All Things Russia & Ukraine

[PizzaSnake]

Will Britain supply long range missiles?

"In a procurement notice posted May 2 by the British-led International Fund for Ukraine, a group of northern European countries that has set up a mechanism to send weapons to the battlefield, the United Kingdom’s Defense Ministry asked for “expressions of interest” in providing strike capabilities with a range of up to 300 kilometers, or nearly 200 miles. The notice asked for responses within three days.

No final decision has been made, according to a British official who declined to confirm the type, timing or quantity of weaponry under consideration. But the notice is a substantive step toward Britain itself supplying such munitions, and the requested specifications and capabilities closely match its air-launched Storm Shadow cruise missiles."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... e-missile/

If they do, say goodbye to the Kerch Strait bridge.

I am a little concerned about Putin rendering Ukraine a nuclear wasteland by sabotaging the nuclear power plant at Zaporizhzhia. If he can't have it, no one can...

[old salt]

Should lead to a valuable op-test flyoff. Could influence future air defense system sales.

US Patriot <=> Russian cruise & ballistic missiles VS Russian S-400 <=> EUro Storm Shadow cruise missile.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... 2f5745541d

Ukraine Should Have No Problem Arming Its Old Soviet Jets With New British Cruise Missiles
by David Axe, Feb 20, 2023

The United Kingdom will give Ukraine “longer-range weapons,” U.K. prime minister Rishi Sunak said at a diplomatic conference in Munich on Saturday.
Sunak might be referring to the Royal Air Force’s Storm Shadow—a 2,900-pound, air-launched cruise missile that can travel as far as 155 miles.

Storm Shadow could extend, by scores of miles, the range at which Ukrainian forces can strike targets in Russian-occupied Ukraine or even across the border in Russia itself.

Although to be clear, if the United Kingdom’s diplomatic sensitivities are the same as the United States’ own sensitivities, London will discourage Kyiv from using British-supplied weapons to strike on Russian soil.

The $1-million-plus Storm Shadow is a good match for the Ukrainian air force. Barring a crash effort by Ukraine’s allies to equip the air force with new, Western-style warplanes, the Ukrainians would have to launch Storm Shadows from their existing, Soviet-made jets.

Fortunately for the Ukrainian air force, the missile is highly-autonomous—and thus adaptable to a wide range of plane types.

Storm Shadow belongs to a family of missiles that also includes the German Taurus, the French Scalp and an export missile for Middle East customers called “Black Shaheen.”

Storm Shadow and its cousins have armed Tornado bombers and Mirage 2000, Rafale and Eurofighter fighters. If the Ukrainians get Storm Shadows and if they integrate them on their existing warplane types, someone—contractors from European missile-maker MBDA—will have to integrate the missile with Su-24 bombers or MiG-29 or Su-27 fighters.

It’s not impossible. Note that, last spring, American engineers quickly kluged U.S.-supplied High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles onto Ukrainian MiG-29s and Su-27s.

Storm Shadow might be even easier to integrate than HARM was. MBDA’s predecessors designed Storm Shadow for ease-of-use in what Italian air force test pilot Enrico Scarabotto described as “an incredibly low pilot workload cockpit environment.”

Most of the work of programming a Storm Shadow takes place on the ground, before a mission. Technicians use Storm Shadow’s Data Programming System to tell the missile where to strike and at what angle.

Storm Shadow navigates toward GPS coordinates, but corrects its course by scanning the terrain passing below it and matching it to known features. As it approaches its target, the missile pops open its nose to reveal an infrared seeker scans for the target’s heat profile—and guides the weapon to impact.

All that is to say, a pilot doesn’t have to do very much to launch a Storm Shadow except deliver it to an initial point that the missile recognizes. Thus the work of integrating Storm Shadow onto a new plane type mostly involves installing a physical interface—a pylon—and testing the plane-missile pairing to make sure there are no aerodynamic surprises.

If the Ukrainians get Storm Shadows and integrate them on old MiGs and Sukhois, expect the testing to be brief. Kyiv has been begging for longer-range weapons. It’s not going to waste time deploying them.

[MDlaxfan76]

yes, Putin and his supporters and apologists are undoubtedly hoping that Trump would win...glad to see you're recognizing that Trump is good for Putin.

But that would mean Ukraine is completely over run, not a phony 'peace'.

If correct that the West will fold if Trump wins, then Ukraine is over. Putin takes it.

So, sure, Ukraine feels under pressure, of course they do...but the right answer is Biden's answer, we're in it for the long haul, as long as it takes to push Russia out.

This notion that just because it's an authoritarian state, Putin can call up 25 million men to fight over, what?

Russians are not going to keep sending their children and young men to fight for a "special military operation". They simply aren't that dumb.
Instead they empty the jails of criminals.

So, all those people demanding or predicting a rapid end to the war, that "we can't afford it", back last spring, last fall, this winter, this spring are merely providing aid and comfort to the enemy of the Western world. Brute authoritarianism and aggression.

Best reason to support Biden over Trump, though there are SO MANY other important reasons as well.
Thank goodness Trump is such an a-hole and so many of our fellow Americans now know it.

That's not an accurate interpretation of the NY Times analyses I posted or of my own position.
Are you predicting that if Trump is elected that all US military aid will stop & if it does, NATO aid will not continue or be sufficient ?

Not everyone shares your idealistic assessment that the exact location of Ukraine's SE border are critical to long term US national security interests.

We also conclude that further Russian expansionism can be contained & deterred without restoration of all Ukrainian territory to 2013 borders.

Nor that the pursuit of total victory in Ukraine supersedes the need to invest our limited military resources in other theaters such as W Pac.

Your dreams of war crimes tribunals are just that. The US public won't continue funding this war for that, compared to all the other war crimes in the world, just because the Ukrainians have white skin.

Really, I thought that was pretty darn accurate conclusion coming off that article. Can't say for sure what your views are, but, yeah, it appears clear that you're rooting against Biden, want the war stopped before Ukraine re-takes their sovereign territory, and seem to hope Putin walks away without punishment.

I totally reject that Putin will walk away on his own, short of obtaining his objectives.
He's proven he won't, while lying through his teeth and every pore.

US and western security interests require Russia's aggression to be thoroughly defeated, not some BS "truce" while Putin re-arms. Thankfully, the Ukrainians have a very strong interest in doing so. But "total victory" is a term that I don't expect to be achieved militarily as I don't think we will, or should, support a full scale war on Russia. Just beat them out of Ukraine. All of it would be best case, possibly settle for Crimea for NATO membership.

Yes, I AM predicting that if Trump is elected there will be zero basis to expect ongoing aid to Ukraine of any sort from the US...and without US leadership most of the rest will shrivel as well. Trump will be totally unmoored from any political or legal or any other constraint of his actions. And we know that he regards all such as mere annoyances at most, as it is. But if, god forbid, he actually wins power back, katy bar the door.

That doesn't mean he won't wave his hands around, but unless someone pays him to do otherwise, he ain't funding Ukraine or anyone else.

I'm not predicting Putin's demise or overthrow, but it wouldn't surprise me if he's tossed out if the military defeat becomes overwhelming.

And as I've previously argued ad nauseam, and certainly am not alone, Russia's defeat by Ukraine, with strong Western resolve, may be the most effective deterrence to other great power hot war conflicts that may be just over the horizon, ie Asia with China.

Give the partisan "rooting" b.s. a rest. This issue is too important for that nonsense. It's a cop out when you don't like the facts.

FTR -- I hope you're right & I'm wrong. It will be a great thing if there's a black swan event & the western trained & equipped Ukrainian army spearheads a rout of the Russian army & proves to be a force multiplier for the Soviet legacy weapons which still constitute the vast majority of their heavy weapons. Prompting a collapse, surrender & withdrawal of Russian forces, toppling Putin in the process.

That would be a victory for Ukraine, NATO & the US. It would validate the superiority of US weapons, tactics, training & intelligence.
Our defense industry would be flooded with Foreign Military Sales orders for US weapons, while we feverishly scramble to restock our donated & expended missiles & munitions, at the expense of deficit dollars needed for replacement aircraft & warships. We can't continue donating $100 million/yr to arm, equip & train Ukraine for the long war that you predict, & experience has shown that our EUro allies won't pick up the slack.
...but it's fun to dream.

Yes, the issue is indeed too important to allow partisan rooting against the President get in the way of clear-eyed commitment.

Yes, we can and should be prepared to continue to support the defeat of Russian aggression. The alternative would be far, far more costly.

We should NOT be pressuring our fellow citizens, our leaders, and other Western leaders, to be weak-kneed in their support of Ukraine.

The logic that it will be hard and costly is a loser's story.

[old salt]

The logic that it will be hard and costly is a loser's story.

It's not our war to win or lose. We were not attacked. We have no significant national interest at stake.

NATO is stronger now than at any time since the Cold War. Russia is contained.
This war has demonstrated that Russia is not a credible threat to NATO nations.

We're funding a proxy war, being fought for regional influence, to degrade a strategic adversary.
it's a neocon globalist adventure being done to degrade Russia's militarily & bring about regime change in Moscow.

RFK Jr is right on this one ...& his stance on vaccines has nothing to do with this issue.
Other than that, he has a progressive agenda that Dems & libs should love.

[old salt]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ ... ussia-west

The World Beyond Ukraine
The Survival of the West and the Demands of the Rest
By David Miliband, Published on April 18, 2023

“Ukraine has united the world,” declared Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a speech on the first anniversary of the start of the war with Russia. If only that were true. The war has certainly united the West, but it has left the world divided. And that rift will only widen if Western countries fail to address its root causes.

The traditional transatlantic alliance of European and North American countries has mobilized in unprecedented fashion for a protracted conflict in Ukraine. It has offered extensive humanitarian support for people inside Ukraine and for Ukrainian refugees. And it is preparing for what will be a massive rebuilding job after the war. But outside Europe and North America, the defense of Ukraine is not front of mind. Few governments endorse the brazen Russian invasion, yet many remain unpersuaded by the West’s insistence that the struggle for freedom and democracy in Ukraine is also theirs. As French President Emmanuel Macron said at the Munich Security Conference in February, “I am struck by how we have lost the trust of the global South.” He is right. Western conviction about the war and its importance is matched elsewhere by skepticism at best and outright disdain at worst.

The gap between the West and the rest goes beyond the rights and wrongs of the war. Instead, it is the product of deep frustration—anger, in truth—about the Western-led mismanagement of globalization since the end of the Cold War. From this perspective, the concerted Western response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine has thrown into sharp relief the occasions when the West violated its own rules or when it was conspicuously missing in action in tackling global problems. Such arguments can seem beside the point in light of the daily brutality meted out by Russian forces in Ukraine. But Western leaders should address them, not dismiss them. The gulf in perspectives is dangerous for a world facing enormous global risks. And it threatens the renewal of a rules-based order that reflects a new, multipolar balance of power in the world.

THE WEST APART FROM THE REST
The Russian invasion has produced remarkable unity and action from the liberal democratic world. Western countries have coordinated an extensive slate of economic sanctions targeting Russia. European states have increasingly aligned their climate policies on decarbonization with national security-related commitments to end their dependence on Russian oil and gas. Western governments have rallied to support Ukraine with enormous shipments of military aid. Finland and Sweden aim to be soon admitted to NATO. And Europe has adopted a welcoming policy toward the eight million Ukrainian refugees within its borders. All these efforts have been advocated by a U.S. administration that has been sure-footed in partnering with European allies and others. The squabbles over Afghanistan and the AUKUS security partnership (a 2021 deal struck by Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States that irked France) seem a long time ago.

Many in the West have been surprised at this turn of events. Clearly, so was the Kremlin, which imagined that its invasion would not provoke a strong and determined Western response. The West’s unity and commitment are not matched elsewhere, however. At the beginning of the war, the UN General Assembly voted 141 to 5, with 47 absences or abstentions, to condemn the Russian invasion. But that result flattered to deceive. As the team of analysts at the International Crisis Group have noted: “Most non-European countries that voted to deplore Russia’s aggression last March did not follow up with sanctions. Doing the right thing at the UN can be an alibi for not doing much about the war in the real world.”

In a series of UN votes since the war started, around 40 countries representing nearly 50 percent of the world’s population have regularly abstained or voted against motions condemning the Russian invasion. Fifty-eight countries abstained from a vote, in April 2022, to expel Russia from the UN Human Rights Council. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, two-thirds of the world’s population live in countries that are officially neutral or supportive of Russia. These countries do not form some kind of axis of autocracy; they include several notable democracies, such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, and South Africa.

Much of the fence-sitting is not driven by disagreements over the conflict in Ukraine but is instead a symptom of a wider syndrome: anger at perceived Western double standards and frustration at stalled reform efforts in the international system. The distinguished Indian diplomat Shivshankar Menon put the point sharply in Foreign Affairs earlier this year when he wrote, “Alienated and resentful, many developing countries see the war in Ukraine and the West’s rivalry with China as distracting from urgent issues such as debt, climate change, and the effects of the pandemic.”

ON THE FENCE
Realpolitik has played its part in determining the positions of certain countries on the Ukraine conflict. India has traditionally been dependent on Russia for military supplies. The Wagner paramilitary company—the Russian mercenary organization now active in Ukraine—has worked with governments in western and central Africa to support their security and survival. And China, which is one of Russia’s principal sources of support, is the largest trading partner of more than 120 countries around the world and has proved unforgiving of diplomatic slights.

But there are also other factors. Some countries contest the Western narrative about the causes of the war. For example, although Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has described the invasion as a “mistake,” he has also given credence to the argument that Russia has been wronged. “Zelensky is as responsible as Putin for the war,” Lula claimed last summer in a statement that highlighted global ambivalence about the conflict.

The war has united the West, but it has left the world divided.
Many observers outside the West also perceive that impunity is, in general, the province of all strong countries, not just Russia. The United States is in an especially weak position to defend global norms after the presidency of Donald Trump, which saw contempt for global rules and practices in areas as diverse as the climate, human rights, and nuclear nonproliferation. Critics point to the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to claim that hypocrisy, not principle, is driving the West. And U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen, which spawned a humanitarian crisis in that country, is adduced as evidence of doublespeak when it comes to concern for civilians. It is also argued that the West has shown far more compassion for the victims of war in Ukraine than for the victims of wars elsewhere. The UN appeal for humanitarian aid for Ukraine has been 80 to 90 percent funded. Meanwhile, the UN’s 2022 appeals for people caught in crises in Ethiopia, Syria, and Yemen have been barely half funded.

On their own, some of these reasons for sitting on the sidelines might seem petty to Ukrainians fighting on the frontlines. But the wariness of supporting Ukraine must not obscure a bigger problem. The West has failed since the financial crisis of 2008 to show that it is willing or able to drive forward a more equal and sustainable global economic bargain or to develop the political institutions appropriate to manage a multipolar world. This failure is now coming home to roost... More than 100 million people are currently fleeing for their lives from warfare or disaster. The UN reports that 350 million people today are in humanitarian need, compared with 81 million people ten years ago. More than 600 million Africans lack access to electricity. The UN Development Program reports that 25 developing countries are spending over 20 percent of government revenues on debt servicing, with 54 countries suffering from severe debt problems. And the unequal access to vaccines to combat the pandemic—a gulf especially glaring during the early phases of the vaccine rollout in 2021—has become a poster child for empty promises....seen as a symbol of Western bad faith: all talk, no walk.

HOLLOW SOLIDARITY
If the next two decades are like the last two, marked by the West’s confused priorities and failed promises, multipolarity in the global system will come to mean more than greater economic competition. It will mean strengthened ideological challenges to the principles of Western countries and weakened incentives for non-Western countries to associate or cooperate with the West. Instead, liberal democratic countries that support a rules-based global system need to think and act with long-term strategic purpose as they engage with the rest of the world. China has been doing so since 1990...

Support for refugees presents a further example of how global costs are shared unequally. Although many Western countries bemoan the influx of refugees, poor and lower middle-income countries host over 80 percent of them. Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Pakistan, Turkey, and Uganda all take in large numbers of refugees. Poland, currently hosting over 1.6 million Ukrainians, and Germany, with 1.5 million Syrians, are outliers among rich countries. Poor and lower middle-income countries receive limited recompense from richer countries for the responsibilities they bear and therefore have limited incentive to enact policies that promote the inclusion of refugees in work, education, and health systems.

A LOOK IN THE MIRROR
In the battle for global opinion, narrative matters. The preferred Western framing of the war in Ukraine—as a contest between democracy and autocracy—has not resonated well outside Europe and North America. Although it is true that Ukrainians are fighting for their democracy as well as their sovereignty, for the rest of the world the invasion primarily represents a fundamental transgression of international law. So, too, do Russia’s military attacks, which have targeted Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure.

There is a better alternative. Western governments should frame the conflict as one between the rule of law and impunity or between law and anarchy rather than one that pits democracy against autocracy. Such an approach has many advantages. It correctly locates democracy among a range of methods for the promotion of accountability and the curbing of the abuse of power. It broadens the potential coalition of support. It tests China at its weakest point because China claims to support a rules-based international system. It also sounds less self-regarding, which is important given the obvious problems plaguing many liberal democracies. A coalition built around the need for international rules is far more likely to be broader than one based on calls for democracy.

It is worth asking whether it really matters how the rest of the world lines up on Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin, for one, said in a speech in June 2022 that he believes it does, arguing that in the wake of the war, “new powerful centers have formed on the planet,” a reference to the rise of powers such as Brazil, China, and South Africa. These changes, Putin claims, are “fundamental and pivotal.” Meanwhile, China has launched a series of global projects under the rubric of its “Community of Common Destiny Future for Mankind,” including the vast infrastructure investment program known as the Belt and Road Initiative, that reflect the changing global order.

Yet U.S. President Joe Biden spent less than three minutes discussing the wider world beyond Ukraine in his State of the Union address in February, which was more than an hour long. It was a striking lacuna given his administration’s creditable record: over 90 percent of humanitarian aid going to Somalia, for example, currently comes from the United States. An agenda focused on courting the rest of the world has little domestic traction, of course; that is not where the votes are. But other countries also have votes—not in U.S. elections but in how American interests are perceived and advanced around the world. In the case of Ukraine, Russia’s economy has been sustained despite Western sanctions by expanded trade with the non-Western world, new energy alliances, and new sources of weapons supplies. These ties matter.

As a geopolitical entity, the West remains a powerful and influential actor, more so with its newfound unity. To be sure, the relative shares of global income among Western countries will be lower in the twenty-first century than they were in the twentieth. But income per capita in Western countries remains high by global standards. The West’s military and diplomatic strength is real. The alternative systems to democracy are repressive and unattractive.

At the same time, the demands from a variety of countries for a new deal at the international level are in many cases reasonable. Addressing them with urgency and in good faith is essential to building a global order that is satisfactory to liberal democratic states and their citizens. The war in Ukraine has allowed the West to rediscover its strength and sense of purpose. But the conflict should also help Western governments confront their weaknesses and missteps.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The logic that it will be hard and costly is a loser's story.

It's not our war to win or lose. We were not attacked. We have no significant national interest at stake.

NATO is stronger now than at any time since the Cold War. Russia is contained.
This war has demonstrated that Russia is not a credible threat to NATO nations.

We're funding a proxy war, being fought for regional influence, to degrade a strategic adversary.
it's a neocon globalist adventure being done to degrade Russia's militarily & bring about regime change in Moscow.

RFK Jr is right on this one ...& his stance on vaccines has nothing to do with this issue.
Other than that, he has a progressive agenda that Dems & libs should love.

🥸

[a fan]

The logic that it will be hard and costly is a loser's story.

It's not our war to win or lose. We were not attacked. We have no significant national interest at stake

Same deal for every war since WWII.

The only difference with this war is that in your personal opinion we have no significant national interest at stake.

We mowed down hundreds of thousands of civilians and combatants in the Middle East....both directly, and as a proxy.......because in your personal opinion, you thought we HAD to have cheap gas from the region, and it was in our National Interest to muck around there.

This is no different.

Although I would argue: Black Sea shipping lanes are in our national interest in OS's world, and have been ever since you came to the Forum. You just want to ignore that because it suits your view.

[old salt]

The logic that it will be hard and costly is a loser's story.

It's not our war to win or lose. We were not attacked. We have no significant national interest at stake

Same deal for every war since WWII.

The only difference with this war is that in your personal opinion we have no significant national interest at stake.

We mowed down hundreds of thousands of civilians and combatants in the Middle East....both directly, and as a proxy.......because in your
personal opinion, you thought we HAD to have cheap gas from the region, and it was in our National Interest to muck around there.

This is no different.

Although I would argue: Black Sea shipping lanes are in our national interest in OS's world, and have been ever since you came to the Forum. You just want to ignore that because it suits your view.

We were not attacked, like Pearl Harbor or 9-11.
Korea & Vietnam were when the Cold War went hot. Do you disagree with our defense of democracy & capitalism vs communism ?
Did you attend brewers school in E Germany ?
We would not have invaded Afghanistan & Iraq had we not been attacked on 9-11.

If you want the Black Sea shipping lanes open, you'd support ending this war asap, rather than further prolonging it over who gets to rebuild what rubble in SE Ukraine. Long term stability & reducing the risk of recurring war which would disrupt shipping, would be greater if Russia retains Crimea & the land bridge along the north shore of the Sea of Azov. Otherwise, it will be a source of ongoing conflict. Ukraine would retain their primary seaborne access via their ports along the lower Dneiper, Odessa & ports further west. The alternative would be to drive Russia out of Crimea & the land bridge territory, but that could take years & naval conflict would still continue indefinitely since Russia will never give up control of access to the Caspian Sea via the Sea of Azov. That's why our DoD advisors are quietly conceding Crimea to Russia by not giving Ukraine the weapons need to reach there & downplaying the prospects & expectations for retaking Crimea. Control of Crimea & the Sea of Azov are the key. Russia will never concede on this, even if they have to use tac nucs into SE Ukrainian controlled territory, as a last resort. That's my read on the situation.

[MDlaxfan76]

Salty: "Do you disagree with our defense of democracy & capitalism vs communism ?"

Actually, it was authoritarian aggression which deserved cold and at times hot response.
We also needed to compete with the ideology of state controlled economics, but it was always the more important battle between authoritarianism and democracy, not the disagreement between the ideologies of state-communism and capitalism.

Do you disagree with our defense of democracy and the rule of law vs authoritarian aggression???

That's what is at stake in this conflict, and it's a harbinger of other potential such conflicts.

IMO, it's immensely in our national interest!

[MDlaxfan76]

The logic that it will be hard and costly is a loser's story.

It's not our war to win or lose. We were not attacked. We have no significant national interest at stake.

NATO is stronger now than at any time since the Cold War. Russia is contained.
This war has demonstrated that Russia is not a credible threat to NATO nations.

We're funding a proxy war, being fought for regional influence, to degrade a strategic adversary.
it's a neocon globalist adventure being done to degrade Russia's militarily & bring about regime change in Moscow.

RFK Jr is right on this one ...& his stance on vaccines has nothing to do with this issue.
Other than that, he has a progressive agenda that Dems & libs should love.

RFK Jr is a bozo, a nutcase. Glad to see you want to be aligned with him...

A country seeking democracy and alignment with the west, a huge producer of grain and other goods, was brutally attacked by their very powerful, authoritarian kleptocratic neighbor led by an egomaniacal sociopath, a lying POS who is willing to viciously kill and terrorize civilians to achieve his objectives, while totally ignoring international law and recognition of the smaller country's sovereignty.

If it's not in our our national interest to stand up for democracy and the rule of law against authoritarian aggressors, I don't know what it would be.

It's fundamentally an attack on the system that has enabled the United States and our people and economy to thrive for more than 70 years...but hey, defense of that system is not in our "national defense"...what a crock.

[a fan]

Do you disagree with our defense of democracy & capitalism vs communism ?

Same sales pitch they're giving us RIGHT NOW for Ukraine. Democracy v. Fascism.

One sales pitch works for you, yet the other doesn't? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to put it politely.

How can you possibly tell me that "this is different". It ain't. Same dumb sales pitch. Didn't work on me then, doesn't work on me now.

We would not have invaded Afghanistan & Iraq had we not been attacked on 9-11.

We had ALREADY invaded Iraq by then. And we had ALREADY fought proxy wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan by 9/11.

If you want the Black Sea shipping lanes open....

You've got it backwards. YOU have been the one selling me on the importance of keeping sea lanes open.

Except now. You changed your mind with one sea lane.

Long term stability & reducing the risk of recurring war which would disrupt shipping, would be greater if Russia retains Crimea & the land bridge along the north shore of the Sea of Azov. Otherwise, it will be a source of ongoing conflict.

You honestly think that the Ukrainians have lost all this blood, and watched Putin hammer civilian targets for two years and counting.....and will simply say "yeah, go ahead and keep 20% of our nation. Who cares, right?"

What would YOUR advice be if you were a soldier in Ukraine? Please. You'd NEVER concede 20% of America on your watch to V freaking Putin. You spend your entire CAREER to make sure that didn't happen, remember? But you want Ukraine to act more nobly that you did when it was your turn to protect your country.

Come on man, this isn't an honest conversation. You'd NEVER cede land to an enemy of the US. You're handing us nonsense that you yourself doesn't believe.

Ukraine would retain their primary seaborne access via their ports along the lower Dneiper, Odessa & ports further west. The alternative would be to drive Russia out of Crimea & the land bridge territory, but that could take years & naval conflict would still continue indefinitely since Russia will never give up control of access to the Caspian Sea via the Sea of Azov. That's why our DoD advisors are quietly conceding Crimea to Russia by not giving Ukraine the weapons need to reach there & downplaying the prospects & expectations for retaking Crimea. Control of Crimea & the Sea of Azov are the key. Russia will never concede on this, even if they have to use tac nucs into SE Ukrainian controlled territory, as a last resort. That's my read on the situation.

That's great. You seem to think there's a way out.


Afghanistan? We could never, ever leave based on your own advice....and yet you have convinced yourself that there's a way out in Ukraine.

Agree to disagree. THIS is why you don't play these stupid games. After all these years, you still haven't learned this lesson.

And you're on other threads, telling me that we should arm Taiwan to the teeth....just as Trump did with Ukraine, provoking invasion when Biden said there was more coming..... and start your game all over again, except with China this time. Just as we did in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and on and on......

Remember the part where you feign surprise when there are negative consequences for a proxy war with China in Taiwan. That's key.


It would NEVER occur to you to instead, think about things for five seconds, and simply make it so that Taiwan....or Iran, Iraq, N Korea, Vietnam etc.......isn't in our national interest anymore. No bombs. No war....just move on.

And this ENTIRE conversation would be mute, and looking into the past.....if you and a whole mess of Military wonks weren't grabbing for your matches, and lighting the fuse that's Taiwan.

Learn from the past. Stop making war the solution to every invented problem. LEARN. Why is this so hard?

[old salt]

Do you disagree with our defense of democracy & capitalism vs communism ?

Same sales pitch they're giving us RIGHT NOW for Ukraine. Democracy v. Fascism.

One sales pitch works for you, yet the other doesn't? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to put it politely.

How can you possibly tell me that "this is different". It ain't. Same dumb sales pitch. Didn't work on me then, doesn't work on me now.

We would not have invaded Afghanistan & Iraq had we not been attacked on 9-11.

We had ALREADY invaded Iraq by then. And we had ALREADY fought proxy wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan by 9/11.

If you want the Black Sea shipping lanes open....

You've got it backwards. YOU have been the one selling me on the importance of keeping sea lanes open.

Except now. You changed your mind with one sea lane.

Long term stability & reducing the risk of recurring war which would disrupt shipping, would be greater if Russia retains Crimea & the land bridge along the north shore of the Sea of Azov. Otherwise, it will be a source of ongoing conflict.

You honestly think that the Ukrainians have lost all this blood, and watched Putin hammer civilian targets for two years and counting.....and will simply say "yeah, go ahead and keep 20% of our nation. Who cares, right?"

What would YOUR advice be if you were a soldier in Ukraine? Please. You'd NEVER concede 20% of America on your watch to V freaking Putin. You spend your entire CAREER to make sure that didn't happen, remember? But you want Ukraine to act more nobly that you did when it was your turn to protect your country.

Come on man, this isn't an honest conversation. You'd NEVER cede land to an enemy of the US. You're handing us nonsense that you yourself doesn't believe.

Ukraine would retain their primary seaborne access via their ports along the lower Dneiper, Odessa & ports further west. The alternative would be to drive Russia out of Crimea & the land bridge territory, but that could take years & naval conflict would still continue indefinitely since Russia will never give up control of access to the Caspian Sea via the Sea of Azov. That's why our DoD advisors are quietly conceding Crimea to Russia by not giving Ukraine the weapons need to reach there & downplaying the prospects & expectations for retaking Crimea. Control of Crimea & the Sea of Azov are the key. Russia will never concede on this, even if they have to use tac nucs into SE Ukrainian controlled territory, as a last resort. That's my read on the situation.

That's great. You seem to think there's a way out.


Afghanistan? We could never, ever leave based on your own advice....and yet you have convinced yourself that there's a way out in Ukraine.

Agree to disagree. THIS is why you don't play these stupid games. After all these years, you still haven't learned this lesson.

And you're on other threads, telling me that we should arm Taiwan to the teeth....just as Trump did with Ukraine, provoking invasion when Biden said there was more coming..... and start your game all over again, except with China this time. Just as we did in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and on and on......

Remember the part where you feign surprise when there are negative consequences for a proxy war with China in Taiwan. That's key.

It would NEVER occur to you to instead, think about things for five seconds, and simply make it so that Taiwan....or Iran, Iraq, N Korea, Vietnam etc.......isn't in our national interest anymore. No bombs. No war....just move on.

And this ENTIRE conversation would be mute, and looking into the past.....if you and a whole mess of Military wonks weren't grabbing for your matches, and lighting the fuse that's Taiwan.

Learn from the past. Stop making war the solution to every invented problem. LEARN. Why is this so hard?

You didn't live through the Cold War. That's painfully obvious.
Get your facts straight. We didn't invade Iraq until 2003. We drove them out of Kuwait in 91 & allowed Saddam & his military to survive.
Charlie Wilson's war was key to the collapse of the USSR & the end of the Cold War on terms favorable to us.

We can't leave Afghanistan as a haven for AQ & IS to reconstitute. What terrorists were threatening us from Ukraine ? It was a corrupt cash cow for Manafort & the Biden clan.

I agreed with supporting the new improved, supposedly corruption-free, allegedly democratic Ukraine to defend themselves & assure their survival We have done that. Mission Accomplished. Wrap this up.
Putin didn't invade Ukraine BECAUSE Trump provided very limited defensive aid. (360 Javelins w/ 39 launchers)
He waited until Zelensky began pursuing EU & NATO membership, then he saw Biden's Afghan debacle & calculated that he could get away with it.

If I were a Ukrainian soldier, I'd be grateful to still be alive & would be happy to see the war end. I'd re-enlist to stay in the military to continue to defend the country & rebuild our military & the 80% of the territory we still control. If I was from territory captured by Russia, I'd settle elsewhere in free Ukraine & start rebuilding my country & my life.

We are now equipping & bankrolling Ukraine to recover part of their borderland with Russia, which will come at great cost (blood & treasure) if it can be accomplished at all & will serve as an open ended source of conflict.

i'm saying we should SELL (not donate) to Taiwan the arms they've contracted for & whatever else they need that they can pay for.
Unlike Ukraine, they have a long record as a loyal, non-corrupt democratic ally who we can trust with our high tech weapons.
They are an economic power house who we are dependent upon for critical technology.
We backed away from Taiwan as an ally, in hopes of luring China to develop as a free, liberal capitalist state which Taiwan could peacefully, voluntarily unite with. Mission Fail. We still carry an obligation to Taiwan as a historic ally.
I'm amazed you can't see the difference between Taiwan & Ukraine.
Again, our aid to Taiwan is to deter a Chinese invasion, not to attrite the Chinese military & bring about a regime change in Beijing.
It's a question of where our limited resources can be applied to best effect.
Do you seriously think that not selling arms to Taiwan, or withdrawing our forces from W Pac, will reduce the chances of China invading Taiwan ?

[old salt]

RFK Jr is right on this one ...& his stance on vaccines has nothing to do with this issue.
Other than that, he has a progressive agenda that Dems & libs should love.

RFK Jr is a bozo, a nutcase. Glad to see you want to be aligned with him...

That's why the Dems should love him. I'm surprised AOC & the Squad haven't endorsed him yet. He'd shred Biden in a debate.

[jhu72]

... long time anti-vaxxer -- no chance.

[a fan]

You didn't live through the Cold War. That's painfully obvious.

No, I just don't play your game of halfway-revisionist history, where you pretend like Obama had choices, and made the wrong ones.....Biden has choices, but made the wrong ones....but anything else, especially under R's? Oh, they had NO CHOICES. Every choice made itself during the Cold War, and considering other choices in straight up lunacy.

Get your facts straight. We didn't invade Iraq until 2003. We drove them out of Kuwait in 91 & allowed Saddam & his military to survive.

And pounded the sh(t out of them as they retreated....on Iraqi soil. Highway of Death. But sure, we didn't war with Iraq.

But immaterial to the point....war of Democracy v. Fascism.

Charlie Wilson's war was key to the collapse of the USSR & the end of the Cold War on terms favorable to us.

Oh fer F's sake. REALLY?

Naturally, you don't want to tell me that Charlie Wilson is directly responsible for all those Americans on 9/11, right? He's just on the hook for the part you like, and want to give him credit for....naturally

We can't leave Afghanistan as a haven for AQ & IS to reconstitute.

We did. Thank Charlie for your opinion that we couldn't leave.

What terrorists were threatening us from Ukraine ? It was a corrupt cash cow for Manafort & the Biden clan.

So are most of the countries we deal with. Afghanistan for starters. But that "corrupt cash cow" is fine with you. As usual, you play this silly game of glass half full when you like stuff, and empty when you don't. And you're SERIOUS about these non-stop contradictions and hypocrisies.


So I point out that the Cold War was about Democracy v. Fascism.....and is the same reason they've given us for Ukraine.

Yet you're on here with a straight face telling me that one is a GREAT reason, and the other isn't. And then to make your hypocrisy worse, you make yet another 180 with Taiwan, telling us that Democracy v. Fascism is now a GREAT reason again. If it's not about protecting/helping a Democratic ally from invasion by a Fascist power......then why would we care about Taiwan?

Putin didn't invade Ukraine BECAUSE Trump provided very limited defensive aid. (360 Javelins w/ 39 launchers)
He waited until Zelensky began pursuing EU & NATO membership

Nope. Already dispelled this myth of yours. NATO membership discussions were way the F back in 2008.

But I like how this works with you: on the one hand, you're insisting that we arm Taiwan to the teeth, telling me I'm dumb if I don't understand that this will dissuade China from invading. Yet here? You're telling me that Putin doesn't care if we do the same with Ukraine. It's a footnote. Irrelevant to Putin.

......then he saw Biden's Afghan debacle & calculated that he could get away with it.

Next up, you'll blame the invasion because Biden wore a blue tie on a Thursday. Oh yeah, Afghanistan is "why Putin invaded".

"Hey Moose andt Squirrel....I wasn't gonna invade, but because a handful of soldiers died in Afghanistan.....I changed my mind. Let's go. "

If I were a Ukrainian soldier, I'd be grateful to still be alive & would be happy to see the war end. I'd re-enlist to stay in the military to continue to defend the country & rebuild our military & the 80% of the territory we still control. If I was from territory captured by Russia, I'd settle elsewhere in free Ukraine & start rebuilding my country & my life.

You're lying. Flat out lying.

If this was your attitude toward defending America.....that you'd settle for letting the Soviets take 20% of America? Why the heck did you sign up?

We are now equipping & bankrolling Ukraine to recover part of their borderland with Russia, which will come at great cost (blood & treasure) if it can be accomplished at all & will serve as an open ended source of conflict.

That's right! Same as all the wars and proxy wars I cited. But those were good, right?

I'm saying we should SELL (not donate) to Taiwan the arms they've contracted for & whatever else they need that they can pay for.

In what world would you care about who paid for the arms if you're Xi? Totally irrelevant to the fact that this is a provocation.

What do we gain from arming them? Nothing. Big, fat, nothing.

Unlike Ukraine, they have a long record as a loyal, non-corrupt democratic ally who we can trust with our high tech weapons.
They are an economic power house who we are dependent upon for critical technology.

Same story from you.....conflating wants with needs. Oil in the ME. You're willing to risk nuclear war because you haven't considered opening chip plants in the US.

You understood the nuclear risks with Putin immediately. But you want to put your brain on the shelf, and forget that China has nukes? Nukes that actually might work, unlike Putins'?

We backed away from Taiwan as an ally, in hopes of luring China to develop as a free, liberal capitalist state which Taiwan could peacefully, voluntarily unite with. Mission Fail. We still carry an obligation to Taiwan as a historic ally.
I'm amazed you can't see the difference between Taiwan & Ukraine.

Plenty of differences. None are material to the conversation. You think the answer to everything is arms and war....and suggesting any other decisions is madness.

Do you seriously think that not selling arms to Taiwan, or withdrawing our forces from W Pac, will reduce the chances of China invading Taiwan ?

No, I'm telling you: look at the Scoreboard. What are YOU looking at? Did China invade in the last several decades, or not?

No, right? So please tell me.....how is this possible? How has Taiwan staved off invasion if the ONLY way to keep that from happening is, and I quote you------arm them to the teeth so they're like a porcupine?

[old salt]

You didn't live through the Cold War. That's painfully obvious.

No, I just don't play your game of halfway-revisionist history, where you pretend like Obama had choices, and made the wrong ones.....Biden has choices, but made the wrong ones....but anything else, especially under R's? Oh, they had NO CHOICES. Every choice made itself during the Cold War, and considering other choices in straight up lunacy.

Get your facts straight. We didn't invade Iraq until 2003. We drove them out of Kuwait in 91 & allowed Saddam & his military to survive.

And pounded the sh(t out of them as they retreated....on Iraqi soil. Highway of Death. But sure, we didn't war with Iraq.

But immaterial to the point....war of Democracy v. Fascism.

Charlie Wilson's war was key to the collapse of the USSR & the end of the Cold War on terms favorable to us.

Oh fer F's sake. REALLY?

Naturally, you don't want to tell me that Charlie Wilson is directly responsible for all those Americans on 9/11, right? He's just on the hook for the part you like, and want to give him credit for....naturally

We can't leave Afghanistan as a haven for AQ & IS to reconstitute.

We did. Thank Charlie for your opinion that we couldn't leave.

What terrorists were threatening us from Ukraine ? It was a corrupt cash cow for Manafort & the Biden clan.

So are most of the countries we deal with. Afghanistan for starters. But that "corrupt cash cow" is fine with you. As usual, you play this silly game of glass half full when you like stuff, and empty when you don't. And you're SERIOUS about these non-stop contradictions and hypocrisies.


So I point out that the Cold War was about Democracy v. Fascism.....and is the same reason they've given us for Ukraine.

Yet you're on here with a straight face telling me that one is a GREAT reason, and the other isn't. And then to make your hypocrisy worse, you make yet another 180 with Taiwan, telling us that Democracy v. Fascism is now a GREAT reason again. If it's not about protecting/helping a Democratic ally from invasion by a Fascist power......then why would we care about Taiwan?

Putin didn't invade Ukraine BECAUSE Trump provided very limited defensive aid. (360 Javelins w/ 39 launchers)
He waited until Zelensky began pursuing EU & NATO membership

Nope. Already dispelled this myth of yours. NATO membership discussions were way the F back in 2008.

But I like how this works with you: on the one hand, you're insisting that we arm Taiwan to the teeth, telling me I'm dumb if I don't understand that this will dissuade China from invading. Yet here? You're telling me that Putin doesn't care if we do the same with Ukraine. It's a footnote. Irrelevant to Putin.

......then he saw Biden's Afghan debacle & calculated that he could get away with it.

Next up, you'll blame the invasion because Biden wore a blue tie on a Thursday. Oh yeah, Afghanistan is "why Putin invaded".

"Hey Moose andt Squirrel....I wasn't gonna invade, but because a handful of soldiers died in Afghanistan.....I changed my mind. Let's go. "

If I were a Ukrainian soldier, I'd be grateful to still be alive & would be happy to see the war end. I'd re-enlist to stay in the military to continue to defend the country & rebuild our military & the 80% of the territory we still control. If I was from territory captured by Russia, I'd settle elsewhere in free Ukraine & start rebuilding my country & my life.

You're lying. Flat out lying.

If this was your attitude toward defending America.....that you'd settle for letting the Soviets take 20% of America? Why the heck did you sign up?

We are now equipping & bankrolling Ukraine to recover part of their borderland with Russia, which will come at great cost (blood & treasure) if it can be accomplished at all & will serve as an open ended source of conflict.

That's right! Same as all the wars and proxy wars I cited. But those were good, right?

I'm saying we should SELL (not donate) to Taiwan the arms they've contracted for & whatever else they need that they can pay for.

In what world would you care about who paid for the arms if you're Xi? Totally irrelevant to the fact that this is a provocation.

What do we gain from arming them? Nothing. Big, fat, nothing.

Unlike Ukraine, they have a long record as a loyal, non-corrupt democratic ally who we can trust with our high tech weapons.
They are an economic power house who we are dependent upon for critical technology.

Same story from you.....conflating wants with needs. Oil in the ME. You're willing to risk nuclear war because you haven't considered opening chip plants in the US.

You understood the nuclear risks with Putin immediately. But you want to put your brain on the shelf, and forget that China has nukes? Nukes that actually might work, unlike Putins'?

We backed away from Taiwan as an ally, in hopes of luring China to develop as a free, liberal capitalist state which Taiwan could peacefully, voluntarily unite with. Mission Fail. We still carry an obligation to Taiwan as a historic ally.
I'm amazed you can't see the difference between Taiwan & Ukraine.

Plenty of differences. None are material to the conversation. You think the answer to everything is arms and war....and suggesting any other decisions is madness.

Do you seriously think that not selling arms to Taiwan, or withdrawing our forces from W Pac, will reduce the chances of China invading Taiwan ?

No, I'm telling you: look at the Scoreboard. What are YOU looking at? Did China invade in the last several decades, or not?

No, right? So please tell me.....how is this possible? How has Taiwan staved off invasion if the ONLY way to keep that from happening is, and I quote you------arm them to the teeth so they're like a porcupine?

Too stupid to merit a response. SELLING defensive weapons systems to Taiwan risks a nuclear attack on the US.

I love it when keyboard warriors tell me why I served, what I saw & did, what risks I took, how many friends I lost & what I would do now.
I'm a liar for being honest about how I'd feel if I were a Ukrainian soldier today. The same way I felt in March 1972 when my orders to HAL-3 (the Navy Huey gunship squadron in S Vietnam) were cancelled because the squadron was being decommissioned. I was disappointed professionally that I would not get to experience what I had volunteered for & was training to do. I was personally happy & relieved that the war would be winding down, even though we had not achieved the victory we sought. Most of us served to deter war, not to seek it.

All wars are the same. One size fits all. The SDSU prof was right.

[a fan]

Too stupid to merit a response. SELLING defensive weapons systems to Taiwan risks a nuclear attack on the US.

But giving weapons to Ukraine DOES risk nuclear war. Got it. Makes sense.

If you told Charlie Wilson that his little game would lead to the Towers getting hit...and that it would lead to the fact that US troops would have to be permanently based in the ME, he would have laughed in your face.

You don't want to hear it, or consider their may be long term consequences for arming Taiwan. Great. You do you.

I love it when keyboard warriors tell me why I served, what I saw & did, what risks I took, how many friends I lost & what I would do now.
I'm a liar for being honest about how I'd feel if I were a Ukrainian soldier today. The same way I felt in March 1972 when my orders to HAL-3 (the Navy Huey gunship squadron in S Vietnam) were cancelled because the squadron was being decommissioned. I was disappointed professionally that I would not get to experience what I had volunteered for & was training to do. I was personally happy & relieved that the war would be winding down, even though we had not achieved the victory we sought. Most of us served to deter war, not to seek it.

That's not the analogy, and you know it. The analogy is: would you and the guys you served with let the Soviets take and hold 20% of the US?

You're telling me the answer is an indisputable, hands down "yes"? Seriously?

And you don't think American citizens would fight back? All those guns and.....we'd let Putin own the Eastern Seaboard?

Well I stand corrected, then, and don't want to put words in your mouth. This is most certainly not the answer I expected.

All wars are the same. One size fits all. The SDSU prof was right.

You don't understand what you're telling me, and what you've been telling me all these years.

You're telling me that every single war and situation is entirely different. Yet at the same time, the reason we fought in the Cold War you are handing me was identical: always to stop the spread of communism.

Or, when it came to the ME: keep oil flowing. Two reasons for all that fighting, and all those proxy wars.

Yet you're also mocking me for "one size fits all thinking". Yet that's exactly what we used since WWII. Vietnam: stop spread of communism. Korea: Stop spread of communism. Proxy war in Afghanistan: stop spread of communism.

Why did we back Saddam? Keep oil flowing and region stable. Why did we invade Kuwait? Keep oil flowing and region stable. Why did we invade Iraq? Keep oil flowing, region stable.

[a fan]

All wars are the same. One size fits all. The SDSU prof was right.

You forgot to explain how it's possible that China hasn't invaded Taiwan yet.

Or how arming Taiwan would deter China, while at the same time, Putin wouldn't care if the US armed Ukraine.


Arms that shut down Putin's advance in its tracks.

Let's hear it. Explain away.

[old salt]

Unlike Ukraine, my friends & I served in a military determined to deter the USSR & to prevent them from being able to sieze 20% of our territory.
Contrasting geography was a factor & we still had a draft. Of course it's the same, because one size fits all.

390 US supplied Javelins weren't the only thing that blunted the Russian invasion. It was the Ukrainians use of their Soviet legacy armaments, enabled by years of US military training & tactical intel.

Just like crossing the Taiwan straits is the same as rolling across the Russian border or rolling out of Crimea & the Donbas.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 607ed15759

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. intelligence shows that China’s President Xi Jinping has instructed his country’s military to “be ready by 2027” to invade Taiwan though he may be currently harboring doubts about his ability to do so given Russia’s experience in its war with Ukraine, CIA Director William Burns said.

Burns, in a television interview that aired Sunday, stressed that the United States must take “very seriously” Xi’s desire to ultimately control Taiwan even if military conflict is not inevitable.

“We do know, as has been made public, that President Xi has instructed the PLA, the Chinese military leadership, to be ready by 2027 to invade Taiwan, but that doesn’t mean that he’s decided to invade in 2027 or any other year as well,” Burns told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“I think our judgment at least is that President Xi and his military leadership have doubts today about whether they could accomplish that invasion,” he said.

Taiwan and China split in 1949 after a civil war that ended with the Communist Party in control of the mainland. The self-governing island acts like a sovereign nation yet is not recognized by the United Nations or any major country. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter formally recognized the government in Beijing and cut nation-to-nation ties with Taiwan. In response, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, creating a benchmark for a continuing relationship.

Taiwan has received numerousdisplays of official American support for the island democracy in the face of growing shows of force by Beijing, which claims Taiwan as part of its territory. President Joe Biden has said that American forces would defend Taiwan if China tries to invade. The White House says U.S. policy has not changed in making clear that Washington wants to see Taiwan’s status resolved peacefully. It is silent as to whether U.S. forces might be sent in response to a Chinese attack.

In Sunday’s interview, Burns said the support from the U.S. and European allies for Ukraine following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of that country may be acting as a potential deterrent to Chinese officials for now but said the risks of a possible attack on Taiwan will only grow stronger.

“I think, as they’ve looked at Putin’s experience in Ukraine, that’s probably reinforced some of those doubts,” Burns said. “So, all I would say is that I think the risks of, you know, a potential use of force probably grow the further into this decade you get and beyond it, into the following decade as well.

“So that’s something obviously, that we watch very, very carefully,” he said.

[a fan]

I love it when keyboard warriors tell me why I served.....

A. I didn't say why you served. I was putting you in the Ukrainians mind, nothing more. You're telling me I was wrong....ok. Mea culpa, and my apologies.

B. you've mocked me for over a decade for daring to suggest that there are alternatives to war, and that I don't want to send our troops to war unless we or our treaty bound allies are attacked. If i was in charge, you would have spent your career patrolling US shores. And the only possibility for you to get hurt would be during training.

And yet you call me a keyboard warrior.

I'm the guy who would rather spend twice as much at the pump than send you to the ME because we don't have enough faith in American engineering to find alternative paths to Middle East oil.

I'm DEAD LAST on your list of Americans who want to send our best and brightest oversea for some made up reason.