All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

I did another comparison.

Total EU support for Ukraine compared to total US is about 75%.

Total EU GDP is about 72% of US GDP.

So, they are giving roughly the same, slightly more, to Ukraine as a % of GDP.

Specific countries vary...looks like the most eager to support Ukraine are primarily those closest to Russia.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I did another comparison.

Total EU support for Ukraine compared to total US is about 75%.

Total EU GDP is about 72% of US GDP.

So, they are giving roughly the same, slightly more, to Ukraine as a % of GDP.

Specific countries vary...looks like the most eager to support Ukraine are primarily those closest to Russia.

Those are good data points. Relatively fair share.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

oops, the clip was indeed taken out of context, and grossly misrepresented, exactly as we predicted...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics ... index.html

[youthathletics]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

oops, the clip was indeed taken out of context, and grossly misrepresented, exactly as we predicted...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics ... index.html

Nothing changes.....Ukraine may not be a member State, but they are a NATO Partner, being funded by NATO states and playing in the sandbox along side those NATO states..... It is a play on words by Zelesnkyy. Scare tactic for sure and equally yoked that none of the NATO states want to allow a win by Russia. So in order to win....the US may have to fight (on the ground??) to prevent a UK/NATO Partner loss.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

oops, the clip was indeed taken out of context, and grossly misrepresented, exactly as we predicted...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics ... index.html

Nothing changes.....Ukraine may not be a member State, but they are a NATO Partner, being funded by NATO states and playing in the sandbox along side those NATO states..... It is a play on words by Zelesnkyy. Scare tactic for sure and equally yoked that none of the NATO states want to allow a win by Russia. So in order to win....the US may NOT have to fight (on the ground??) to prevent a UK/NATO Partner loss.

Fixed it.

[youthathletics]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

oops, the clip was indeed taken out of context, and grossly misrepresented, exactly as we predicted...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics ... index.html

Nothing changes.....Ukraine may not be a member State, but they are a NATO Partner, being funded by NATO states and playing in the sandbox along side those NATO states..... It is a play on words by Zelesnkyy. Scare tactic for sure and equally yoked that none of the NATO states want to allow a win by Russia. So in order to win....the US may NOT have to fight (on the ground??) to prevent a UK/NATO Partner loss.

Fixed it.

Thanks for backing me on this one.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

oops, the clip was indeed taken out of context, and grossly misrepresented, exactly as we predicted...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics ... index.html

Nothing changes.....Ukraine may not be a member State, but they are a NATO Partner, being funded by NATO states and playing in the sandbox along side those NATO states..... It is a play on words by Zelesnkyy. Scare tactic for sure and equally yoked that none of the NATO states want to allow a win by Russia. So in order to win....the US may NOT have to fight (on the ground??) to prevent a UK/NATO Partner loss.

Fixed it.

Thanks for backing me on this one.

Yes. “May”. Anything is possible.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

oops, the clip was indeed taken out of context, and grossly misrepresented, exactly as we predicted...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics ... index.html

Nothing changes.....Ukraine may not be a member State, but they are a NATO Partner, being funded by NATO states and playing in the sandbox along side those NATO states..... It is a play on words by Zelesnkyy. Scare tactic for sure and equally yoked that none of the NATO states want to allow a win by Russia. So in order to win....the US may have to fight (on the ground??) to prevent a UK/NATO Partner loss.

Again, why misrepresent what he's saying?

YOU may think the US will send troops to the ground in Ukraine, but that sure as heck isn't what Zelensky said. Nope, he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

Why do you think the countries that are donating the highest % of their GDP to Ukraine happen to be these neighboring countries, closest to the next front lines, should Ukraine fall?

OBVIOUSLY because they want Ukraine to defeat Russia.

[PizzaSnake]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

oops, the clip was indeed taken out of context, and grossly misrepresented, exactly as we predicted...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics ... index.html

Nothing changes.....Ukraine may not be a member State, but they are a NATO Partner, being funded by NATO states and playing in the sandbox along side those NATO states..... It is a play on words by Zelesnkyy. Scare tactic for sure and equally yoked that none of the NATO states want to allow a win by Russia. So in order to win....the US may have to fight (on the ground??) to prevent a UK/NATO Partner loss.

Again, why misrepresent what he's saying?

YOU may think the US will send troops to the ground in Ukraine, but that sure as heck isn't what Zelensky said. Nope, he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

Why do you think the countries that are donating the highest % of their GDP to Ukraine happen to be these neighboring countries, closest to the next front lines, should Ukraine fall?

OBVIOUSLY because they want Ukraine to defeat Russia.

I much prefer to clean my fish in your kitchen. Has to be done, and why not do it in your house?

Understanding human motivation is generally as simple as "qui bono."

Is altrusim heritable?

[youthathletics]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

oops, the clip was indeed taken out of context, and grossly misrepresented, exactly as we predicted...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics ... index.html

Nothing changes.....Ukraine may not be a member State, but they are a NATO Partner, being funded by NATO states and playing in the sandbox along side those NATO states..... It is a play on words by Zelesnkyy. Scare tactic for sure and equally yoked that none of the NATO states want to allow a win by Russia. So in order to win....the US may have to fight (on the ground??) to prevent a UK/NATO Partner loss.

Again, why misrepresent what he's saying?

YOU may think the US will send troops to the ground in Ukraine, but that sure as heck isn't what Zelensky said. Nope, he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

Why do you think the countries that are donating the highest % of their GDP to Ukraine happen to be these neighboring countries, closest to the next front lines, should Ukraine fall?

OBVIOUSLY because they want Ukraine to defeat Russia.

I am not misrepresenting him....I am listening to his words and playing-it-out-for-the-longlook. You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that he is implicitly saying.....there is going to be a time where money is not enough if the people of UK can no longer hold russia back.

Let's pray that it never comes to needing bodies on the ground....that is the primary argument, to which I believe we can both agree.

[Kismet]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

oops, the clip was indeed taken out of context, and grossly misrepresented, exactly as we predicted...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics ... index.html

Nothing changes.....Ukraine may not be a member State, but they are a NATO Partner, being funded by NATO states and playing in the sandbox along side those NATO states..... It is a play on words by Zelesnkyy. Scare tactic for sure and equally yoked that none of the NATO states want to allow a win by Russia. So in order to win....the US may have to fight (on the ground??) to prevent a UK/NATO Partner loss.

Again, why misrepresent what he's saying?

YOU may think the US will send troops to the ground in Ukraine, but that sure as heck isn't what Zelensky said. Nope, he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

Why do you think the countries that are donating the highest % of their GDP to Ukraine happen to be these neighboring countries, closest to the next front lines, should Ukraine fall?

OBVIOUSLY because they want Ukraine to defeat Russia.

I am not misrepresenting him....I am listening to his words and playing-it-out-for-the-longlook. You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that he is implicitly saying.....there is going to be a time where money is not enough if the people of UK can no longer hold russia back.

Let's pray that it never comes to needing bodies on the ground....that is the primary argument, to which I believe we can both agree.

Sure. Let's have an argument...just to have an argument. Sounds like a GREAT idea.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, as I don't know Ukrainian, I'm taking as accurate what the translator translates, and the English text claims he said...and that ain't what youth represented.

Now, if he said something different, sure...but I'm going by the translation as offered up...and it's pretty darn explicit.

Not sure it matters when he said it...his message, whether delivered in English or when we see a translation of him speaking in his native language, has been very, very consistent that NATO will have to fight directly if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, defeat Russia...anything less will only embolden Putin and the hardliners and they will keep coming westward...maybe he is saying something brand new now (and the translation is wrong) but I doubt it.

Okay, so we DID hear the same thing.

The piece as cut is as I said.....nebulous and hypothetical. Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Russia takes Kiev? Does he mean NATO will have to go to war if Ukraine can't put Russia out of Ukraine? Does he mean NATO will have go to war if Russia won't leave Crimea?

Does he mean that if Putin beats Ukraine, he's sure to invade a NATO country, and NATO will then have to fight?

It's completely nebulous what "loses" means. And it's hypothetical....if this, then that.

Just like I said.

He's saying, as he's said repeatedly through MANY interviews through most of this conflict, that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. And if that is true, NATO will be in direct war because NATO counties will be attacked. In no place does he indicate that fight would be in Ukraine, nope "that's NATO".

Salty calls it a "scare tactic"...that's probably correct, though I disagree with him that Putin wouldn't dare go further if he defeats Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia. I think that would have been highly likely had the blitzkrieg succeeded...and I continue to think it likely if Ukraine capitulated with the west withdrawing support in the coming months, though probably would be a pause to rebuild and better train Russian forces.

We can imagine that he's saying something new or more nuanced, but I doubt that's the case.

oops, the clip was indeed taken out of context, and grossly misrepresented, exactly as we predicted...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics ... index.html

Nothing changes.....Ukraine may not be a member State, but they are a NATO Partner, being funded by NATO states and playing in the sandbox along side those NATO states..... It is a play on words by Zelesnkyy. Scare tactic for sure and equally yoked that none of the NATO states want to allow a win by Russia. So in order to win....the US may have to fight (on the ground??) to prevent a UK/NATO Partner loss.

Again, why misrepresent what he's saying?

YOU may think the US will send troops to the ground in Ukraine, but that sure as heck isn't what Zelensky said. Nope, he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

Why do you think the countries that are donating the highest % of their GDP to Ukraine happen to be these neighboring countries, closest to the next front lines, should Ukraine fall?

OBVIOUSLY because they want Ukraine to defeat Russia.

I am not misrepresenting him....I am listening to his words and playing-it-out-for-the-longlook. You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that he is implicitly saying.....there is going to be a time where money is not enough if the people of UK can no longer hold russia back.

Let's pray that it never comes to needing bodies on the ground....that is the primary argument, to which I believe we can both agree.

On the last, yes, let's hope and pray that the bodies on the ground won't need to be Americans, but there ARE bodies on the ground, Ukrainians and Russians predominantly.

But no, you are definitely misrepresenting him. He's definitely not saying that Americans will be on the ground prior to the Russia attacking NATO...but he IS saying that such an attack would inevitably happen if Putin is stopped before then.

He's absolutely not saying that needs to happen.

The Ukrainians CAN hold Russia back IF the western weaponry is brought to bear...on time.

In other words, better now than later.

Later would be even more expensive, in blood and treasure, for NATO countries than now.
And oh yeah, if we don't help them defeat Russia millions of Ukrainians will be forced into exile or die or be subject to atrocities.

I really don't understand why you can't accept that this is what he's saying...did you watch the whole thing? Read the article?

You needn't agree with him, just don't make up BS.

[old salt]

I did another comparison.

Total EU support for Ukraine compared to total US is about 75%.

Total EU GDP is about 72% of US GDP.

So, they are giving roughly the same, slightly more, to Ukraine as a % of GDP.

Specific countries vary...looks like the most eager to support Ukraine are primarily those closest to Russia.

Who is "they" ? The question was Italy.

[old salt]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

[MDlaxfan76]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

Debate the point if you'd like, but I think Zelensky is correct that if Russia overruns Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next, just a matter of when. That's less a sure thing now that Russia has lost so miserably, with so many men lost, so much armament lost, but if the West pulls back from support of Ukraine, capitulating, the threat of "NATO" having the resolve to fight on behalf of the Baltics would be pretty darn low.

Bottomline, Putin and the hardliners want to resort the full empire and they'll keep coming until stopped. That might be 5 years later, 10 years later, perhaps with a new "Trump" type figure in the White House, but they're coming. And it could be coupled with China's invasion of Taiwan.

The good news, now, is that Ukraine can and will stop Russia, given sufficient assistance.
No need to wonder who Russia would attack next.
No need to embolden the Chinese.

[MDlaxfan76]

I did another comparison.

Total EU support for Ukraine compared to total US is about 75%.

Total EU GDP is about 72% of US GDP.

So, they are giving roughly the same, slightly more, to Ukraine as a % of GDP.

Specific countries vary...looks like the most eager to support Ukraine are primarily those closest to Russia.

Who is "they" ? The question was Italy.

You and I weren't talking about Italy. We were talking about the Europeans.

BTW, the stats above don't even include the UK's contributions.

[MDlaxfan76]

I think you've underestimated the Europeans from the get-go, though it wasn't crazy to have that view.

It's based on the contributions & level of commitment we actually see from our NATO allies.

My baseline to make it a credible alliance is the level of burden sharing we had during the cold war.

When you compare US contributions (in all forms) to our EU NATO allies, we're nowhere near the cold war level of burden sharing for an equally urgent threat to European security.

This is the conversation you and I were having.

Youth made a comment specific to a guy he met on a base...about Italy's commitments; TLD responded with Meloni's latest public commitment/statement.

Not me.

[old salt]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

Debate the point if you'd like, but I think Zelensky is correct that if Russia overruns Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next, just a matter of when. That's less a sure thing now that Russia has lost so miserably, with so many men lost, so much armament lost, but if the West pulls back from support of Ukraine, capitulating, the threat of "NATO" having the resolve to fight on behalf of the Baltics would be pretty darn low.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

[PizzaSnake]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

Debate the point if you'd like, but I think Zelensky is correct that if Russia overruns Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next, just a matter of when. That's less a sure thing now that Russia has lost so miserably, with so many men lost, so much armament lost, but if the West pulls back from support of Ukraine, capitulating, the threat of "NATO" having the resolve to fight on behalf of the Baltics would be pretty darn low.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

Just one question for you:

Is Russia a threat? If this report is true, Putin needs to go. Period. Full stop.

Disagree and you're a monster and worthy of no further discussion.

"At least 20 torture centers in the recently liberated Ukrainian city of Kherson have direct financial links to the Kremlin, according to a team of international lawyers helping Ukraine investigate alleged Russian war crimes.

The new evidence comes one year after Kherson was captured by Russian forces. It was the first major Ukrainian city to fall during Moscow’s full-scale invasion. In November, Ukrainian forces liberated the southeastern city, once home to more than 280,000 people.

“Working closely with Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General, a paper trail has been exposed that shows that the main torture chambers in Kherson and those administering them do so through the financial support of the Russian state,” Wayne Jordash, an international human rights lawyer and managing partner of the law firm Global Rights Compliance, told CNBC.

Jordash added that the team of lawyers, experts and investigators uncovered that the torture sites were directly managed by several Kremlin security agencies, including Russia’s Federal Security Services, known as the FSB, successor to the KGB."

No more equivocating and whining that various states didn't do enough to protect themselves.

Tell us who you really are and what you really stand for.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/02/ukraine ... emlin.html

Or, let me guess, it's all "fake news." That it?

[Typical Lax Dad]

...he explicitly said that Putin will then invade the Baltics, and THEY are NATO...

...& how many fighter jets in the combined air forces in the Baltic states ?
They've done a lot over the past 3 decades to defend themselves.

Debate the point if you'd like, but I think Zelensky is correct that if Russia overruns Ukraine, the Baltics are likely next, just a matter of when. That's less a sure thing now that Russia has lost so miserably, with so many men lost, so much armament lost, but if the West pulls back from support of Ukraine, capitulating, the threat of "NATO" having the resolve to fight on behalf of the Baltics would be pretty darn low.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

Just one question for you:

Is Russia a threat? If this report is true, Putin needs to go. Period. Full stop.

Disagree and you're a monster and worthy of no further discussion.

"At least 20 torture centers in the recently liberated Ukrainian city of Kherson have direct financial links to the Kremlin, according to a team of international lawyers helping Ukraine investigate alleged Russian war crimes.

The new evidence comes one year after Kherson was captured by Russian forces. It was the first major Ukrainian city to fall during Moscow’s full-scale invasion. In November, Ukrainian forces liberated the southeastern city, once home to more than 280,000 people.

“Working closely with Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General, a paper trail has been exposed that shows that the main torture chambers in Kherson and those administering them do so through the financial support of the Russian state,” Wayne Jordash, an international human rights lawyer and managing partner of the law firm Global Rights Compliance, told CNBC.

Jordash added that the team of lawyers, experts and investigators uncovered that the torture sites were directly managed by several Kremlin security agencies, including Russia’s Federal Security Services, known as the FSB, successor to the KGB."

No more equivocating and whining that various states didn't do enough to protect themselves.

Tell us who you really are and what you really stand for.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/02/ukraine ... emlin.html

Or, let me guess, it's all "fake news." That it?

Old Sailor blames Biden…..he just wants the POTUS to be successful, until he doesn’t.