All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

You mocked me, or anyone else who said Russia was a threat, because they had a GDP smaller than Italy's. We didn't need to worry about them.
That aged well.

Man, you are a piece of work.

You're honestly so embarrassed that you were wrong, and that GDP and money DOES matter when it comes to waging war....that you're going to try and make up what I wrote, and pretend that no one notices?

Holy cow man, it's just a forum. You got it wrong. Putin is LITERALLY out of bullets and explode-y stuff in pockets on the front line, and you're trying to pretend that I didn't tell you that you need GDP and money to wage war. I told you this. Multiple times. You mocked me, and it turns out....I was (shocker) completely correct.

But sure, build a strawman, and pretend I'm so dumb that I don't think that the Russian army can kill people and make a mess, like a toddler that sh(ts himself.

The AWESOME thing is: I learned this lesson from you! Remember how you complained about not having spare freaking parts under Carter, even with a (checks notes) a budget of over $100 billion? Money matters. GDP matters.

The whole GDP discussion, as you very well know, goes back to Obama and Mittens. Where Romney was asked: What’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America?

Obama called it. You MOCKED him. Russia isn't the biggest geopolitical threat TO AMERICA. Russia is losing a war to UKRAINE, FFS. You think they can touch the US? Unless Putin goes full psycho, and shoots his nukes (that I seriously doubt work correctly)....he's in charge of a lousy, disorganized, broken joke of an army that is now LITERALLY throwing prisoners to the front line so that they can catch mortars in their pockets.

Can Putin stil make a mess? Yup. But the emperor has no clothes....just like Obama tried to tell you. And the dumbest part is that you would have listened to him if he had that R by his name.

In case you hadn't noticed, both sides are running out of artillery shells, especially those that fit the Soviet legacy guns both sides are using.
That's where China (& N Korea) come in. They have the only remaining stockpiles, & (along with Russia) the capacity to make more.
No matter your GDP, if you don't have, or can't make, 122mm & 152mm shells, you can't effectively wage the war in Ukraine.
So yeah, keep fulminating about GDP, as if that matters now, in the crunch. Youtoldmeso.
ftr -- I mocked Obama (& you) for dismissing Russia as a threat or credible adversary. The '80's are calling (again).

https://www.csis.org/analysis/expanding ... -artillery
The war in Ukraine has become an artillery war. Stable front lines, increasingly effective kill chains, and reduced scope for air power have created an environment where ground firepower trumps maneuver, at least for the moment. While weapons like High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and Javelins have received most media attention, artillery has proven that it is still the “king of battle” by the intensity of its use.

Ukraine started the war with approximately 1,150 Soviet-era howitzers. Added to the 424-plus howitzers received from allies, Ukraine has a total of approximately 1,600 artillery pieces. While this may seem like a lot, it is inadequate considering the shortage of Soviet-standard ammunition, the length of the front lines, and the size of the Ukrainian forces.

Shortages of Soviet-standard ammunition (122 mm and 152 mm) have progressively reduced the value of Soviet-era artillery. The United States has scoured the globe to buy Soviet-standard ammunition and has sent Ukraine 45,000 152 mm artillery rounds and 20,000 122 mm rounds. However, with Russia and China, the major producers, unavailable, there are severe limits on what can be provided. Those limits will increase over time as accessible inventories become exhausted.

While available ammunition is short, the front is long. The actively contested frontline along the south of Ukraine and extending to the Russian border in the Kharkiv region is approximately 850 kilometers (km). The border with Russia along Kharkiv, Sumy, and Chernihiv Oblasts (not occupied by Russia) is 500 km. Ukraine’s border with Belarus, a potential adversary, is another 1,100 km. While not all these borders have active hostilities, that could change at any time. If Ukraine has 1,600 pieces of artillery, of all kinds, this amount is not enough to cover a combined border of almost 2,500 km.

[a fan]

In case you hadn't noticed, both sides are running out of artillery shells, especially those that fit the Soviet legacy guns both sides are using.

I most certainly have noticed.

What's Ukraine's GDP, Old Salt? Get it?

That's where China (& N Korea) come in.

They have the only remaining stockpiles, & (along with Russia) the capacity to make more.
No matter your GDP, if you don't have, or can't make, 122mm & 152mm shells, you can't effectively wage the war in Ukraine.[/quote] Sure you can. You can't effectively wage war as things are currently equipped. [/quote] You think China is going to risk problems with the EU an US over this?

We'll see, i guess. You didn't answer my question: what happens if Biden cuts off trade with China?

So yeah, keep fulminating about GDP, as if that matters now, in the crunch. Youtoldmeso.

Of course it matters now. Why the F do you think that the Russian advance is stalled?

ftr -- I mocked Obama for dismissing Russia as a threat or credible adversary. The '80's are calling (again).

So now you're gonna try and move the goalposts on Obama? Take a look at the question I quoted above.

What’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America (in 2012)?


This is you and your dumb Republican games, where you set up a strawman and invent what the actual question was, and take it a step further, and invent what Obama's answer was.

And then try and say Obama was wrong, pointing to something he didn't say.

Pssst.....A. 2012 isn't the same thing as 2023. B. Russia still isn't America's biggest threat, as we see Russia losing to Ukraine, let alone the American army and C. the question was, what was America's BIGGEST geopolitical threat in 2012?.

Obama, like me, never said that Russia wasn't a geopolitical threat. But sure, Dems are bad, so you have to play these dumb games instead of having a rational discussion.

[old salt]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

[a fan]

...you can't unring this bell.

No. You can't. He said EXACTlY what I told you he said. To the EXACT question I told you he was asked.

So...you're lying about what the question was. And lying about what Obama's answer to the question was.

Thanks for showing everyone the YouTube evidence that you're lying.....I guess?

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,

Odd, I seem to remember someone saying that to you in the past.

...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

Nope. That was Obama, and then Trump that did that. Economic sanctions.

You're implying that you think it's a foregone conclusion that China will arm Putin's armies. Okie dokie.

[old salt]

...you can't unring this bell.

No. You can't. He said EXACTlY what I told you he said. To the EXACT question I told you he was asked.
So...you're lying about what the question was. And lying about what Obama's answer to the question was.
Oh really ? What did I say the question was ? Obama did not mention China.
He implied that AQ was the primary threat. (2 years after he pulled out of Iraq).
Thanks for showing everyone the YouTube evidence that you're lying.....I guess?

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,

Odd, I seem to remember someone saying that to you in the past.
That does not mean that Russia is not a threat. It's possible to have more than 1 threat. Particularly allies, like Biden has made Russia & China.
I've long maintained that China is our primary threat. Recall my frustration that the Ukraine mess has slowed our pivot to Asia.

...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

Nope. That was Obama, and then Trump that did that. Economic sanctions.
Trump made China & Russia allies ?
You're implying that you think it's a foregone conclusion that China will arm Putin's armies. Okie dokie.
They're already bankrolling Russia's war by buying their energy. No embargo or sanctions for them.

[old salt]

I don't know if this will prove to be accurate, but it's thought provoking. I post it for afan's reading pleasure.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/02/ ... erm=second

Russia May Be in a Stalemate in Ukraine, but Putin Is Winning

by ARTHUR HERMAN, February 24, 2023

As we reach the anniversary of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, this is a propitious time to take stock of who has proven to be the big winner in this conflict and of who looks like the loser.

It may come as a shock to many — it’s come as a shock to me — to realize that the biggest winner in this conflict so far is Vladimir Putin, and that the category of losers right now includes the Biden administration and NATO.

It’s important to point out that regarding Putin as the big winner does not discount the incredible bravery of the Ukrainian people or Zelensky’s Churchill-like stature as their president. It does not ignore the terrible losses the Russians themselves have suffered following Putin’s botched strategic plan or the magnificent rallying of the U.S. and the rest of Europe to Ukraine’s aid.

But designating Putin — as opposed to Russia — as the winner so far is a recognition that a year after starting the war, his position as dictator looks more secure than ever. He has managed to hold his own in the fighting in Ukraine, despite losing some 100,000 Russian soldiers (senior U.S. officials estimate the Russian death toll is closer to 200,000) and, after a series of seesaw gains and losses, has ground the war down to a stalemate. He has also turned Ukraine into a demolition site and shattered its economy; it also looks like Crimea is his for good, including the naval base at Sevastopol — his ultimate goal all along.

In addition, any domestic political opposition he might face has been bulldozed out of sight.

As for NATO, it’s perfectly true that the member nations rallied impressively against Putin’s aggression and that the organization grew by two new significant members, Finland and Sweden. Members’ earlier pledges to expand defense spending to 2 percent of GDP may even become reality, although, even after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, only nine of the 29 members meet that threshold, while the U.S. still foots more than half the bill for ensuring the security of the continent.

All the same, there doesn’t seem to be a clear strategy for securing NATO’s boundaries against further Russian aggression, while Putin’s serial threat to use nuclear weapons seems to have worked in preventing NATO from pressing for a decisive Ukraine victory.

In fact, the policy of NATO and the Biden administration this past year seems best characterized as “strategic drift,” a series of ad hoc measures adding new capabilities to the Ukrainian defense — e.g., precision-strike munitions and HIMARS, UAVs and drones, M1 Abrams and Leopard II tanks, and now possibly F-16 fighters — whenever the political opportunity presents itself rather than as part of an overall strategic plan.

Such a plan, for example, might have involved boosting Ukraine’s ability to hit back decisively against the Russian invasion in the opening weeks or months, in ways that might have forced Putin to pull back and rethink his options. Instead, the West’s piecemeal approach has worked in Putin’s favor and allowed him to dig in to achieve the current stalemate — an outcome that serves him domestically as well as to reduce Ukraine to a heap of ruins.

In short, a long war favors Putin, not the West or Ukraine — or the future of Russia. It also favor the other clear winner in the Ukraine conflict — namely, China. The war has steadily weakened Russia as a geopolitical competitor and increased Moscow’s dependence on Beijing for its economic future — including now, it seems, possibly Chinese arms.

Meanwhile, China has had a gratis grand-tier seat from which to watch the future of modern war technology in action, without having to fire a shot or sacrifice a single Chinese soldier or aviator. The crucial role of UAVs and drones, of precision-strike missiles and artillery (e.g., HIMARS), of space assets such as Starlink, of cyber and the weaponizing of social media — it’s all unfolded in ways that allow Beijing to study the results in advance of any Chinese invasion of Taiwan or other military incursion.

Where does this leave us, as we enter the second year of this terrible and destructive war?

First, nothing should undermine the U.S. commitment to support Ukraine or to thwart Putin’s aggression. It just means organizing that commitment better, with a clear picture of where and how Biden and NATO want this conflict to end, instead of making it up as they go along.

Second, it means accepting that a prolonged war only works in Putin’s interest — and certainly not in Ukraine’s. The U.S. and NATO need to press the participants to move toward a negotiated settlement, using the leverage of enabling Ukraine to keep fighting, to bring people to the bargaining table sooner rather than later.

Third, as part of that settlement, NATO and the U.S. will need to agree to lift sanctions against Russia and also extend to Ukrainians a Marshall Plan 2.0 for rebuilding their country. Like the original Marshall Plan, such a large-scale capital investment (General David Petraeus has suggested including financial guarantees by the U.S. and the G-7) could enable Ukraine to arise Phoenix-like as the new economic powerhouse of Europe — the one outcome that would be a humiliating defeat for Putin.

Finally, the U.S. and NATO need to take in the same lessons China will, about how to integrate advanced technologies such as space, UAVs, and precision strike, into our own military posture. It’s an education in modern military science that an administration busy patting itself on the back for its support for Ukraine might be inclined to miss.

[Farfromgeneva]

...you can't unring this bell.

No. You can't. He said EXACTlY what I told you he said. To the EXACT question I told you he was asked.

So...you're lying about what the question was. And lying about what Obama's answer to the question was.

Thanks for showing everyone the YouTube evidence that you're lying.....I guess?

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,

Odd, I seem to remember someone saying that to you in the past.

...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

Nope. That was Obama, and then Trump that did that. Economic sanctions.

You're implying that you think it's a foregone conclusion that China will arm Putin's armies. Okie dokie.

Maybe he’s not lying and this is how the thought process is inside that dome. Maybe you’re giving him too much credit on cognitive ability at this point? All the evidence points to a fairly binary answer undoubtedly.

[cradleandshoot]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

[Farfromgeneva]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

Nobody is talking about Romney but you.

[cradleandshoot]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

Nobody is talking about Romney but you.

I know, nobody wants to discuss the fact Romney was correct when he chastised the Russian regime. Mittens ineptitude during this back and forth with Obama had much to do with him losing the election. Maybe some of those policies left over from the 80s were not all that bad. I heard on the news this morning that Putin floated a trial balloon about pushing back the borders in Poland. Maybe, just maybe, the conversation should focus on the US ineptitude in how we dealt with Russia after the end of the cold war? If only mittens had pressed Obama what he meant when he said the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back?

[Farfromgeneva]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

Nobody is talking about Romney but you.

I know, nobody wants to discuss the fact Romney was correct when he chastised the Russian regime. Mittens ineptitude during this back and forth with Obama had much to do with him losing the election. Maybe some of those policies left over from the 80s were not all that bad. I heard on the news this morning that Putin floated a trial balloon about pushing back the borders in Poland. Maybe, just maybe, the conversation should focus on the US ineptitude in how we dealt with Russia after the end of the cold war? If only mittens had pressed Obama what he meant when he said the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back?

Nobody wants to for a bunch of reasons adding up to: it’s irrelevant.

[MDlaxfan76]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

Nobody is talking about Romney but you.

I know, nobody wants to discuss the fact Romney was correct when he chastised the Russian regime. Mittens ineptitude during this back and forth with Obama had much to do with him losing the election. Maybe some of those policies left over from the 80s were not all that bad. I heard on the news this morning that Putin floated a trial balloon about pushing back the borders in Poland. Maybe, just maybe, the conversation should focus on the US ineptitude in how we dealt with Russia after the end of the cold war? If only mittens had pressed Obama what he meant when he said the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back?

Nobody wants to for a bunch of reasons adding up to: it’s irrelevant.

ugh, I'll do it one more time.

Romney's answer was arguably "correct"; Romney correctly identified Russia as the most aggressively malign "geopolitical" player in 2012; Georgia had happened, Crimea was coming shortly, Russia was already aggressively involved in asymmetric interference in democracies with its neighbors especially, Europe and the US generally. We (the general public) only became conscious of this here in 2016, but it was well underway. Moreover, Russia was on the march diplomatically spreading its influence with other authoritarians around the world.

Romney was right about this level of aggressiveness; in comparison, China was far less aggressive in attempting to do damage (but super aggressive in economic competition though IP theft etc). Long term, China's economic ascension is likely to be a larger threat to American influence geopolitically but for the decade ahead of the 2012 election, Russia was the larger threat because of its aggression.

But Obama was also "correct" in that religiously motivated terrorism had recently been and were the most immediate direct threat to American interests abroad.

What cradle seems to think is that Romney shouldn't be respected because he's not an adept orator or debater, nor natural "politician", and was on stage with a generational talent.

I have and had the opposite reaction. While I admired Obama's talents, I was more interested in the underlying thought process and policy view. Unlike much of the media, and apparently cradle, I didn't dismiss Romney's argument simply because he's not as facile a debater and was caught by a verbal zinger and didn't have a comeback. Romney's view was much more involved than that format favored, indeed really needed long format discussion...but our politics don't reward long format.

I don't blame that on Romney, but rather on we voters for not working harder to understand complexity and reward those who do.

But again, Obama was also "correct" in his identification of that immediate direct threat.
His view was validated by the rise of ISIS. That was coming...

[Typical Lax Dad]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

Nobody is talking about Romney but you.

I know, nobody wants to discuss the fact Romney was correct when he chastised the Russian regime. Mittens ineptitude during this back and forth with Obama had much to do with him losing the election. Maybe some of those policies left over from the 80s were not all that bad. I heard on the news this morning that Putin floated a trial balloon about pushing back the borders in Poland. Maybe, just maybe, the conversation should focus on the US ineptitude in how we dealt with Russia after the end of the cold war? If only mittens had pressed Obama what he meant when he said the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back?

Nobody wants to for a bunch of reasons adding up to: it’s irrelevant.

ugh, I'll do it one more time.

Romney's answer was arguably "correct"; Romney correctly identified Russia as the most aggressively malign "geopolitical" player in 2012; Georgia had happened, Crimea was coming shortly, Russia was already aggressively involved in asymmetric interference in democracies with its neighbors especially, Europe and the US generally. We (the general public) only became conscious of this here in 2016, but it was well underway. Moreover, Russia was on the march diplomatically spreading its influence with other authoritarians around the world.

Romney was right about this level of aggressiveness; in comparison, China was far less aggressive in attempting to do damage (but super aggressive in economic competition though IP theft etc). Long term, China's economic ascension is likely to be a larger threat to American influence geopolitically but for the decade ahead of the 2012 election, Russia was the larger threat because of its aggression.

But Obama was also "correct" in that religiously motivated terrorism had recently been and were the most immediate direct threat to American interests abroad.

What cradle seems to think is that Romney shouldn't be respected because he's not an adept orator or debater, nor natural "politician", and was on stage with a generational talent.

I have and had the opposite reaction. While I admired Obama's talents, I was more interested in the underlying thought process and policy view. Unlike much of the media, and apparently cradle, I didn't dismiss Romney's argument simply because he's not as facile a debater and was caught by a verbal zinger and didn't have a comeback. Romney's view was much more involved than that format favored, indeed really needed long format discussion...but our politics don't reward long format.

I don't blame that on Romney, but rather on we voters for not working harder to understand complexity and reward those who do.

But again, Obama was also "correct" in his identification of that immediate direct threat.
His view was validated by the rise of ISIS. That was coming...

Cradle awards points for witty comebacks…. “You are no JFK” …a “big sucking sound” and such….mitty ain’t witty.

[cradleandshoot]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

Nobody is talking about Romney but you.

I know, nobody wants to discuss the fact Romney was correct when he chastised the Russian regime. Mittens ineptitude during this back and forth with Obama had much to do with him losing the election. Maybe some of those policies left over from the 80s were not all that bad. I heard on the news this morning that Putin floated a trial balloon about pushing back the borders in Poland. Maybe, just maybe, the conversation should focus on the US ineptitude in how we dealt with Russia after the end of the cold war? If only mittens had pressed Obama what he meant when he said the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back?

Nobody wants to for a bunch of reasons adding up to: it’s irrelevant.

It's irrelevant in terms of Putin invading Ukraine and now setting his sights on Poland?? I have been reading ad nauseum on this forum since the dumpster was in office about the hijinx the Russians have been up to since Secretary Clinton made an ass of herself with her RESET button. Suddenly when it comes back to bite the leadership in DC in the ass it conveniently becomes "irrelevant" I guess your correct. The threat posed by Putin was irrelevant to President Obama when he was debating Mittens. Somewhere along the way it appears to have become relevant given the ongoing carnage going on in Ukraine. Dammit if only that reset button had worked.

[Farfromgeneva]

Misread author in last post now deleted

[cradleandshoot]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

Nobody is talking about Romney but you.

I know, nobody wants to discuss the fact Romney was correct when he chastised the Russian regime. Mittens ineptitude during this back and forth with Obama had much to do with him losing the election. Maybe some of those policies left over from the 80s were not all that bad. I heard on the news this morning that Putin floated a trial balloon about pushing back the borders in Poland. Maybe, just maybe, the conversation should focus on the US ineptitude in how we dealt with Russia after the end of the cold war? If only mittens had pressed Obama what he meant when he said the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back?

Nobody wants to for a bunch of reasons adding up to: it’s irrelevant.

ugh, I'll do it one more time.

Romney's answer was arguably "correct"; Romney correctly identified Russia as the most aggressively malign "geopolitical" player in 2012; Georgia had happened, Crimea was coming shortly, Russia was already aggressively involved in asymmetric interference in democracies with its neighbors especially, Europe and the US generally. We (the general public) only became conscious of this here in 2016, but it was well underway. Moreover, Russia was on the march diplomatically spreading its influence with other authoritarians around the world.

Romney was right about this level of aggressiveness; in comparison, China was far less aggressive in attempting to do damage (but super aggressive in economic competition though IP theft etc). Long term, China's economic ascension is likely to be a larger threat to American influence geopolitically but for the decade ahead of the 2012 election, Russia was the larger threat because of its aggression.

But Obama was also "correct" in that religiously motivated terrorism had recently been and were the most immediate direct threat to American interests abroad.

What cradle seems to think is that Romney shouldn't be respected because he's not an adept orator or debater, nor natural "politician", and was on stage with a generational talent.

I have and had the opposite reaction. While I admired Obama's talents, I was more interested in the underlying thought process and policy view. Unlike much of the media, and apparently cradle, I didn't dismiss Romney's argument simply because he's not as facile a debater and was caught by a verbal zinger and didn't have a comeback. Romney's view was much more involved than that format favored, indeed really needed long format discussion...but our politics don't reward long format.

I don't blame that on Romney, but rather on we voters for not working harder to understand complexity and reward those who do.

But again, Obama was also "correct" in his identification of that immediate direct threat.
His view was validated by the rise of ISIS. That was coming...

Cradle awards points for witty comebacks…. “You are no JFK” …a “big sucking sound” and such….mitty ain’t witty.

Wrongo buckwheat I live in the real world where words and actions by our leaders should mean something?

[Farfromgeneva]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

Nobody is talking about Romney but you.

I know, nobody wants to discuss the fact Romney was correct when he chastised the Russian regime. Mittens ineptitude during this back and forth with Obama had much to do with him losing the election. Maybe some of those policies left over from the 80s were not all that bad. I heard on the news this morning that Putin floated a trial balloon about pushing back the borders in Poland. Maybe, just maybe, the conversation should focus on the US ineptitude in how we dealt with Russia after the end of the cold war? If only mittens had pressed Obama what he meant when he said the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back?

Nobody wants to for a bunch of reasons adding up to: it’s irrelevant.

ugh, I'll do it one more time.

Romney's answer was arguably "correct"; Romney correctly identified Russia as the most aggressively malign "geopolitical" player in 2012; Georgia had happened, Crimea was coming shortly, Russia was already aggressively involved in asymmetric interference in democracies with its neighbors especially, Europe and the US generally. We (the general public) only became conscious of this here in 2016, but it was well underway. Moreover, Russia was on the march diplomatically spreading its influence with other authoritarians around the world.

Romney was right about this level of aggressiveness; in comparison, China was far less aggressive in attempting to do damage (but super aggressive in economic competition though IP theft etc). Long term, China's economic ascension is likely to be a larger threat to American influence geopolitically but for the decade ahead of the 2012 election, Russia was the larger threat because of its aggression.

But Obama was also "correct" in that religiously motivated terrorism had recently been and were the most immediate direct threat to American interests abroad.

What cradle seems to think is that Romney shouldn't be respected because he's not an adept orator or debater, nor natural "politician", and was on stage with a generational talent.

I have and had the opposite reaction. While I admired Obama's talents, I was more interested in the underlying thought process and policy view. Unlike much of the media, and apparently cradle, I didn't dismiss Romney's argument simply because he's not as facile a debater and was caught by a verbal zinger and didn't have a comeback. Romney's view was much more involved than that format favored, indeed really needed long format discussion...but our politics don't reward long format.

I don't blame that on Romney, but rather on we voters for not working harder to understand complexity and reward those who do.

But again, Obama was also "correct" in his identification of that immediate direct threat.
His view was validated by the rise of ISIS. That was coming...

I get it, his insistence on pushing his agenda is tired and stale. I understand it all. I never sucked on the Obama test because I felt he was too postmodern slick and catered to a new audience. Same as you. Romney is far more authentic in that regard and it should be revered not shat on.

[Farfromgeneva]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

Nobody is talking about Romney but you.

I know, nobody wants to discuss the fact Romney was correct when he chastised the Russian regime. Mittens ineptitude during this back and forth with Obama had much to do with him losing the election. Maybe some of those policies left over from the 80s were not all that bad. I heard on the news this morning that Putin floated a trial balloon about pushing back the borders in Poland. Maybe, just maybe, the conversation should focus on the US ineptitude in how we dealt with Russia after the end of the cold war? If only mittens had pressed Obama what he meant when he said the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back?

Nobody wants to for a bunch of reasons adding up to: it’s irrelevant.

It's irrelevant in terms of Putin invading Ukraine and now setting his sights on Poland?? I have been reading ad nauseum on this forum since the dumpster was in office about the hijinx the Russians have been up to since Secretary Clinton made an ass of herself with her RESET button. Suddenly when it comes back to bite the leadership in DC in the ass it conveniently becomes "irrelevant" I guess your correct. The threat posed by Putin was irrelevant to President Obama when he was debating Mittens. Somewhere along the way it appears to have become relevant given the ongoing carnage going on in Ukraine. Dammit if only that reset button had worked.

Please for one singular moment here add something constructive and useful.

[Farfromgeneva]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

Nobody is talking about Romney but you.

I know, nobody wants to discuss the fact Romney was correct when he chastised the Russian regime. Mittens ineptitude during this back and forth with Obama had much to do with him losing the election. Maybe some of those policies left over from the 80s were not all that bad. I heard on the news this morning that Putin floated a trial balloon about pushing back the borders in Poland. Maybe, just maybe, the conversation should focus on the US ineptitude in how we dealt with Russia after the end of the cold war? If only mittens had pressed Obama what he meant when he said the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back?

Nobody wants to for a bunch of reasons adding up to: it’s irrelevant.

ugh, I'll do it one more time.

Romney's answer was arguably "correct"; Romney correctly identified Russia as the most aggressively malign "geopolitical" player in 2012; Georgia had happened, Crimea was coming shortly, Russia was already aggressively involved in asymmetric interference in democracies with its neighbors especially, Europe and the US generally. We (the general public) only became conscious of this here in 2016, but it was well underway. Moreover, Russia was on the march diplomatically spreading its influence with other authoritarians around the world.

Romney was right about this level of aggressiveness; in comparison, China was far less aggressive in attempting to do damage (but super aggressive in economic competition though IP theft etc). Long term, China's economic ascension is likely to be a larger threat to American influence geopolitically but for the decade ahead of the 2012 election, Russia was the larger threat because of its aggression.

But Obama was also "correct" in that religiously motivated terrorism had recently been and were the most immediate direct threat to American interests abroad.

What cradle seems to think is that Romney shouldn't be respected because he's not an adept orator or debater, nor natural "politician", and was on stage with a generational talent.

I have and had the opposite reaction. While I admired Obama's talents, I was more interested in the underlying thought process and policy view. Unlike much of the media, and apparently cradle, I didn't dismiss Romney's argument simply because he's not as facile a debater and was caught by a verbal zinger and didn't have a comeback. Romney's view was much more involved than that format favored, indeed really needed long format discussion...but our politics don't reward long format.

I don't blame that on Romney, but rather on we voters for not working harder to understand complexity and reward those who do.

But again, Obama was also "correct" in his identification of that immediate direct threat.
His view was validated by the rise of ISIS. That was coming...

Cradle awards points for witty comebacks…. “You are no JFK” …a “big sucking sound” and such….mitty ain’t witty.

Wrongo buckwheat I live in the real world where words and actions by our leaders should mean something?

This statement demonstrates you in fact do not live in the real world.

[cradleandshoot]

...you can't unring this bell.

Russia's not our biggest threat. It's China,
...& Team Biden's made them Russia's ally.

I always enjoy some of the folks on this forum trying to spin this clip where Obama b***h slapped mittens on the debate stage. I remember watching Obama b***h slap mittens in real time. I remember thinking mittens was just pitched a low hanging curve that he could hit out of the park. Mittens never even took a swing at the pitch. That clip, much to the consternation of MD lax is why I lost all respect for mittens. He had a very rare opportunity to call out Obama. Mittens lost the election right then and there. The only time since then that mittens showed he had any balls left was his universal blue blood Republican attack on the dumpster. Too bad you blue bloods didn't stand by mittens when you had the opportunity. Mittens was 100% spot on with his distrust for the Russians. Today in 2023 the DemocRATs are finally in complete agreement with mittens. Maybe mittens should have called the 80s and asked them for their foreign policy back.

Nobody is talking about Romney but you.

I know, nobody wants to discuss the fact Romney was correct when he chastised the Russian regime. Mittens ineptitude during this back and forth with Obama had much to do with him losing the election. Maybe some of those policies left over from the 80s were not all that bad. I heard on the news this morning that Putin floated a trial balloon about pushing back the borders in Poland. Maybe, just maybe, the conversation should focus on the US ineptitude in how we dealt with Russia after the end of the cold war? If only mittens had pressed Obama what he meant when he said the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back?

Nobody wants to for a bunch of reasons adding up to: it’s irrelevant.

ugh, I'll do it one more time.

Romney's answer was arguably "correct"; Romney correctly identified Russia as the most aggressively malign "geopolitical" player in 2012; Georgia had happened, Crimea was coming shortly, Russia was already aggressively involved in asymmetric interference in democracies with its neighbors especially, Europe and the US generally. We (the general public) only became conscious of this here in 2016, but it was well underway. Moreover, Russia was on the march diplomatically spreading its influence with other authoritarians around the world.

Romney was right about this level of aggressiveness; in comparison, China was far less aggressive in attempting to do damage (but super aggressive in economic competition though IP theft etc). Long term, China's economic ascension is likely to be a larger threat to American influence geopolitically but for the decade ahead of the 2012 election, Russia was the larger threat because of its aggression.

But Obama was also "correct" in that religiously motivated terrorism had recently been and were the most immediate direct threat to American interests abroad.

What cradle seems to think is that Romney shouldn't be respected because he's not an adept orator or debater, nor natural "politician", and was on stage with a generational talent.

I have and had the opposite reaction. While I admired Obama's talents, I was more interested in the underlying thought process and policy view. Unlike much of the media, and apparently cradle, I didn't dismiss Romney's argument simply because he's not as facile a debater and was caught by a verbal zinger and didn't have a comeback. Romney's view was much more involved than that format favored, indeed really needed long format discussion...but our politics don't reward long format.

I don't blame that on Romney, but rather on we voters for not working harder to understand complexity and reward those who do.

But again, Obama was also "correct" in his identification of that immediate direct threat.
His view was validated by the rise of ISIS. That was coming...

I disagree with your opinion here on so many levels. The basic point was that President Obama boxed mittens ears and made him look silly at that point in the debate. I have made the same point about this particular moment in the debate repeatedly. Mittens had a golden opportunity to respond to President Obama's sarcastic reply. He said nothing and I was stunned that he didn't defend his opinion since he was 100% correct in his assessment of the threat posed by Putin. Your trying to defend Obama by making a convoluted argument about the complexities that also include the Chicoms. That is the dilemma posed to any sitting POTUS. They have to simultaneously deal with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and any other number of nations that don't like the US. HRC tried her reset button approach which probably made Putin split his sides open from laughing at such a stupid empty and vapid proposal. Mittens was correct and now there is a horrifying possibility of yet another war in Europe started by yet one more insane leader of a major power.