All Things Russia & Ukraine

[Typical Lax Dad]

I have no idea why Ukrainians are resisting. Much easier to quit.

$53 billion US tax payer down payment.

What do you care? You got your’n.

[a fan]

I have no idea why Ukrainians are resisting. Much easier to quit.

$53 billion US tax payer down payment.

What do you care? You got your’n.

OS, you sure do pick weird times to pretend to care about deficit spending.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022 ... s-liveblog

Show them the man and they are showing them the crime….them boys is just Patriots that love their culture. Leave ‘em be!!

[old salt]

I don't think anyone is arguing that there isn't a huge cost of extended warfare, to the world, not just the US and our EU allies.

Likewise, I don't think anyone would argue that IF Putin was willing to abandon his aggression, it wouldn't be terrific. If he even simply wanted to back off a bit, give up control of Mariupol and south of there.

But I don't think Putin is interested, remotely, in stopping even where they are now. And won't be until his military says they can't take it anymore. We're not dealing with a rational, much less honest, actor.

SO...my view is that we should be hoping that our superior systems and targeting capabilities, with greater range, once actually deployed, will indeed pound the crap out of the Russian military...and their morale does break... fully.

I'm not buying, yet, the narrative that this MUST be a long, multi-year war with the kind of pace of costs we're committing to these next 6 months. I think this thing can actually be won.

Sure hope I'm right, as I think the Ukrainian people would toss Zelensky on his ear if he didn't press forward at this point.

The Ukrainian people accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR. They did not believe Russia would invade farther. They'll accept the loss of the land bridge too, so long as they can go home, rebuild & live in peace.

Putin failed to take back all of Ukraine, but the land bridge is critical to consolidating Crimea & guaranteeing unfettered Black Sea access.
Russia now holds from Kherson to Mariupol. Given the terrain & access, it will be a challenge to dislodge them from there. That's the territory necessary to guarantee overland access & fresh water supply to Crimea, control the Sea of Azov, & guarantee ports & shipping routes for Russian exports, without Ukrainian interference. imo -- Putin would accept that & spin it domestically as regaining Novorossiya. imho, he could then be deterred from pursing more, now that we are arming Ukraine & they have demonstrated their ability & willingness to fight to defend their nation.

Why do you keep telling these lies?

Ukraine has NEVER accepted the invasion and occupation of Crimea. Ukraine has NEVER accepted the Russian invasion and occupation of LNR/DNR. In fact, there is no such thing as the LNR/DNR. Ukraine has been fighting a war in Eastern Ukraine for the past eight years.

Why would you state such blatant lies on this forum?

You are supporting the lies of a fascist Russian dictator. Completely disgraceful.

DocBarrister

Well, I don't think I'd have gone quite there if I'd responded first, as I do find Salty's perspectives interesting, but you are 100% correct that Ukraine and the Ukrainians have never "accepted Russian control of Crimea & LNR/DNR" nor did they not think Putin would invade further if they stopped fighting and withdrew from the conflict. It was the West that bought the tall tale that Putin was a rational actor and wouldn't actually invade with the intent of crushing Ukraine, erasing any notion of an independent Ukrainian state, any notion that there's a Ukrainian people at all...

and "we" bought it because it was in our "interest" do so, whether because we wanted cheap energy or because we were afraid, like Salty, of another Cold War. Putin put out his propaganda and many, many parroted it for years.

But Putin isn't a reasonable, rational actor and he never intended to stop.

Nor should we so naive as to imagine he'd stop now.

What's really outrageous to me is that Salty is asking for Ukraine to sacrifice huge amounts critical land and resources to Russia, (according to Salty all Putin actually wants anyway...BS) and just go powder their noses. And then he's going to turn around and tell us the next aggression "isn't the West's war"...unless, of course, it's China...

Russia took Crimea & the territory they declared as DNR/LNR in 2014, with little to no resistance. During the ensuing 8 years, what did the Ukrainians do to drive out the Russians ? Those territories were taken with little to no resistance. They finally resisted after the territory that was declared LNR/DNR was taken, but they didn't subsequently recover any lost territory. They took significant casualties in trench warfare in the Donbas, but did little to drive out the Russians in any of those areas. Even as Russia massed their invasion forces, they ignored US warnings of an imminent invasion. They were content to live with a frozen low level conflict for 8 years, with Russia holding Crimea & LNR/DNR until Russia invaded. They did not even mobilize nationally to fight until invasion was imminent.

Ukraine has been independent for 30 years. They inherited the best of the Soviet military, industrial & ag capacity, which they squandered. You are seeing the remnants of that capability asserted now. For 3 decades, they wasted that advantage & did little to build the capability to defend themselves. They could have invested in their military, just as Russia did. Now it is somehow our responsibility to fund them taking back the territory they failed to defend & recover over the past 8 years. That is territory behind artificial, arbitrary borders, based on Russian provincial boundaries retained by the USSR. They are irrational as national boundaries, guaranteed to provoke disputes & instability.

Putin will have to stop because he will be incapable of going farther. If Ukraine stays mobilized as a nation, committed to their defense, with US & NATO support, they can finally defend themselves against further Russian advances, now that they have finally demonstrated the resolve to do so. ...unless they return to being a corrupt oligarchy, which they have still not demonstrated that they are not. Give Rand Paul the IG he's requesting to make sure the $40B doesn't go to grifters like Manafort & Hunter.

[old salt]

I have no idea why Ukrainians are resisting. Much easier to quit.

$53 billion US tax payer down payment.

What do you care? You got your’n.

OS, you sure do pick weird times to pretend to care about deficit spending.

$53B for 3 mos, with somebody else doing the fighting & dying.
Makes 18 years of Afghan war look cheap. That's a fire hose of funding. Where is it going ? How much is the EU contributing ?
Are we paying to backfill EU NATO members or is the EU collectively backfilling EU member military contributions ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... war-costs/
Direct U.S. spending on the war in Afghanistan will rise to approximately $840.7 billion if the president’s fiscal year 2018 budget is approved...
That includes the total cost estimated by the Congressional Research Service for the 2001 to 2014 fiscal years, and money from the Defense Department’s overseas contingency budgets for the fiscal years 2015 to 2018.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/ ... o-context/
For starters, if Congress signs off on this new request the U.S. will have authorized $47 billion in total spending to Ukraine. That’s more than the Biden administration is committing to stopping climate change and almost as much as the entire State Department budget.

The vast majority of this new aid package, $20.4 billion, is for “additional security and military assistance for Ukraine and for U.S. efforts to strengthen European security in cooperation with our NATO allies and other partners in the region,” according to the White House.

“Coupled with the $3.7 billion in military assistance already made available to Ukraine since Russia‘s invasion, President Biden’s proposal of an additional $20 billion would make Kyiv the largest yearly recipient of U.S. military aid of at least the past two decades,” explained Elias Yousif, a security assistance expert at the Stimson Center.

“The amount is more than twice the largest yearly total ever provided to Afghanistan — where the U.S. was actively at war — and approximately seven times Israel’s annual military assistance package,” continued Yousif.

This aid package is also more than the U.S. spent on the so-called Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account during the first year of the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan, and more than the total amount of money all but 13 countries in the world spend on their military, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

In addition, there is the direct economic cost to U.S. taxpayers who, ultimately, have to foot the bill for this historic aid package. Part of that cost could come from the kinds of fraud, waste and abuse that groups like the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) have uncovered in other cases where billions of dollars were being shoveled out the door in the name of national security without adequate oversight or coordination.

Helping Ukraine defend itself is one thing, but it should be done with an eye towards limiting the risks of escalation and unintended economic and security consequences.

[old salt]

Here's what Macron is up to & SecDef Austin is recommending. Apparently I'm not the only one seeking a cease fire in place.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/z ... term=first {paywall}

Zelensky Rejects Macron Pressure to Cede Ukrainian Territory

Volodymyr Zelensky rejected what he said was an attempt by French president Emmanuel Macron to pressure Ukraine to cede some of its territory to Russia, as the Biden administration worked to broker a cease-fire.

Zelensky, speaking with the Italian news channel Rai 1, said Macron’s effort to “suggest some things related to concessions of our sovereignty for the sake of saving face for Putin” was wrong. “We are not ready to save something for someone and lose our territories over it,” he said, according to Ukraine’s Interfax service.

Macron has been speaking with Zelensky and Vladimir Putin to seek a negotiated end to Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. In a clip from a video posted to his YouTube channel and shared to social media, he told his advisers that “it’s the right moment” for him to go to Moscow.

Meanwhile, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin said he spoke with his Russian counterpart for the first time since Moscow launched its assault on February 24. Austin, according to the Pentagon, “urged an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine and emphasized the importance of maintaining lines of communication.”

If the U.S. were to broker a cease-fire at this point, it would likely keep in place Russian territorial gains at a time when a Ukrainian counter-attack is building momentum.

It’s also worth noting that the Russian side hasn’t exactly sought a cease-fire. In fact, Washington has repeatedly asked the Russian defense ministry to hold talks, according to reports from a Pentagon briefing today.

The U.K.’s defense intelligence arm said today that Ukrainian forces fended off an attempted river crossing by Russian forces in the Donbas region, where Moscow has concentrated its forces in recent weeks. It also said Russia has failed to make “significant advances” despite focusing on the region and retreating from the Kyiv and Chenihiv regions.

U.K. defense intelligence also has said that the invasion has made Russia’s military “significantly weaker,” given the heavy losses it has suffered.

Austin said last month that a key U.S. goal in supporting Ukraine is to ensure a “weakened” Russia incapable of carrying out future invasions. That’s a goal that has aligned with what Kyiv is trying to achieve.

But there’s likely to be little Ukrainian enthusiasm for an imposed cease-fire that could benefit the Russian military and freeze into place Russian territorial gains in areas where troops are likely carrying out horrific atrocities against civilians. Macron’s pressure to agree to a negotiated cession of Ukrainian territory, as Zelensky said, is also a nonstarter.

[old salt]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/ ... term=third {paywall}

Why Heritage Said the Ukraine-Aid Bill ‘Puts America Last’

The conservative think tank could have supported a smaller proposal, but a broader shift at Heritage — toward the populist right — is under way.

Earlier this week, the Heritage Foundation came out in opposition to a $40 billion bill to boost arms transfers, economic assistance, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. The stance of the historically hawkish and influential think tank hints at a potentially new path forward for the organization, which is learning to adapt to the conservative movement’s populist turn.

A statement from the group’s political arm opposing the Ukraine aid supplemental bill comes in the middle of a pivot... But that shift is not necessarily a move away from the group’s long-standing assertive posture toward Russia, in the spirit of President Reagan’s peace-through-strength approach, he said.

“As a recovering neocon, as many of us in the movement are, all of us at Heritage understand that the great lessons of Reaganism — and I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Reaganite — of peace through strength can be applied but more selectively in the 21st century,” Roberts told NR.

One example of this perspective: Roberts said that Heritage stands fully behind U.S. efforts to empower the Ukrainian government, short of a no-fly zone. He believes that, to make peace more achievable, the goal should be to empower Kyiv to take back territory seized since the start of the invasion in February, but not territory taken in 2014.

In the weeks leading up to Tuesday night’s vote, Heritage Action, the group’s political and policy-advocacy arm, urged lawmakers to oppose the legislative package, primarily on grounds that it was too costly to send more aid to Ukraine amid rising inflation and a crisis at the southern border.

Then, in a memo titled “Ukraine Aid Package Puts America Last,” which it released publicly on Tuesday, the organization assailed the bill for putting U.S. assistance to Ukraine over domestic priorities. That document, once in public view, made a splash in the conservative foreign-policy world.

“America is struggling with record-setting inflation, debt, a porous border, crime and energy depletion yet progressives in Washington are prioritizing a $40 billion aid package to Ukraine — more than the entire annual budget of the U.S. Department of Justice,” Heritage Action executive director Jessica Anderson wrote.

The Ukraine aid bill passed along bipartisan lines on a 368–57 vote Tuesday evening, with Republicans casting all of the no votes. In the end, numerous objections shaped the thinking of conservative lawmakers who voted against the measure, but initially those objections did not fully overlap with Heritage’s full-throated opposition to the package.

Many of the 57 votes against the bill came from conservatives who generally supported a robust military-aid package with some modest humanitarian assistance. Those members could have supported a different version of that package at around the proposed $40 billion figure. They opposed the bill, however, because the version proposed this week would provide unaccountable funding to refugee-resettlement operations and, potentially, bolster a pro-abortion U.N. agency via the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Representative Chip Roy voiced another significant concern that some conservatives quickly coalesced around: that congressional leadership gave members only six hours to review the muti-billion-dollar package.

While the Heritage memo also criticized the process behind the bill, and while Heritage had voiced opposition to the refugee provisions, the first sentence of Anderson’s statement indicates that the group’s main objection was that the U.S. simply cannot provide that level of funding while the border crisis festers and inflation continues to roar.

This position sounded to some like a flat-out rejection of U.S. efforts to continue to aid Ukraine, and it prompted criticism from some corners.

Representative Peter Meijer took to Twitter to pan the Heritage Action statement:

The Ukraine supplemental had almost everything Heritage was calling for three weeks ago. But it’s more convenient to vacillate btwn Biden doing too little and Biden doing too much than have a sound, consistent approach

In addition, a scholar associated with the American Enterprise Institute called the statement “stunningly embarrassing” for tying the aid package to progressivism; a few of his AEI colleagues and one of the think tank’s board members retweeted his rebuke.

Meanwhile, American Moment, an upstart populist advocacy outfit that counts as one of its board members GOP Ohio Senate candidate J. D. Vance — a persistent voice against U.S. aid to Ukraine — praised the statement.

In response to questions from NR yesterday, Heritage Action clarified that its position isn’t to oppose future, smarter Ukraine aid packages and that the biggest concern was the rushed and opaque way by which House leadership put the bill together.

“Real leadership means having a plan abroad and cooperation with international partners, not giving members of Congress six hours to scrutinize a half-baked $40 billion spending package,” Anderson told NR, while repeating her previous concerns that the bill was fiscally irresponsible.

The Heritage Foundation late Wednesday night, meanwhile, circulated a policy brief making a similar point: “This is not a question of continued support for Ukraine’s self-defense. The administration’s proposal is fiscally irresponsible.”

For his part, Roberts said that he loves the Ukrainians. He called them “heroic,” pointed out that Heritage flew the Ukrainian flag outside its Washington, D.C., office building, and said that it’s in America’s national interest to support their efforts. But the process behind the bill should have allowed for more debate, he argued, to address concerns about enabling corruption in eastern Europe — and in the U.S. government. He opposed provisions that paid the salaries and pensions of Ukrainian government employees. A package one quarter the size of the one advanced by the House would have been more palatable to Heritage. An impressive list of conservative lawmakers, all of whom have advocated hawkish policies toward Russia, also voted against the bill, which in his view puts Heritage’s stance on solid ground.

“Think about the members who did vote against it. Not just my friend Chip, but Mike Johnson, Jim Banks, Kevin Hern, Kat Cammack. These are some of the most thoughtful members, with deep policy knowledge.”

While Heritage has not outright opposed aid to Ukraine, Roberts has hinted at a slight shift from its historical advocacy of a consistently assertive policy toward Russia.

“If we’re asking better questions and having better analysis about where we get involved, why we get involved, for how long we’re involved, answering the question of what success looks like, if that’s the third way, then you can sign Heritage up for that all day long,” he said. “And I happen to think that’s where the conservative foreign-policy movement is going.”

[old salt]

Putin's burden of Russia's history of Empire.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-end-of ... 1650307491 {paywall}

The End of Russia’s Empire?
Moscow has a stake in the Ukraine war that is greater than Putin’s career.
by Walter Russell Mead, April 18, 2022 6:23

As Russia and Ukraine prepare for what could be the biggest tank battle in Europe since World War II, the future of Vladimir Putin’s war remains impossible to predict. Large-scale tank and artillery engagements in the flat open terrain of eastern Ukraine may favor Moscow, and the sheer weight of Russia’s military machine could force territorial gains, but other outcomes are possible. Ukrainian courage, tactical brilliance and access to Western arms and equipment could produce another string of humiliating setbacks for Russia.

The worst-case scenario for Mr. Putin would be for Russia’s war in Ukraine to end in a comprehensive military defeat, with the collapse of pro-Russian enclaves in the Donbas and Moldova and Ukraine’s integration into the West. Such a defeat would be more than a personal humiliation; it could be a career-ending setback for him. It would also deliver a psychological and strategic shock to Russia’s standing and self-image. The course of Russian history would change.

Russia would not be the first former empire to face a moment of historical reckoning. Spain’s 1898 defeat at the hands of the upstart Americans was a watershed moment in Spanish history. The global empire that had defined Spain since the voyages of Columbus had suddenly disappeared, and Spaniards began to question everything from the monarchy to the role of the church.

For Britain and France, their ignominious failure in the 1956 Suez campaign forced both countries to realize that they were no longer independent global powers. The glories of empire were over, and the two former superpowers began, painfully and reluctantly, to adjust to their new circumstances.

A decisive Russian failure in Ukraine could be Moscow’s Suez moment. If Russia fails to conquer the heart of Ukraine (western Ukraine is less of a concern in Russian historical mythology), Russians will be unable to avoid the conclusion that the empire of the czars, painfully assembled over many centuries and restored by Lenin and Stalin after the disasters of World War I, has irrevocably fallen. This will force the kind of deep introspection in Russia that other former empires have had to face. The consequences will be far-reaching.

Under the Romanovs, the communists and Mr. Putin, Russian political thought has been shaped by three beliefs: that Russia is different, that the difference is transcendentally important, and that it gives Russia a unique role in world history. Defeat in Ukraine would radically undermine confidence in these ideas, plunging Russia into an identity crisis with unpredictable political consequences.

The czars, commissars and Putinists all saw Russia as both unique and committed to a struggle against the West. For the czars, Moscow was the “third Rome” that would carry the torch of Christianity and civilization after the first Rome fell to barbarian invaders and the second Rome (Constantinople) fell to the Turks. For the communists, Moscow was the citadel of the global proletarian revolution, fated to annihilate the decadent bourgeois culture of the West. Mr. Putin and his acolytes see the world in similar terms, with Russia committed to a war of survival against Western decadence, soullessness and unbridled greed.

To hold its own in the unequal competition with the more developed West and to provide governance suited to its unique psyche, Russia, its rulers argued, needed to concentrate power at the top. Only someone as strong as Catherine the Great, Stalin or, his admirers maintain, Mr. Putin can enable Russia to prevail in its confrontation with the West.

Ukraine is the heart of the matter. With Ukraine under its thumb, Moscow sees itself as the greatest power in Europe. Without Ukraine, the dream that Russia can recapture the Soviet Union’s status as a superpower will die a bitter death.

Worse, perhaps, from the viewpoint of the “Eurasian” theorists and radical Russian nationalists who provide a veneer of legitimacy for Mr. Putin’s regime, a victory for Orthodox, Slavic and democratic Ukraine over despotic Russia wouldn’t only challenge the personal legitimacy of Mr. Putin. It would challenge the idea of Russian exceptionalism and fatally undermine the view that despotism is the form of governance best suited to the Russian soul.

As the war exposes the darkness inherent in Mr. Putin’s regime, and as atrocities abroad and repression at home impress the mark of Cain ever more deeply on its brow, it is impossible not to hope for a Russian defeat. Nevertheless, caution is in order. Mr. Putin and those around him know that in Ukraine they aren’t fighting only for an adjustment of frontiers. They are fighting for their world, and it may be psychologically impossible for them to accept defeat until every measure, however ruthless, and every weapon, however heinous, has been brought into play.

For Vladimir Putin and the people around him, the stakes in Ukraine are almost infinitely great.

[Farfromgeneva]

Oops?

Nope, I don't think Biden, the US, or anyone else in NATO wants Ukraine to have nuclear weapons, but it's why Ukraine wants to be aligned with, under the umbrella of, NATO. Same for Finland and Sweden.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Putin is threatening to use their nukes to subdue Ukraine if they can't otherwise pound them into submission.

Also of benefit for any of these countries concerned with Russian aggression, is the conventional support NATO could bring to bear, swiftly and overwhelmingly, should they choose to do...and are obligated to do so for any NATO member.

Message, don't attack your neighbor, a-holes.

Wait. Every Russian source says the opposite: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russia- ... mb-2806345

RT used to have more of these but its been censored. Those of you from the right wing believed Bush's stories about Saddam having nukes so this news today should be just as acceptable to you one would think.

So I'm not ready to say "oops" or "I told ya so" like I did with Bush's crazed notions. We shall see what happens next.

Good lord.
Putin says so...

I do get a kick out of you calling me "right wing"...you need to explain that to cradle, Petey and whole bunch of others...cradle calls me FLP constantly. which ain't accurate either, but it does tickle me that you think I'm "right wing". I guess from your perspective...

I just saw this.

Next up: Kim Jong Il is Superman. Every North Korean source says so therefore we should let him do whatever he wants.

That’s the point. If those more extreme in both sides are choosing Russia's side then you know you’re in a reasonable place taking the other side of that and don’t even need to debate clownish, weak attempts to debate the counterpoint.

[MDlaxfan76]

Good lord.
Putin says so...

I do get a kick out of you calling me "right wing"...you need to explain that to cradle, Petey and whole bunch of others...cradle calls me FLP constantly. which ain't accurate either, but it does tickle me that you think I'm "right wing". I guess from your perspective...

Recall "Bush said so". That was good enough for that POS admin from our earlier forum. and other right wingers.

As I said previously, we don't know for certain. Therefore, stay da fcckkk out of it until the issue is settled by them.

I fully understood your point, but I'll object to any sort of attempt at equivalence between Putin and Bush.

Yeah, we do know for certain that Putin is a lying POS, war criminal, dictator. You can call Bush a lot of things, but dictator ain't one of them.

[Farfromgeneva]

I have no idea why Ukrainians are resisting. Much easier to quit.

$53 billion US tax payer down payment.

What do you care? You got your’n.

OS, you sure do pick weird times to pretend to care about deficit spending.

Convenient, weird would imply not predictable.

[a fan]

I have no idea why Ukrainians are resisting. Much easier to quit.

$53 billion US tax payer down payment.

What do you care? You got your’n.

OS, you sure do pick weird times to pretend to care about deficit spending.

$53B for 3 mos, with somebody else doing the fighting & dying.
Makes 18 years of Afghan war look cheap.

No. It won't. The meter will be running for the Afghan war....and for Obama and Trump being too weak to pull us out....for decades to come.

You yourself have said it: we destroyed/wore out all kinds of equipment in Afghanistan that we had to replace. Spending went UP after Afghanistan.

Then there's the veteran care. That's a BIG number, and keeps getting bigger...and will last for 60 years for some of our vets.

$53 Billion is peanuts compared with Afghanistan. Or heck, just the stupid checks Trump gave to farmers for no reason....$46 Billion in just one year.

[old salt]

You yourself have said it: we destroyed/wore out all kinds of equipment in Afghanistan that we had to replace. Spending went UP after Afghanistan.

By now, most of it would be obsolete or surplus. That's why replacements were needed. That was primarily in reference to strike aircraft that were flying more hours than programmed to reach their end of service life. We kept them flying & they are now being retired, past their due date, because they are obsolete, non-stealthy, & vulnerable. Most F-16's are being refurbished, updated & sold to allies. LM opened a new assy line in SC to remanufacture, update & upgrade used F-16's for foreign military sales.

[a fan]

You yourself have said it: we destroyed/wore out all kinds of equipment in Afghanistan that we had to replace. Spending went UP after Afghanistan.

By now, most of it would be obsolete or surplus. That's why replacements were needed.

You're trying to sell us that a war halfway around the world for 20 year is in any financial way comparable to this piddly $50 Billion.

By the time all the Vets get their 60+ years of well-earned taxpayer medical care, Afghanistan expenses will be north of $3 Trillion.

Ukraine is a nothing cost. Next time, lose your sh*t when Trump gives the same amount to farmers for no reason other than to try and buy votes....and maybe I'll buy your feigned frugality when the D's are in charge.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You yourself have said it: we destroyed/wore out all kinds of equipment in Afghanistan that we had to replace. Spending went UP after Afghanistan.

By now, most of it would be obsolete or surplus. That's why replacements were needed.

You're trying to sell us that a war halfway around the world for 20 year is in any financial way comparable to this piddly $50 Billion.

By the time all the Vets get their 60+ years of well-earned taxpayer medical care, Afghanistan expenses will be north of $3 Trillion.

Ukraine is a nothing cost. Next time, lose your sh*t when Trump gives the same amount to farmers for no reason other than to try and buy votes....and maybe I'll buy your feigned frugality when the D's are in charge.

No credibility

[cradleandshoot]

Good lord.
Putin says so...

I do get a kick out of you calling me "right wing"...you need to explain that to cradle, Petey and whole bunch of others...cradle calls me FLP constantly. which ain't accurate either, but it does tickle me that you think I'm "right wing". I guess from your perspective...

Recall "Bush said so". That was good enough for that POS admin from our earlier forum. and other right wingers.

As I said previously, we don't know for certain. Therefore, stay da fcckkk out of it until the issue is settled by them.

I fully understood your point, but I'll object to any sort of attempt at equivalence between Putin and Bush.

Yeah, we do know for certain that Putin is a lying POS, war criminal, dictator. You can call Bush a lot of things, but dictator ain't one of them.

One of those rare instances when I respond to the blimp. I can't refer to it as a FLP. I don't acknowledge that it even exists. I don't know what it is nor do I care.

[Brooklyn]

I fully understood your point, but I'll object to any sort of attempt at equivalence between Putin and Bush.

Yeah, we do know for certain that Putin is a lying POS, war criminal, dictator. You can call Bush a lot of things, but dictator ain't one of them.

A million dead Middle Easterners or their relations would likely disagree.

[old salt]

You yourself have said it: we destroyed/wore out all kinds of equipment in Afghanistan that we had to replace. Spending went UP after Afghanistan.

By now, most of it would be obsolete or surplus. That's why replacements were needed.

You're trying to sell us that a war halfway around the world for 20 year is in any financial way comparable to this piddly $50 Billion.

By the time all the Vets get their 60+ years of well-earned taxpayer medical care, Afghanistan expenses will be north of $3 Trillion.

Ukraine is a nothing cost. Next time, lose your sh*t when Trump gives the same amount to farmers for no reason other than to try and buy votes....and maybe I'll buy your feigned frugality when the D's are in charge.

No credibility

$53 billion is just the first installment. What is this war costing your farmer friends in fertilizer & fuel costs, which the taxpayers or customers will pay for?

We went to Afghanistan because of 9-11, remember. NATO saw the threat, joined us there & wanted to stay longer.
Why are we bankrolling a war between former Russian provinces ? Why are we paying & contributing more than the EUros ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

You yourself have said it: we destroyed/wore out all kinds of equipment in Afghanistan that we had to replace. Spending went UP after Afghanistan.

By now, most of it would be obsolete or surplus. That's why replacements were needed.

You're trying to sell us that a war halfway around the world for 20 year is in any financial way comparable to this piddly $50 Billion.

By the time all the Vets get their 60+ years of well-earned taxpayer medical care, Afghanistan expenses will be north of $3 Trillion.

Ukraine is a nothing cost. Next time, lose your sh*t when Trump gives the same amount to farmers for no reason other than to try and buy votes....and maybe I'll buy your feigned frugality when the D's are in charge.

No credibility

$53 billion is just the first installment. What is this war costing your farmer friends in fertilizer & fuel costs, which the taxpayers or customers will pay for?

We went to Afghanistan because of 9-11, remember. NATO saw the threat, joined us there & wanted to stay longer.
Why are we bankrolling a war between former Russian provinces ? Why are we paying & contributing more than the EUros ?

Why do you care?

[old salt]

You yourself have said it: we destroyed/wore out all kinds of equipment in Afghanistan that we had to replace. Spending went UP after Afghanistan.

By now, most of it would be obsolete or surplus. That's why replacements were needed.

You're trying to sell us that a war halfway around the world for 20 year is in any financial way comparable to this piddly $50 Billion.

By the time all the Vets get their 60+ years of well-earned taxpayer medical care, Afghanistan expenses will be north of $3 Trillion.

Ukraine is a nothing cost. Next time, lose your sh*t when Trump gives the same amount to farmers for no reason other than to try and buy votes....and maybe I'll buy your feigned frugality when the D's are in charge.

No credibility

$53 billion is just the first installment. What is this war costing your farmer friends in fertilizer & fuel costs, which the taxpayers or customers will pay for?

We went to Afghanistan because of 9-11, remember. NATO saw the threat, joined us there & wanted to stay longer.
Why are we bankrolling a war between former Russian provinces ? Why are we paying & contributing more than the EUros ?

Why do you care?

Because we are meddling in & prolonging a war when we have no idea how it will end or what the unintended consequences will be.
It is not worth the risk. It is not a threat to us.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 ... ia-war.cnn