of that was cracking down on all dissent within Russia and the other was to show his hard liners he would act...

Yes, our industrial base is strained to keep up...so is Russia's.
What's the takeaway, Russia should just expand its borders because it's costly to stop them?

Another winter is arriving. The long hyped counter offensive (which we pushed them into) has failed. Casualties remain high on both sides. Shortages of critical munitions persist. Small tactical victories, like securing a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro or drone boat attacks, are hyped, but aren't game changers. The line of control is not changing significantly.

Political support in the west is dissipating. Continued funding is being debated in the US & EU.
Have you given any realistic thought as to how this ends & if it is worth the cost in blood & treasure ?

Over the past 20 years, we've lead the Ukrainians down a primrose path of revolutions, regime changes & finally a war as our proxies, which has destroyed much of their country & devastated their population & society. It did not have to go this way. Had Ukraine gone the way of Belarus & joined the Union State, a tremendous amount of suffering would have been averted, & long term stability would have been promoted. You neocons have your latest forever war. This time via proxy (so far). You've created a 4 nation axis against us, for an open ended Cold War. A sad send off for Henry K. https://www.ft.com/content/c43f8269-b30 ... 8a137f1dd6

So your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?
My preferred course of action is that we help Ukraine consolidate their hold on the territory they've recovered & devote our mutual resources to continuing to bolster their defensive capabilities to deter future Russian incursions & better defend against attacks from the air.

Yes, it's likely to be another long, cold winter for Ukraine...made much colder and bloodier if we lose our resolve to support their defense of their country.The Ukrainian forces need to hunker down & survive. It is futile, at this point, to seize a small bridgehead on the L bank of the Dnipro, then have to hold it all winter, without the ability to reinforce it or strike Crimea from there.

BTW, though we haven't discussed it, I don't admire Kissinger nor would I ever place trust in his judgment. Too much history there.
He was a pragmatic realist, not an idealist. The good far outweighed any bad. Thanks to him, I never had to drop a torpedo on a Russian sub & I always had a ship to return to. He did more for arms control & detente than any other official. We've since squandered some of the good that he achieved.

I do respect his capacity to maintain relationships with leaders, both authoritarian and democratic, across the world over many decades. But not his judgment or personal ethics.

I’m not surprised by your opinion on Kissinger, certainly complicated. But a heck of a lot of Americans and many more Vietnamese and Cambodians would strongly disagree. Think of him as a war criminal. His involvement in the Pentagon Papers, disgraceful.

But complicated.

You avoided the implication of what you had specifically said you would prefer to have happened with Ukraine ala Belarus.

I hear you say to support Ukraine only enough to freeze the current status quo (ignoring that the high likelihood of such restriction would result in you original preference for the expansion of Russian hegemony), but I don’t really believe that Ukraine being free of Russian threat or domination is your goal.

I thought you said it would be impossible for Ukraine to cross the river?
I tend to agree that maintaining that foothold will be difficult and it may make sense to pull back for the winter, but it does demonstrate that it could be done again in the spring. I don’t like to predict specific tactics which may or may not be successful in a particular time frame, but what we do know is that Ukraine has generally over performed versus a much more powerful aggressor.

So what your advocating the Ukrainian military should do resembles spot on the definition of insanity. You keep making the same mistake over and over and over expecting a different result. The Ukrainian army is certainly putting up an incredible fight. The reality is the Ukrainians have zero chance of defeating the Russian invaders. An ongoing stalemate is the reality on the front lines. All the 155 mm artillery rounds in the world are not going to change that fact.

If the Ukrainians "have zero chances of defeating the Russian invaders" why would you think this ends in a stalemate rather than Russia simply bludgeoning them into submission? Putin's ambitions don't include a stalemate.

My issue with Salty's argument is that he would have preferred Ukraine's submission without a fight. Said so.

Because it becomes a war of attrition. I'm not sure how much more human capital Ukraine has to provide to the meat grinder or war. All I see is a stalemate and a continuation of the stus quo.

[MDlaxfan76]

My issue with Salty's argument is that he would have preferred Ukraine's submission without a fight. Said so.

Which you mischaracterize, as usual. I would have preferred that Ukraine find a way to peacefully coexist with Russia, like the rest of the former Russian Soviet Republics did, but we interfered to prevent that. I preferred a peaceful solution via the Minsk process & non-NATO neutrality.

Belarus.

Union State

[MDlaxfan76]

When some people talk about lives lost in other countries I wonder how little they care when they use that as a cheap prop to try and win an argument.

How many Memorial Services for lost friends have you participated in, sport ?....& I don't mean OD's.

Serious question: Assuming you mean memorial services for those who lost their lives fighting one or another authoritarians, were their sacrifices "stupid"? Were they "losers"?

Or were those sacrifices important to America and to the freedoms and prosperity we have enjoyed for 70+ years and today?

I'm referring to lives lost in the line of duty, performing service for the safety & protection of others.

So, including police and fire etc.

But not fighting authoritarian foes, ala the Cold War, etc.

My question still applies, but feel free to limit it to Military. I’d prefer that you further limit it to those fighting authoritarian foes as I asked.

Anyone who puts themselves at risk to help or protect others.
All military -- peacetime or war, first responders, NGO workers in war zones.
I don't know where you came up with the jibberish about authoritarian foes or stupid losers.

Ukrainians fighting Putin's Russia was the topic, you threw in "Cold War"...are those who fight authoritarians losers and suckers as Trump says?

Mr self-anointed forum moderator -- I was responding to a personal attack unrelated to the topic.

I asked a direct, serious question which you have avoided answering again and again and again. Is the question making you uncomfortable? Needing to confront the implications of your views as expressed?

[Typical Lax Dad]

My issue with Salty's argument is that he would have preferred Ukraine's submission without a fight. Said so.

Which you mischaracterize, as usual. I would have preferred that Ukraine find a way to peacefully coexist with Russia, like the rest of the former Russian Soviet Republics did, but we interfered to prevent that. I preferred a peaceful solution via the Minsk process & non-NATO neutrality.

Belarus.

Union State

Did Putin run all the Nazis out yet?