All Things Russia & Ukraine

[DocBarrister]

]Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.

That's the point: "somehow" you "found" the time to whine about Biden's spending in Ukraine.
That's a military & national security issue. Areas which I follow more Closely, In which I have some experience & care enough about to comment.

After----coincidentally------not finding the time in four years of Trump to make one single solitary sole complaint about all this reckless spending.
I did not consider his spending on the military or national security to be reckless. I considered it prudent & long overdue catch up spending.

This is how you operate: when a D is in charge, you throw the kitchen sink at every decision, explaining how it's bad. This time, hilariously, you're griping about money, grasping at straws to throw at Biden....when you transparently don't care about Federal spending, and never have in a decade plus of point.

When a R is in charge, out comes the peripatetic Old Salt, telling all of us how hard it is to execute foreign policy.
I never said it was ez, under any admin. I just feel the Dems are making more mistakes.

It renders your commentary pointless, and it's why your fellow posters are all giving you grief. You're hitting Biden for doing what you'd normally support... if Biden simply had a R by his name, OS.

You'd be asking us: "what's Biden supposed to do here...he's between a rock and a hard place, and our NATO allies have left him twisting in the wind"
imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide. He says he needs 100 HIMARS, we only have 410 for our own forces. We can't give him any weapons that would be compromised if captured by the Russians. The more we provide, the more Russia will ecalate. Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

And you'd be right.

I don’t understand what you want to happen in Ukraine. Putin clearly won’t accept anything less than regime change and de facto control of all of Ukraine. Lavrov said as much.

Do you want Ukraine to simply call it quits and surrender to Putin?

You do understand that Putin won’t settle for anything less, correct?

So what are you proposing? Putin is not going to stop this war until he achieves regime change in Kyiv or until he loses this war.

What is it that you want to see happen?

DocBarrister

Putin can't get what his army can't accomplish. Stalemate. Ceasefire in place. Frozen conflict. Life returns to some sense of normalcy.
80% of Ukraine recovers, democratizes, arms itself & prospers, as S Korea has done with only 50% of Korea.

Any ceasefire or “stalemate” would be temporary. Putin will attack again once his forces are ready. In fact, this latest invasion is simply a new phase of the war he began in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea and occupation of parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Putin will not stop until he is defeated.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

This is why everyone here knows you don't give two figs about spending in Ukraine. You're throwing stones at Biden's little D.

That's it. That's what all your Ukraine complaining is about----Biden is a Dem. The dumbest adult in America understands that Biden is between a rock and a hard place in Ukraine. And after Trump operating for four years without you making a single complaint about his foreign policy, or anything Trump utters-----you hold Biden to an impossible standard that no President can meet.

It's what you do, OS. And it's why everyone here gives your grief. It's Republican horsehockey.

Yeah. I'm not troubled at all about the needless slaughter in Ukraine & our proxies, using US weapons, fighting Russia on their border.
What, me worry ?

Sure I agreed with Trump's foreign policy. He rearmed us, finished off ISIS, bombed Assad's Russian chem warfare base, saved the Kurds in Syria while avoiding conflict with Turkey & Russia, took out Soleimani, got NATO off their asz, warned the EU about their energy vulnerability, made the US a net energy exporter & didn't get us involved in any stupid wars.
Why did Putin wait until Trump left office to make this move ?
Biden bungled the hasty Afghan pullout & has given Ukraine an unconditional open-ended blank check, while telling the public that Ukraine can win & backing our allies up against a wall.

Not everyone disagrees with me. Just you & your fellow travelers.

[old salt]

]Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.

That's the point: "somehow" you "found" the time to whine about Biden's spending in Ukraine.
That's a military & national security issue. Areas which I follow more Closely, In which I have some experience & care enough about to comment.

After----coincidentally------not finding the time in four years of Trump to make one single solitary sole complaint about all this reckless spending.
I did not consider his spending on the military or national security to be reckless. I considered it prudent & long overdue catch up spending.

This is how you operate: when a D is in charge, you throw the kitchen sink at every decision, explaining how it's bad. This time, hilariously, you're griping about money, grasping at straws to throw at Biden....when you transparently don't care about Federal spending, and never have in a decade plus of point.

When a R is in charge, out comes the peripatetic Old Salt, telling all of us how hard it is to execute foreign policy.
I never said it was ez, under any admin. I just feel the Dems are making more mistakes.

It renders your commentary pointless, and it's why your fellow posters are all giving you grief. You're hitting Biden for doing what you'd normally support... if Biden simply had a R by his name, OS.

You'd be asking us: "what's Biden supposed to do here...he's between a rock and a hard place, and our NATO allies have left him twisting in the wind"
imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide. He says he needs 100 HIMARS, we only have 410 for our own forces. We can't give him any weapons that would be compromised if captured by the Russians. The more we provide, the more Russia will ecalate. Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

And you'd be right.

I don’t understand what you want to happen in Ukraine. Putin clearly won’t accept anything less than regime change and de facto control of all of Ukraine. Lavrov said as much.

Do you want Ukraine to simply call it quits and surrender to Putin?

You do understand that Putin won’t settle for anything less, correct?

So what are you proposing? Putin is not going to stop this war until he achieves regime change in Kyiv or until he loses this war.

What is it that you want to see happen?

DocBarrister

Putin can't get what his army can't accomplish. Stalemate. Ceasefire in place. Frozen conflict. Life returns to some sense of normalcy.
80% of Ukraine recovers, democratizes, arms itself & prospers, as S Korea has done with only 50% of Korea.

Any ceasefire or “stalemate” would be temporary. Putin will attack again once his forces are ready. In fact, this latest invasion is simply a new phase of the war he began in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea and occupation of parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Putin will not stop until he is defeated.

DocBarrister

Ukraine will have to continue to build their military & to defend their borders, as they should have been doing for the past 3 decades.
The EU will have to step up & join us in helping Ukraine re-arm, & take the lead in helping them resettle their refugees & displaced & to rebuild their economy, since they've been promised EU membership. Ukraine is now the EU's foster child.

[DocBarrister]

This is why everyone here knows you don't give two figs about spending in Ukraine. You're throwing stones at Biden's little D.

That's it. That's what all your Ukraine complaining is about----Biden is a Dem. The dumbest adult in America understands that Biden is between a rock and a hard place in Ukraine. And after Trump operating for four years without you making a single complaint about his foreign policy, or anything Trump utters-----you hold Biden to an impossible standard that no President can meet.

It's what you do, OS. And it's why everyone here gives your grief. It's Republican horsehockey.

Yeah. I'm not troubled at all about the needless slaughter in Ukraine & our proxies, using US weapons, fighting Russia on their border.
What, me worry ?

Sure I agreed with Trump's foreign policy. He rearmed us, finished off ISIS, bombed Assad's Russian chem warfare base, saved the Kurds in Syria while avoiding conflict with Turkey & Russia, took out Soleimani, got NATO off their asz, warned the EU about their energy vulnerability, made the US a net energy exporter & didn't get us involved in any stupid wars.
Why did Putin wait until Trump left office to make this move ?
Biden bungled the hasty Afghan pullout & has given Ukraine an unconditional open-ended blank check, while telling the public that Ukraine can win & backing our allies up against a wall.

Not everyone disagrees with me. Just you & your fellow travelers.

Trump also genuflected before his master, Vladimir Putin.

Is that the real reason you liked Trump?

If Russians continue to be slaughtered at a dizzying rate, that is completely Putin’s fault.

We need to keep supplying Ukraine with advanced weapons systems so that they can weaken or annihilate Russia’s forces.

That means more HIMARS, more rockets for HIMARS, more training, more spare parts. I think it’s also time for the Biden Administration to consider giving Ukraine the longer-range 190-mile ATACMS systems so that they can attack deeper Russian positions and keep their artillery rocket systems farther behind front lines.

We should also provide Ukraine with more advanced air defense systems and anti-ship systems.

Also, Crimea belongs to Ukraine. I think the Biden Administration should loosen any restrictions on attacking Russian positions in Crimea and even the Crimean Bridge.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

]Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.

That's the point: "somehow" you "found" the time to whine about Biden's spending in Ukraine.
That's a military & national security issue. Areas which I follow more Closely, In which I have some experience & care enough about to comment.

After----coincidentally------not finding the time in four years of Trump to make one single solitary sole complaint about all this reckless spending.
I did not consider his spending on the military or national security to be reckless. I considered it prudent & long overdue catch up spending.

This is how you operate: when a D is in charge, you throw the kitchen sink at every decision, explaining how it's bad. This time, hilariously, you're griping about money, grasping at straws to throw at Biden....when you transparently don't care about Federal spending, and never have in a decade plus of point.

When a R is in charge, out comes the peripatetic Old Salt, telling all of us how hard it is to execute foreign policy.
I never said it was ez, under any admin. I just feel the Dems are making more mistakes.

It renders your commentary pointless, and it's why your fellow posters are all giving you grief. You're hitting Biden for doing what you'd normally support... if Biden simply had a R by his name, OS.

You'd be asking us: "what's Biden supposed to do here...he's between a rock and a hard place, and our NATO allies have left him twisting in the wind"
imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide. He says he needs 100 HIMARS, we only have 410 for our own forces. We can't give him any weapons that would be compromised if captured by the Russians. The more we provide, the more Russia will ecalate. Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

And you'd be right.

I don’t understand what you want to happen in Ukraine. Putin clearly won’t accept anything less than regime change and de facto control of all of Ukraine. Lavrov said as much.

Do you want Ukraine to simply call it quits and surrender to Putin?

You do understand that Putin won’t settle for anything less, correct?

So what are you proposing? Putin is not going to stop this war until he achieves regime change in Kyiv or until he loses this war.

What is it that you want to see happen?

DocBarrister

Putin can't get what his army can't accomplish. Stalemate. Ceasefire in place. Frozen conflict. Life returns to some sense of normalcy.
80% of Ukraine recovers, democratizes, arms itself & prospers, as S Korea has done with only 50% of Korea.

Any ceasefire or “stalemate” would be temporary. Putin will attack again once his forces are ready. In fact, this latest invasion is simply a new phase of the war he began in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea and occupation of parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Putin will not stop until he is defeated.

DocBarrister

Ukraine will have to continue to build their military & to defend their borders, as they should have been doing for the past 3 decades.
The EU will have to step up & join us in helping Ukraine re-arm, & take the lead in helping them resettle their refugees & displaced & to rebuild their economy, since they've been promised EU membership. Ukraine is now the EU's foster child.

It may be time for you to stop blaming the victim (Ukraine) here.

We have heard similar blame-the-victim garbage in other historical contexts involving murderous imperial powers (for example, Imperial Japan against Korea, the British Empire against Ireland).

Oh, only if those victimized nations had been stronger and tougher!



Seriously, what a bunch of BS.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

This is why everyone here knows you don't give two figs about spending in Ukraine. You're throwing stones at Biden's little D.

That's it. That's what all your Ukraine complaining is about----Biden is a Dem. The dumbest adult in America understands that Biden is between a rock and a hard place in Ukraine. And after Trump operating for four years without you making a single complaint about his foreign policy, or anything Trump utters-----you hold Biden to an impossible standard that no President can meet.

It's what you do, OS. And it's why everyone here gives your grief. It's Republican horsehockey.

Yeah. I'm not troubled at all about the needless slaughter in Ukraine & our proxies, using US weapons, fighting Russia on their border.
What, me worry ?

Sure I agreed with Trump's foreign policy. He rearmed us, finished off ISIS, bombed Assad's Russian chem warfare base, saved the Kurds in Syria while avoiding conflict with Turkey & Russia, took out Soleimani, got NATO off their asz, warned the EU about their energy vulnerability, made the US a net energy exporter & didn't get us involved in any stupid wars.
Why did Putin wait until Trump left office to make this move ?
Biden bungled the hasty Afghan pullout & has given Ukraine an unconditional open-ended blank check, while telling the public that Ukraine can win & backing our allies up against a wall.

Not everyone disagrees with me. Just you & your fellow travelers.

Trump also genuflected before his master, Vladimir Putin.

Is that the real reason you liked Trump?

If Russians continue to be slaughtered at a dizzying rate, that is completely Putin’s fault.

We need to keep supplying Ukraine with advanced weapons systems so that they can weaken or annihilate Russia’s forces.

That means more HIMARS, more rockets for HIMARS, more training, more spare parts. I think it’s also time for the Biden Administration to consider giving Ukraine the longer-range 190-mile ATACMS systems so that they can attack deeper Russian positions and keep their artillery rocket systems farther behind front lines.

We should also provide Ukraine with more advanced air defense systems and anti-ship systems.

Also, Crimea belongs to Ukraine. I think the Biden Administration should loosen any restrictions on attacking Russian positions in Crimea and even the Crimean Bridge.

DocBarrister

Rah ! Rah ! Escalate ! Escalate !

[old salt]

]Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.

That's the point: "somehow" you "found" the time to whine about Biden's spending in Ukraine.
That's a military & national security issue. Areas which I follow more Closely, In which I have some experience & care enough about to comment.

After----coincidentally------not finding the time in four years of Trump to make one single solitary sole complaint about all this reckless spending.
I did not consider his spending on the military or national security to be reckless. I considered it prudent & long overdue catch up spending.

This is how you operate: when a D is in charge, you throw the kitchen sink at every decision, explaining how it's bad. This time, hilariously, you're griping about money, grasping at straws to throw at Biden....when you transparently don't care about Federal spending, and never have in a decade plus of point.

When a R is in charge, out comes the peripatetic Old Salt, telling all of us how hard it is to execute foreign policy.
I never said it was ez, under any admin. I just feel the Dems are making more mistakes.

It renders your commentary pointless, and it's why your fellow posters are all giving you grief. You're hitting Biden for doing what you'd normally support... if Biden simply had a R by his name, OS.

You'd be asking us: "what's Biden supposed to do here...he's between a rock and a hard place, and our NATO allies have left him twisting in the wind"
imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide. He says he needs 100 HIMARS, we only have 410 for our own forces. We can't give him any weapons that would be compromised if captured by the Russians. The more we provide, the more Russia will ecalate. Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

And you'd be right.

I don’t understand what you want to happen in Ukraine. Putin clearly won’t accept anything less than regime change and de facto control of all of Ukraine. Lavrov said as much.

Do you want Ukraine to simply call it quits and surrender to Putin?

You do understand that Putin won’t settle for anything less, correct?

So what are you proposing? Putin is not going to stop this war until he achieves regime change in Kyiv or until he loses this war.

What is it that you want to see happen?

DocBarrister

Putin can't get what his army can't accomplish. Stalemate. Ceasefire in place. Frozen conflict. Life returns to some sense of normalcy.
80% of Ukraine recovers, democratizes, arms itself & prospers, as S Korea has done with only 50% of Korea.

Any ceasefire or “stalemate” would be temporary. Putin will attack again once his forces are ready. In fact, this latest invasion is simply a new phase of the war he began in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea and occupation of parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Putin will not stop until he is defeated.

DocBarrister

Ukraine will have to continue to build their military & to defend their borders, as they should have been doing for the past 3 decades.
The EU will have to step up & join us in helping Ukraine re-arm, & take the lead in helping them resettle their refugees & displaced & to rebuild their economy, since they've been promised EU membership. Ukraine is now the EU's foster child.

It may be time for you to stop blaming the victim (Ukraine) here.

We have heard similar blame-the-victim garbage in other historical contexts involving murderous imperial powers (for example, Imperial Japan against Korea, the British Empire against Ireland).

Oh, only if those victimized nations had been stronger and tougher!



Seriously, what a bunch of BS.

DocBarrister

Ukraine was the heart & the strongest part of the USSR & Imperial Russia before that.
They were instrumental, prime movers & founding members in building the Russian Empire.

Ukraine is responsible for their own history. They could have been the next Poland or even unified Germany.
They chose to be a corrupt kleptocracy ...3 times. We fomented 2 revolutions for them. They did not follow through.

[DocBarrister]

]Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.

That's the point: "somehow" you "found" the time to whine about Biden's spending in Ukraine.
That's a military & national security issue. Areas which I follow more Closely, In which I have some experience & care enough about to comment.

After----coincidentally------not finding the time in four years of Trump to make one single solitary sole complaint about all this reckless spending.
I did not consider his spending on the military or national security to be reckless. I considered it prudent & long overdue catch up spending.

This is how you operate: when a D is in charge, you throw the kitchen sink at every decision, explaining how it's bad. This time, hilariously, you're griping about money, grasping at straws to throw at Biden....when you transparently don't care about Federal spending, and never have in a decade plus of point.

When a R is in charge, out comes the peripatetic Old Salt, telling all of us how hard it is to execute foreign policy.
I never said it was ez, under any admin. I just feel the Dems are making more mistakes.

It renders your commentary pointless, and it's why your fellow posters are all giving you grief. You're hitting Biden for doing what you'd normally support... if Biden simply had a R by his name, OS.

You'd be asking us: "what's Biden supposed to do here...he's between a rock and a hard place, and our NATO allies have left him twisting in the wind"
imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide. He says he needs 100 HIMARS, we only have 410 for our own forces. We can't give him any weapons that would be compromised if captured by the Russians. The more we provide, the more Russia will ecalate. Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

And you'd be right.

I don’t understand what you want to happen in Ukraine. Putin clearly won’t accept anything less than regime change and de facto control of all of Ukraine. Lavrov said as much.

Do you want Ukraine to simply call it quits and surrender to Putin?

You do understand that Putin won’t settle for anything less, correct?

So what are you proposing? Putin is not going to stop this war until he achieves regime change in Kyiv or until he loses this war.

What is it that you want to see happen?

DocBarrister

Putin can't get what his army can't accomplish. Stalemate. Ceasefire in place. Frozen conflict. Life returns to some sense of normalcy.
80% of Ukraine recovers, democratizes, arms itself & prospers, as S Korea has done with only 50% of Korea.

Any ceasefire or “stalemate” would be temporary. Putin will attack again once his forces are ready. In fact, this latest invasion is simply a new phase of the war he began in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea and occupation of parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Putin will not stop until he is defeated.

DocBarrister

Ukraine will have to continue to build their military & to defend their borders, as they should have been doing for the past 3 decades.
The EU will have to step up & join us in helping Ukraine re-arm, & take the lead in helping them resettle their refugees & displaced & to rebuild their economy, since they've been promised EU membership. Ukraine is now the EU's foster child.

It may be time for you to stop blaming the victim (Ukraine) here.

We have heard similar blame-the-victim garbage in other historical contexts involving murderous imperial powers (for example, Imperial Japan against Korea, the British Empire against Ireland).

Oh, only if those victimized nations had been stronger and tougher!



Seriously, what a bunch of BS.

DocBarrister

Ukraine was the heart & the strongest part of the USSR & Imperial Russia before that.
They were instrumental, prime movers & founding members in building the Russian Empire.

Ukraine is responsible for their own history. They could have been the next Poland or even unified Germany.
They chose to be a corrupt kleptocracy ...3 times. We fomented 2 revolutions for them. They did not follow through.

Will you at least concede that Putin is a callous, murderous scumbag and Russia a malignant, corrupt, garbage, wannabe imperial trash nation?

After all, Ukraine is a democracy. Russia is a despotic authoritarian regime that is far, far more corrupt than Ukraine.

You will concede those facts, will you not?

Also, I don’t think a long history of imperial domination by Russia changes the fact that Ukraine is an independent nation.

Russia was basically the Mongolian Empire’s compliant b*tch for three centuries. Does that change the fact that Russia is an independent nation?

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

This is why everyone here knows you don't give two figs about spending in Ukraine. You're throwing stones at Biden's little D.

That's it. That's what all your Ukraine complaining is about----Biden is a Dem. The dumbest adult in America understands that Biden is between a rock and a hard place in Ukraine. And after Trump operating for four years without you making a single complaint about his foreign policy, or anything Trump utters-----you hold Biden to an impossible standard that no President can meet.

It's what you do, OS. And it's why everyone here gives your grief. It's Republican horsehockey.

Yeah. I'm not troubled at all about the needless slaughter in Ukraine & our proxies, using US weapons, fighting Russia on their border.
What, me worry ?

Sure I agreed with Trump's foreign policy. He rearmed us, finished off ISIS, bombed Assad's Russian chem warfare base, saved the Kurds in Syria while avoiding conflict with Turkey & Russia, took out Soleimani, got NATO off their asz, warned the EU about their energy vulnerability, made the US a net energy exporter & didn't get us involved in any stupid wars.
Why did Putin wait until Trump left office to make this move ?
Biden bungled the hasty Afghan pullout & has given Ukraine an unconditional open-ended blank check, while telling the public that Ukraine can win & backing our allies up against a wall.

Not everyone disagrees with me. Just you & your fellow travelers.

Trump also genuflected before his master, Vladimir Putin.

Is that the real reason you liked Trump?

If Russians continue to be slaughtered at a dizzying rate, that is completely Putin’s fault.

We need to keep supplying Ukraine with advanced weapons systems so that they can weaken or annihilate Russia’s forces.

That means more HIMARS, more rockets for HIMARS, more training, more spare parts. I think it’s also time for the Biden Administration to consider giving Ukraine the longer-range 190-mile ATACMS systems so that they can attack deeper Russian positions and keep their artillery rocket systems farther behind front lines.

We should also provide Ukraine with more advanced air defense systems and anti-ship systems.

Also, Crimea belongs to Ukraine. I think the Biden Administration should loosen any restrictions on attacking Russian positions in Crimea and even the Crimean Bridge.

DocBarrister

Rah ! Rah ! Escalate ! Escalate !

You do understand that it has been Russia that has been escalating this war by butchering Ukrainian civilians?

DocBarrister

[Typical Lax Dad]

This is why everyone here knows you don't give two figs about spending in Ukraine. You're throwing stones at Biden's little D.

That's it. That's what all your Ukraine complaining is about----Biden is a Dem. The dumbest adult in America understands that Biden is between a rock and a hard place in Ukraine. And after Trump operating for four years without you making a single complaint about his foreign policy, or anything Trump utters-----you hold Biden to an impossible standard that no President can meet.

It's what you do, OS. And it's why everyone here gives your grief. It's Republican horsehockey.

Yeah. I'm not troubled at all about the needless slaughter in Ukraine & our proxies, using US weapons, fighting Russia on their border.
What, me worry ?

Sure I agreed with Trump's foreign policy. He rearmed us, finished off ISIS, bombed Assad's Russian chem warfare base, saved the Kurds in Syria while avoiding conflict with Turkey & Russia, took out Soleimani, got NATO off their asz, warned the EU about their energy vulnerability, made the US a net energy exporter & didn't get us involved in any stupid wars.
Why did Putin wait until Trump left office to make this move ?
Biden bungled the hasty Afghan pullout & has given Ukraine an unconditional open-ended blank check, while telling the public that Ukraine can win & backing our allies up against a wall.

Not everyone disagrees with me. Just you & your fellow travelers.

Trump also genuflected before his master, Vladimir Putin.

Is that the real reason you liked Trump?

If Russians continue to be slaughtered at a dizzying rate, that is completely Putin’s fault.

We need to keep supplying Ukraine with advanced weapons systems so that they can weaken or annihilate Russia’s forces.

That means more HIMARS, more rockets for HIMARS, more training, more spare parts. I think it’s also time for the Biden Administration to consider giving Ukraine the longer-range 190-mile ATACMS systems so that they can attack deeper Russian positions and keep their artillery rocket systems farther behind front lines.

We should also provide Ukraine with more advanced air defense systems and anti-ship systems.

Also, Crimea belongs to Ukraine. I think the Biden Administration should loosen any restrictions on attacking Russian positions in Crimea and even the Crimean Bridge.

DocBarrister

Rah ! Rah ! Escalate ! Escalate !

We escalated against Grenada.

[a fan]

Yeah. I'm not troubled at all about the needless slaughter in Ukraine & our proxies, using US weapons, fighting Russia on their border.
What, me worry ?

Moving the goalposts. It's now proven that you don't care about giving money to Ukraine, so you're moving the goalposts to something we agree on.

Why did Putin wait until Trump left office to make this move ?

Great question, and it gets the heart of my point with you.

You tell me: why did Putin wait until Trump left office to invade?

Biden bungled the hasty Afghan pullout

Nope. He eliminated casualties..... AND eliminated the wasteful spending of the dollars that you're claiming you're worried about in Afghanistan.

Scoreboard. Outperformed both Obama and Trump.

[old salt]

Yeah. I'm not troubled at all about the needless slaughter in Ukraine & our proxies, using US weapons, fighting Russia on their border.
What, me worry ?

Moving the goalposts. It's now proven that you don't care about giving money to Ukraine, so you're moving the goalposts to something we agree on.

What ? You don't recognize irony & sarcasm -- "what, me worry ".
I've emphasized the carnage & loss of life from the start, while saying we should not give Ukraine an open ended blank check.

[DocBarrister]

A Russian operative backed by the Kremlin meddled in United States politics for seven years and recently tried to undermine American support for Ukraine by recruiting local activists to spread pro-Moscow propaganda, the Justice Department announced Friday.

Aleksandr Viktorovich Ionov, who worked with the Russian Federal Security Service and at least three unnamed "Russian officials," was charged with conspiring to have U.S. citizens act as illegal agents of the Russian government from December 2014 through March of this year, the agency said.

“As court documents show, Ionov allegedly orchestrated a brazen influence campaign, turning U.S. political groups and U.S. citizens into instruments of the Russian government,” said Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. The 24-page indictment against Ionov was unsealed in Tampa, Florida.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ru ... -rcna40715

Hmmm … recruiting local activists to spread pro-Moscow propaganda.

Huh, conspiring to have U.S. citizens act as illegal agents of the Russian government.

Gee … turning U.S. political groups and U.S. citizens into instruments of the Russian government.



Why does all of that sound so familiar? Hmmm …

DocBarrister

[old salt]

]Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.

That's the point: "somehow" you "found" the time to whine about Biden's spending in Ukraine.
That's a military & national security issue. Areas which I follow more Closely, In which I have some experience & care enough about to comment.

After----coincidentally------not finding the time in four years of Trump to make one single solitary sole complaint about all this reckless spending.
I did not consider his spending on the military or national security to be reckless. I considered it prudent & long overdue catch up spending.

This is how you operate: when a D is in charge, you throw the kitchen sink at every decision, explaining how it's bad. This time, hilariously, you're griping about money, grasping at straws to throw at Biden....when you transparently don't care about Federal spending, and never have in a decade plus of point.

When a R is in charge, out comes the peripatetic Old Salt, telling all of us how hard it is to execute foreign policy.
I never said it was ez, under any admin. I just feel the Dems are making more mistakes.

It renders your commentary pointless, and it's why your fellow posters are all giving you grief. You're hitting Biden for doing what you'd normally support... if Biden simply had a R by his name, OS.

You'd be asking us: "what's Biden supposed to do here...he's between a rock and a hard place, and our NATO allies have left him twisting in the wind"
imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide. He says he needs 100 HIMARS, we only have 410 for our own forces. We can't give him any weapons that would be compromised if captured by the Russians. The more we provide, the more Russia will ecalate. Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

And you'd be right.

I don’t understand what you want to happen in Ukraine. Putin clearly won’t accept anything less than regime change and de facto control of all of Ukraine. Lavrov said as much.

Do you want Ukraine to simply call it quits and surrender to Putin?

You do understand that Putin won’t settle for anything less, correct?

So what are you proposing? Putin is not going to stop this war until he achieves regime change in Kyiv or until he loses this war.

What is it that you want to see happen?

DocBarrister

Putin can't get what his army can't accomplish. Stalemate. Ceasefire in place. Frozen conflict. Life returns to some sense of normalcy.
80% of Ukraine recovers, democratizes, arms itself & prospers, as S Korea has done with only 50% of Korea.

Any ceasefire or “stalemate” would be temporary. Putin will attack again once his forces are ready. In fact, this latest invasion is simply a new phase of the war he began in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea and occupation of parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Putin will not stop until he is defeated.

DocBarrister

Ukraine will have to continue to build their military & to defend their borders, as they should have been doing for the past 3 decades.
The EU will have to step up & join us in helping Ukraine re-arm, & take the lead in helping them resettle their refugees & displaced & to rebuild their economy, since they've been promised EU membership. Ukraine is now the EU's foster child.

It may be time for you to stop blaming the victim (Ukraine) here.

We have heard similar blame-the-victim garbage in other historical contexts involving murderous imperial powers (for example, Imperial Japan against Korea, the British Empire against Ireland).

Oh, only if those victimized nations had been stronger and tougher!



Seriously, what a bunch of BS.

DocBarrister

Ukraine was the heart & the strongest part of the USSR & Imperial Russia before that.
They were instrumental, prime movers & founding members in building the Russian Empire.

Ukraine is responsible for their own history. They could have been the next Poland or even unified Germany.
They chose to be a corrupt kleptocracy ...3 times. We fomented 2 revolutions for them. They did not follow through.

Will you at least concede that Putin is a callous, murderous scumbag and Russia a malignant, corrupt, garbage, wannabe imperial trash nation?
Yes about Putin. Too broad a generalization about Russia.

After all, Ukraine is a democracy. Russia is a despotic authoritarian regime that is far, far more corrupt than Ukraine.
Ukraine has yet to prove itself as a democracy. Both are corrupt -- too close to differentiate.

You will concede those facts, will you not?

Also, I don’t think a long history of imperial domination by Russia changes the fact that Ukraine is an independent nation.
If Ukraine can defend their borders. Ukrainians were active partners in dominating the rest of the Russian Empire.

Russia was basically the Mongolian Empire’s compliant b*tch for three centuries. Does that change the fact that Russia is an independent nation?
That was before the existence of coherent nation states.

DocBarrister

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yeah. I'm not troubled at all about the needless slaughter in Ukraine & our proxies, using US weapons, fighting Russia on their border.
What, me worry ?

Moving the goalposts. It's now proven that you don't care about giving money to Ukraine, so you're moving the goalposts to something we agree on.

What ? You don't recognize irony & sarcasm -- "what, me worry ".
I've emphasized the carnage & loss of life from the start, while saying we should not give Ukraine an open ended blank check.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccar ... aphic/amp/


https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/fig ... etaryCosts

You have gone from Brioni suits to Haggar!!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hanktucker ... 74485f7f8d

[Typical Lax Dad]

They like money that folds…

[old salt]

They like money that folds…

The Crusader was not a missile. It was a massive armored self-propelled howitzer. Too big to be airlifted.
...had we bought it, we'd be pawning it off on the Ukrainians, if we had a way to get it there.

[old salt]

Senator Josh Hawley, in his own words, on why he's voting NO on admitting Sweden & Finland to NATO.
Symbolic vote on his part but it sends a message that needs to be heard.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/wh ... ato-203925

Why I Won’t Vote to Add Sweden and Finland to NATO
Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

by Josh Hawley

The Senate will soon vote on adding Sweden and Finland to NATO. According to the terms of NATO’s founding treaty, that means the United States would be obliged to defend both countries in the event of a military attack. I intend to vote no.

Finland and Sweden want to join the Atlantic Alliance to head off further Russian aggression in Europe. That is entirely understandable given their location and security needs. But America’s greatest foreign adversary doesn’t loom over Europe. It looms in Asia. I am talking of course about the People’s Republic of China. And when it comes to Chinese imperialism, the American people should know the truth: the United States is not ready to resist it. Expanding American security commitments in Europe now would only make that problem worse—and America, less safe.

China has adopted a policy of dominating its neighbors and bullying free nations into doing its bidding. The Chinese Communist Party seeks effective control over Asia and the Pacific. And it seeks power over the United States—power to dictate our terms of trade, power to take American jobs, power to weaken our economy and make us dependent on Beijing. If left undeterred, China will gain that power. It will swallow up Taiwan, expand its use of slave labor, ramp up its global campaigns of censorship and repression, and make the United States beg for economic access. Even the Biden administration admits that China is now our greatest threat.

Confronting this threat will force us to make tough choices. As the 2018 and 2022 U.S. National Defense Strategies both acknowledge, the United States cannot defeat China and Russia in two major wars at the same time. And we are not where we need to be in Asia. The U.S. is currently not prepared to fend off Chinese military aggression in the Pacific. Our forces are not postured as they should be. And we do not have the arms and equipment there we need, not least because we have been distracted for too long by nation-building activities in the Middle East and legacy commitments in Europe. In the face of this stark reality, we must choose. We must do less in Europe (and elsewhere) in order to prioritize China and Asia.

To be clear, America shouldn’t abandon NATO. But it’s time for our European allies to do more. In particular, they must take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe by investing more in their own militaries. All the way back in 2006, NATO member states pledged to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on national defense. It should be higher. The United States spends far more than that on defense. But many NATO members still haven’t met even this minimal commitment.

And this isn’t just about U.S. interests. For our allies, it’s also a matter of self-preservation. If NATO member states aren’t prepared to defend themselves, they risk serious danger if U.S. forces are pulled from Europe into a crisis in the Asia-Pacific. Every European nation must now make the necessary investments to prepare themselves for a new threat environment, or risk the worst.

As to Sweden and Finland, both nations are advanced economies, with capable militaries. But they haven’t yet made the policy commitments appropriate to their geostrategic positions. Sweden doesn’t spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense and won’t for years to come. And Finland, though it announced a one-time defense spending boost, hasn’t made clear whether it will sustain these levels. In the event of a future conflict in Europe, U.S. forces would almost certainly be called in to defend both countries.

And even absent armed conflict, NATO expansion would almost certainly mean more U.S. forces in Europe for the long haul, more military hardware devoted there, and more dollars spent—to the detriment of our security needs in Asia, to say nothing of needs at home.

U.S. resources are not unlimited. Already we spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year on defense. And our manpower is already stretched thin across the globe. The United States must prioritize the defense resources we have for the China effort, while there is still time. Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

For decades, NATO stood as a bulwark against a militant Soviet Union, protecting the Western world by blocking Communism’s westward expansion. But more than three decades after the Soviet Union’s fall, the geopolitical landscape is very different. Russia is still a threat, but the Chinese Communist Party is a far greater one. And a truly strategic American foreign policy—one that looks to this nation’s strategic interests now, rather than the world of years ago—must embrace this reality, and prepare for it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Senator Josh Hawley, in his own words, on why he's voting NO on admitting Sweden & Finland to NATO.
Symbolic vote on his part but it sends a message that needs to be heard.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/wh ... ato-203925

Why I Won’t Vote to Add Sweden and Finland to NATO
Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

by Josh Hawley

The Senate will soon vote on adding Sweden and Finland to NATO. According to the terms of NATO’s founding treaty, that means the United States would be obliged to defend both countries in the event of a military attack. I intend to vote no.

Finland and Sweden want to join the Atlantic Alliance to head off further Russian aggression in Europe. That is entirely understandable given their location and security needs. But America’s greatest foreign adversary doesn’t loom over Europe. It looms in Asia. I am talking of course about the People’s Republic of China. And when it comes to Chinese imperialism, the American people should know the truth: the United States is not ready to resist it. Expanding American security commitments in Europe now would only make that problem worse—and America, less safe.

China has adopted a policy of dominating its neighbors and bullying free nations into doing its bidding. The Chinese Communist Party seeks effective control over Asia and the Pacific. And it seeks power over the United States—power to dictate our terms of trade, power to take American jobs, power to weaken our economy and make us dependent on Beijing. If left undeterred, China will gain that power. It will swallow up Taiwan, expand its use of slave labor, ramp up its global campaigns of censorship and repression, and make the United States beg for economic access. Even the Biden administration admits that China is now our greatest threat.

Confronting this threat will force us to make tough choices. As the 2018 and 2022 U.S. National Defense Strategies both acknowledge, the United States cannot defeat China and Russia in two major wars at the same time. And we are not where we need to be in Asia. The U.S. is currently not prepared to fend off Chinese military aggression in the Pacific. Our forces are not postured as they should be. And we do not have the arms and equipment there we need, not least because we have been distracted for too long by nation-building activities in the Middle East and legacy commitments in Europe. In the face of this stark reality, we must choose. We must do less in Europe (and elsewhere) in order to prioritize China and Asia.

To be clear, America shouldn’t abandon NATO. But it’s time for our European allies to do more. In particular, they must take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe by investing more in their own militaries. All the way back in 2006, NATO member states pledged to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on national defense. It should be higher. The United States spends far more than that on defense. But many NATO members still haven’t met even this minimal commitment.

And this isn’t just about U.S. interests. For our allies, it’s also a matter of self-preservation. If NATO member states aren’t prepared to defend themselves, they risk serious danger if U.S. forces are pulled from Europe into a crisis in the Asia-Pacific. Every European nation must now make the necessary investments to prepare themselves for a new threat environment, or risk the worst.

As to Sweden and Finland, both nations are advanced economies, with capable militaries. But they haven’t yet made the policy commitments appropriate to their geostrategic positions. Sweden doesn’t spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense and won’t for years to come. And Finland, though it announced a one-time defense spending boost, hasn’t made clear whether it will sustain these levels. In the event of a future conflict in Europe, U.S. forces would almost certainly be called in to defend both countries.

And even absent armed conflict, NATO expansion would almost certainly mean more U.S. forces in Europe for the long haul, more military hardware devoted there, and more dollars spent—to the detriment of our security needs in Asia, to say nothing of needs at home.

U.S. resources are not unlimited. Already we spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year on defense. And our manpower is already stretched thin across the globe. The United States must prioritize the defense resources we have for the China effort, while there is still time. Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

For decades, NATO stood as a bulwark against a militant Soviet Union, protecting the Western world by blocking Communism’s westward expansion. But more than three decades after the Soviet Union’s fall, the geopolitical landscape is very different. Russia is still a threat, but the Chinese Communist Party is a far greater one. And a truly strategic American foreign policy—one that looks to this nation’s strategic interests now, rather than the world of years ago—must embrace this reality, and prepare for it.

Picking another winner!



A phony catering to a dwindling demographic. It’s only a matter of time.

[DocBarrister]

Senator Josh Hawley, in his own words, on why he's voting NO on admitting Sweden & Finland to NATO.
Symbolic vote on his part but it sends a message that needs to be heard.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/wh ... ato-203925

Why I Won’t Vote to Add Sweden and Finland to NATO
Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

by Josh Hawley

The Senate will soon vote on adding Sweden and Finland to NATO. According to the terms of NATO’s founding treaty, that means the United States would be obliged to defend both countries in the event of a military attack. I intend to vote no.

Finland and Sweden want to join the Atlantic Alliance to head off further Russian aggression in Europe. That is entirely understandable given their location and security needs. But America’s greatest foreign adversary doesn’t loom over Europe. It looms in Asia. I am talking of course about the People’s Republic of China. And when it comes to Chinese imperialism, the American people should know the truth: the United States is not ready to resist it. Expanding American security commitments in Europe now would only make that problem worse—and America, less safe.

China has adopted a policy of dominating its neighbors and bullying free nations into doing its bidding. The Chinese Communist Party seeks effective control over Asia and the Pacific. And it seeks power over the United States—power to dictate our terms of trade, power to take American jobs, power to weaken our economy and make us dependent on Beijing. If left undeterred, China will gain that power. It will swallow up Taiwan, expand its use of slave labor, ramp up its global campaigns of censorship and repression, and make the United States beg for economic access. Even the Biden administration admits that China is now our greatest threat.

Confronting this threat will force us to make tough choices. As the 2018 and 2022 U.S. National Defense Strategies both acknowledge, the United States cannot defeat China and Russia in two major wars at the same time. And we are not where we need to be in Asia. The U.S. is currently not prepared to fend off Chinese military aggression in the Pacific. Our forces are not postured as they should be. And we do not have the arms and equipment there we need, not least because we have been distracted for too long by nation-building activities in the Middle East and legacy commitments in Europe. In the face of this stark reality, we must choose. We must do less in Europe (and elsewhere) in order to prioritize China and Asia.

To be clear, America shouldn’t abandon NATO. But it’s time for our European allies to do more. In particular, they must take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe by investing more in their own militaries. All the way back in 2006, NATO member states pledged to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on national defense. It should be higher. The United States spends far more than that on defense. But many NATO members still haven’t met even this minimal commitment.

And this isn’t just about U.S. interests. For our allies, it’s also a matter of self-preservation. If NATO member states aren’t prepared to defend themselves, they risk serious danger if U.S. forces are pulled from Europe into a crisis in the Asia-Pacific. Every European nation must now make the necessary investments to prepare themselves for a new threat environment, or risk the worst.

As to Sweden and Finland, both nations are advanced economies, with capable militaries. But they haven’t yet made the policy commitments appropriate to their geostrategic positions. Sweden doesn’t spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense and won’t for years to come. And Finland, though it announced a one-time defense spending boost, hasn’t made clear whether it will sustain these levels. In the event of a future conflict in Europe, U.S. forces would almost certainly be called in to defend both countries.

And even absent armed conflict, NATO expansion would almost certainly mean more U.S. forces in Europe for the long haul, more military hardware devoted there, and more dollars spent—to the detriment of our security needs in Asia, to say nothing of needs at home.

U.S. resources are not unlimited. Already we spend the better part of a trillion dollars a year on defense. And our manpower is already stretched thin across the globe. The United States must prioritize the defense resources we have for the China effort, while there is still time. Until our European allies make the necessary commitments to their own national defense, we must not put more American lives at risk in Europe while allowing China’s power to grow unchecked.

For decades, NATO stood as a bulwark against a militant Soviet Union, protecting the Western world by blocking Communism’s westward expansion. But more than three decades after the Soviet Union’s fall, the geopolitical landscape is very different. Russia is still a threat, but the Chinese Communist Party is a far greater one. And a truly strategic American foreign policy—one that looks to this nation’s strategic interests now, rather than the world of years ago—must embrace this reality, and prepare for it.

Hmmm …

… Vladimir Putin opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO, and

… Josh Hawley opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO, and

… old salt opposes the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO.

Coincidence … or something else?

DocBarrister