The Biden - Harris Era.

[a fan]

I don't know that it's "true" but is a reasonable assumption. That's what I "think," thank you.

No, it wasn't a reasonable assumption. It was a PARTISAN assumption.

An assumption proven horribly wrong, as Biden has de-pantsed Putin in front of the entire world. And now, we have to deal with alllll the unintended consequences that follow the choice to intervene militarily.

Make fun of me all you want. Everyone who doesn't drink the Kool Aid knew exactly what Biden would do.....follow the exact same Global Cop game we've been playing since WWII. The idea that his reaction is somehow a surprise given our History and his history, is, I'm sorry, laughable.

[a fan]

And again, that's on Biden for promising more arms, building on Trump's mistake (my opinion) to arm Ukraine when Obama didn't.

So to play out your what it. Follow through on your theory. Had Trump & Biden withheld lethal military aid, a la Biden, & Russia's invasion succeeded, taken Kyiv & toppled Zelensky. Would that have been a more favorable outcome. Part or all of Ukraine annexed back into Russia ?

If you're asking would I prefer that Putin invade? My answer is no.

If you're asking: am I ok with the consequences of not giving Ukraine Military aid? The answer is a big, fat, unqualified yes.

Does that answer your question?

You can't uncouple the two.

Sure I can. Particularly because I believe that the arming of Ukraine is WHY Putin invaded.

Since Russia did invade & still holds 20% of Ukraine, do you still think Trump & Biden should not have provided the military aid which enabled the Ukrainians to thwart the initial invasion.

Asked and answered multiple times: yes! I think that they should have withheld military support, just as Obama did.

I fully understand that many of my views have what appear to be, or in fact are, short term and/or long term negative consequences.

We'll find out soon enough what the consequences of Trump and Biden's choices are. The first consequence is $$. More money taken away from our kids and all the domestic problems we've ignored for the last 50 years....choosing instead to wage war all over the globe on our dime.

[old salt]

I don't know that it's "true" but is a reasonable assumption. That's what I "think," thank you.

No, it wasn't a reasonable assumption. It was a PARTISAN assumption.

An assumption proven horribly wrong, as Biden has de-pantsed Putin in front of the entire world. And now, we have to deal with alllll the unintended consequences that follow the choice to intervene militarily.

Make fun of me all you want. Everyone who doesn't drink the Kool Aid knew exactly what Biden would do.....follow the exact same Global Cop game we've been playing since WWII. The idea that his reaction is somehow a surprise given our History and his history, is, I'm sorry, laughable.

Biden followed the path established by the US, EU & NATO, dating back to the promises made in the Orange (2004) & Maidan (2014) revolutions & in response to Russia's annexation of CrImea & supporting the separatist enclaves in Donbas in 2014. Then Zelensky was elected, vowed to take Ukraine into NATO & the EU, & Putin (sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout) seized the opportunity & invaded.

[old salt]

And again, that's on Biden for promising more arms, building on Trump's mistake (my opinion) to arm Ukraine when Obama didn't.

So to play out your what it. Follow through on your theory. Had Trump & Biden withheld lethal military aid, a la Biden, & Russia's invasion succeeded, taken Kyiv & toppled Zelensky. Would that have been a more favorable outcome. Part or all of Ukraine annexed back into Russia ?

If you're asking would I prefer that Putin invade? My answer is no.

If you're asking: am I ok with the consequences of not giving Ukraine Military aid? The answer is a big, fat, unqualified yes.

Does that answer your question?

You can't uncouple the two.

Sure I can. Particularly because I believe that the arming of Ukraine is WHY Putin invaded.

Since Russia did invade & still holds 20% of Ukraine, do you still think Trump & Biden should not have provided the military aid which enabled the Ukrainians to thwart the initial invasion.

Asked and answered multiple times: yes! I think that they should have withheld military support, just as Obama did.

I fully understand that many of my views have what appear to be, or in fact are, short term and/or long term negative consequences.

We'll find out soon enough what the consequences of Trump and Biden's choices are. The first consequence is $$. More money taken away from our kids and all the domestic problems we've ignored for the last 50 years....choosing instead to wage war all over the globe on our dime.

So you think that had we not provided military aid after 2014, Putin would have stopped with Crimea & the Donbas, He'd have sat idly by & watched Zelensky bring Ukraine into NATO & the EU, while depriving Crimea of fresh water & overland access to Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Army & Air Force bases in Crimea ?

[a fan]

I don't know that it's "true" but is a reasonable assumption. That's what I "think," thank you.

No, it wasn't a reasonable assumption. It was a PARTISAN assumption.

An assumption proven horribly wrong, as Biden has de-pantsed Putin in front of the entire world. And now, we have to deal with alllll the unintended consequences that follow the choice to intervene militarily.

Make fun of me all you want. Everyone who doesn't drink the Kool Aid knew exactly what Biden would do.....follow the exact same Global Cop game we've been playing since WWII. The idea that his reaction is somehow a surprise given our History and his history, is, I'm sorry, laughable.

Biden followed the path established by the US, EU & NATO, dating back to the promises made in the Orange (2004) & Maidan (2014) revolutions & in response to Russia's annexation of CrImea & supporting the separatist enclaves in Donbas in 2014.

Sure. But I would argue he's operating with an American worldview that's far older than 2004. First by the Domino theory, then by Bush's New World Order.

Then Zelensky was elected, vowed to take Ukraine into NATO & the EU, & Putin (sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout) seized the opportunity & invaded.

That doesn't square. The division between NATO and the US peaked-----and this isn't even a close call------under Trump. Surely you know that.

The time to strike given this theory of attacking when NATO-US divisions were severe was CLEARLY under Trump. And he was man who told the world it was America First when it comes to, and I quote....."ridiculous, endless wars".

I don't agree with your theory of invasion. We both know this, and can move on if you'd like.

[a fan]

So you think that had we not provided military aid after 2014, Putin would have stopped with Crimea & the Donbas, He'd have sat idly by & watched Zelensky bring Ukraine into NATO & the EU, while depriving Crimea of fresh water & overland access to Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Army & Air Force bases in Crimea ?

Yes. Because among other things, it's not a given that Ukraine would be allowed to join NATO. When did they first talk about joining NATO, OS? Way back in 2003, right? Or earlier? And.....no invasion.

But I'm also okay with the consequences if I was wrong.

[old salt]

I don't know that it's "true" but is a reasonable assumption. That's what I "think," thank you.

No, it wasn't a reasonable assumption. It was a PARTISAN assumption.

An assumption proven horribly wrong, as Biden has de-pantsed Putin in front of the entire world. And now, we have to deal with alllll the unintended consequences that follow the choice to intervene militarily.

Make fun of me all you want. Everyone who doesn't drink the Kool Aid knew exactly what Biden would do.....follow the exact same Global Cop game we've been playing since WWII. The idea that his reaction is somehow a surprise given our History and his history, is, I'm sorry, laughable.

Biden followed the path established by the US, EU & NATO, dating back to the promises made in the Orange (2004) & Maidan (2014) revolutions & in response to Russia's annexation of CrImea & supporting the separatist enclaves in Donbas in 2014.

Sure. But I would argue he's operating with an American worldview that's far older than 2004. First by the Domino theory, then by Bush's New World Order.

Then Zelensky was elected, vowed to take Ukraine into NATO & the EU, & Putin (sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout) seized the opportunity & invaded.

That doesn't square. The division between NATO and the US peaked-----and this isn't even a close call------under Trump. Surely you know that.

The time to strike given this theory of attacking when NATO-US divisions were severe was CLEARLY under Trump. And he was man who told the world it was America First when it comes to, and I quote....."ridiculous, endless wars".

I don't agree with your theory of invasion. We both know this, and can move on if you'd like.

I don't agree with your theory on NATO division. Trump may have ruffled some feathers but he made the alliance stronger in the process.
Our NATO allies opposed the timing of Afghan pullout, felt betrayed & were shaken by the results. They agreed With Biden's military advisors.

[old salt]

So you think that had we not provided military aid after 2014, Putin would have stopped with Crimea & the Donbas, He'd have sat idly by & watched Zelensky bring Ukraine into NATO & the EU, while depriving Crimea of fresh water & overland access to Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Army & Air Force bases in Crimea ?

Yes. Because among other things, it's not a given that Ukraine would be allowed to join NATO. When did they first talk about joining NATO, OS? Way back in 2003, right? Or earlier? And.....no invasion.

But I'm also okay with the consequences if I was wrong.

So you'd be ok if Putin had succeeded & Ukraine was a part of Russia again ?

[MDlaxfan76]

I don't know that it's "true" but is a reasonable assumption. That's what I "think," thank you.

No, it wasn't a reasonable assumption. It was a PARTISAN assumption.

An assumption proven horribly wrong, as Biden has de-pantsed Putin in front of the entire world. And now, we have to deal with alllll the unintended consequences that follow the choice to intervene militarily.

Make fun of me all you want. Everyone who doesn't drink the Kool Aid knew exactly what Biden would do.....follow the exact same Global Cop game we've been playing since WWII. The idea that his reaction is somehow a surprise given our History and his history, is, I'm sorry, laughable.

Biden followed the path established by the US, EU & NATO, dating back to the promises made in the Orange (2004) & Maidan (2014) revolutions & in response to Russia's annexation of CrImea & supporting the separatist enclaves in Donbas in 2014.

Sure. But I would argue he's operating with an American worldview that's far older than 2004. First by the Domino theory, then by Bush's New World Order.

Then Zelensky was elected, vowed to take Ukraine into NATO & the EU, & Putin (sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout) seized the opportunity & invaded.

That doesn't square. The division between NATO and the US peaked-----and this isn't even a close call------under Trump. Surely you know that.

The time to strike given this theory of attacking when NATO-US divisions were severe was CLEARLY under Trump. And he was man who told the world it was America First when it comes to, and I quote....."ridiculous, endless wars".

I don't agree with your theory of invasion. We both know this, and can move on if you'd like.

I don't agree with your theory on NATO division. Trump may have ruffled some feathers but he made the alliance stronger in the process.
Our NATO allies opposed the timing of Afghan pullout, felt betrayed & were shaken by the results. They agreed With Biden's military advisors.

Uhh huh, perhaps you should listen to what the NATO leaders, our various allied nation leaders have said about Trump.

[tech37]

Then Zelensky was elected, vowed to take Ukraine into NATO & the EU, & Putin (sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout) seized the opportunity & invaded.

That doesn't square. The division between NATO and the US peaked-----and this isn't even a close call------under Trump. Surely you know that.

The time to strike given this theory of attacking when NATO-US divisions were severe was CLEARLY under Trump. And he was man who told the world it was America First when it comes to, and I quote....."ridiculous, endless wars".

I don't agree with your theory of invasion. We both know this, and can move on if you'd like.

"(sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout)"

You left out those key words a fan. Weakness... "over the Afghan pullout"

[MDlaxfan76]

And again, that's on Biden for promising more arms, building on Trump's mistake (my opinion) to arm Ukraine when Obama didn't.

So to play out your what it. Follow through on your theory. Had Trump & Biden withheld lethal military aid, a la Biden, & Russia's invasion succeeded, taken Kyiv & toppled Zelensky. Would that have been a more favorable outcome. Part or all of Ukraine annexed back into Russia ?

If you're asking would I prefer that Putin invade? My answer is no.

If you're asking: am I ok with the consequences of not giving Ukraine Military aid? The answer is a big, fat, unqualified yes.

Does that answer your question?

You can't uncouple the two.

Sure I can. Particularly because I believe that the arming of Ukraine is WHY Putin invaded.

Since Russia did invade & still holds 20% of Ukraine, do you still think Trump & Biden should not have provided the military aid which enabled the Ukrainians to thwart the initial invasion.

Asked and answered multiple times: yes! I think that they should have withheld military support, just as Obama did.

I fully understand that many of my views have what appear to be, or in fact are, short term and/or long term negative consequences.

We'll find out soon enough what the consequences of Trump and Biden's choices are. The first consequence is $$. More money taken away from our kids and all the domestic problems we've ignored for the last 50 years....choosing instead to wage war all over the globe on our dime.

So you think that had we not provided military aid after 2014, Putin would have stopped with Crimea & the Donbas, He'd have sat idly by & watched Zelensky bring Ukraine into NATO & the EU, while depriving Crimea of fresh water & overland access to Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Army & Air Force bases in Crimea ?

With Trump in the White House he thought he could accomplish the Russian hegemony with out a direct invasion, using resources, but that hope was lost in November 2020.

And yeah, he wasn’t going to stop.

[MDlaxfan76]

Then Zelensky was elected, vowed to take Ukraine into NATO & the EU, & Putin (sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout) seized the opportunity & invaded.

That doesn't square. The division between NATO and the US peaked-----and this isn't even a close call------under Trump. Surely you know that.

The time to strike given this theory of attacking when NATO-US divisions were severe was CLEARLY under Trump. And he was man who told the world it was America First when it comes to, and I quote....."ridiculous, endless wars".

I don't agree with your theory of invasion. We both know this, and can move on if you'd like.

"(sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout)"

You left out those key words a fan. Weakness... "over the Afghan pullout"

Ordered by Trump.

[a fan]

Then Zelensky was elected, vowed to take Ukraine into NATO & the EU, & Putin (sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout) seized the opportunity & invaded.

That doesn't square. The division between NATO and the US peaked-----and this isn't even a close call------under Trump. Surely you know that.

The time to strike given this theory of attacking when NATO-US divisions were severe was CLEARLY under Trump. And he was man who told the world it was America First when it comes to, and I quote....."ridiculous, endless wars".

I don't agree with your theory of invasion. We both know this, and can move on if you'd like.

"(sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout)"

You left out those key words a fan. Weakness... "over the Afghan pullout"

So the idea here is that NATO-US relations were spectacular under Trump.....and fell apart when Biden showed up?

You and I have a different idea of Strength. If Afghanistan was all that important? NATO and EU troops are welcome to stay there.

A US POTUS allowing 16 US soliders to get picked of per year AFTER they accomplished their goal of getting OBL....because they're worried about poll numbers is, for me, the very definition of weak leadership.

Agree to disagree.

[a fan]

So you think that had we not provided military aid after 2014, Putin would have stopped with Crimea & the Donbas, He'd have sat idly by & watched Zelensky bring Ukraine into NATO & the EU, while depriving Crimea of fresh water & overland access to Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Army & Air Force bases in Crimea ?

Yes. Because among other things, it's not a given that Ukraine would be allowed to join NATO. When did they first talk about joining NATO, OS? Way back in 2003, right? Or earlier? And.....no invasion.

But I'm also okay with the consequences if I was wrong.

So you'd be ok if Putin had succeeded & Ukraine was a part of Russia again ?

No, i'd prefer that not happen. I'm not "okay" with that.

I'm ok with the consequences of not arming Ukraine, yes. One of those consequences may have been that Putin wouldn't have invaded. Personally, I think it's very unlikely that he would have invaded. You, obviously, disagree. And that's fine.

And yes, another consequence could be that Putin invaded. I'm okay with our choice to not arm Ukraine, if that had happened......

[tech37]

Then Zelensky was elected, vowed to take Ukraine into NATO & the EU, & Putin (sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout) seized the opportunity & invaded.

That doesn't square. The division between NATO and the US peaked-----and this isn't even a close call------under Trump. Surely you know that.

The time to strike given this theory of attacking when NATO-US divisions were severe was CLEARLY under Trump. And he was man who told the world it was America First when it comes to, and I quote....."ridiculous, endless wars".

I don't agree with your theory of invasion. We both know this, and can move on if you'd like.

"(sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout)"

You left out those key words a fan. Weakness... "over the Afghan pullout"

So the idea here is that NATO-US relations were spectacular under Trump.....and fell apart when Biden showed up?
Where on earth do you get that? Earlier today you took me to task (I think I was "on the hook") to explain why I thought the Afghan pullout debacle and susequent appearance of weakness had anything to do with Putin invading when he did and it seems, in a general sense, OS and I agree. You just conveniently left out those key words he wrote. That's all.

Agree to disagree.
Absolutely!

[a fan]

Where on earth do you get that?

From you telling me that I was wrong that NATO-US relations were at their lowest under Biden, and that it was the Afghan pullout that was the low.

I disagree. Strongly.

And as I said to OS, we can move on if you like.

[tech37]

Where on earth do you get that?

From you telling me that I was wrong that NATO-US relations were at their lowest under Biden, and that it was the Afghan pullout that was the low.
Okay, I'm letting this go but I never said anything re NATO-US relations. Maybe that was OS. I only mentioned weakness following the pullout as a plausible reason for invasion timing.

I disagree. Strongly.

And as I said to OS, we can move on if you like.
Moving...

[old salt]

So the idea here is that NATO-US relations were spectacular under Trump.....and fell apart when Biden showed up?

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/03/78444427 ... y-spending

Dec 3, 2019
...those savings pale in comparison to what has been — despite Trump's frequent criticism of NATO's cost-sharing formula — a sizeable increase in U.S. outlays for military operations in Europe since he took office.

Most of that jump in spending was on the European Deterrence Initiative, an effort to strengthen U.S. military forces in Europe begun by the Obama administration in response to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and continued backing of pro-Russia separatists in Ukraine.

During the first three years of that effort, originally known as the European Reassurance Initiative, the Obama administration dedicated about $5.2 billion to building up the American military presence in Europe.

The Trump administration has more than tripled what its predecessor spent on the EDI: A total of $17.2 billion has been requested for the initiative in the three annual budgets the current White House has sent to Congress, which in turn has approved those funding levels.

Outlays for the deterrence initiative peaked at more than $6.5 billion in FY2019, a level that's been cut by 10% in the FY2020 request of $5.9 billion. That's still 57% greater than the high point of funding under the Obama administration of $3.4 billion for FY2017.

In both the Obama and Trump administrations, every dollar committed to bolstering European defenses has come from the special war-funding account known as Overseas Contingency Operations.

The $250 million in security assistance for Ukraine that was held up over the summer by the White House is also included in EDI funding for the past fiscal year; the same amount is earmarked for FY2020.

There are also more U.S. troops in Europe now than at the end of the Obama administration.

An NPR review of quarterly overseas troop deployment reports compiled by the Pentagon shows there were 66,746 U.S. forces stationed in other NATO nations as of September, the latest reporting period. That's about 3% more than at the end of the Obama administration.

At least part of the EDI troop increase under the current administration is due to a continuous nine-month rotational deployment of 5,000 armored and aviation combat brigade personnel that began in Feb. 2017, shortly after Trump took office. All but 500 of those forces are now stationed in Poland under a defense cooperation pact, signed in September by Trump and Polish President Andrzej Duda. That deal also calls for an additional 1,000 American troops to be deployed there "in the near term."

The higher American troop levels in Europe stand in contrast to an overall reduction of U.S. military personnel posted overseas during the Trump administration. There were nearly 240,000 active duty and reserve members of the U.S. military abroad when President Barack Obama left office. That number has gone down steadily since then, and now stands at around 195,000 — a 19% decline in U.S. forces deployed abroad.

[a fan]

Okay, I'm letting this go but I never said anything re NATO-US relations.

Yeah, ya did.

Here's your post:

"(sensing weakness & division between the US & NATO over the Afghan pullout)"

You left out those key words a fan. Weakness... "over the Afghan pullout"

You're telling me here, in bold, that the weakness and division between the US & NATO was caused by the Afghan pullout.

If that's not what you meant? Be more clear next time.

[a fan]

So the idea here is that NATO-US relations were spectacular under Trump.....and fell apart when Biden showed up?

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/03/78444427 ... y-spending

Dec 3, 2019
...those savings pale in comparison to what has been — despite Trump's frequent criticism of NATO's cost-sharing formula — a sizeable increase in U.S. outlays for military operations in Europe since he took office.

That's the dollars and cents. What about the ACTUAL relationships between Trump and NATO's leaders?

Sh*tshow. Surely you agree.