Before this is over American taxpayers will have sent 100 billion in printed money and our critical weapons supplies will have been depleted. I’d like to know what we get out of this. OK, we help the Ukrainian people defend themselves, all good. And if we were rolling in cash I’d be cheering. But we are in a recession, we are suffering from inflation from too much printed money. Our savings are evaporating before our eyes. Our people need help.
The best that can be hoped for is a withdrawal of Russian forces. But Putin’s ego and his vision of Russia are on the line. He’s a wounded animal now. He’s not going to surrender. So what then?
Another important consideration is the massive decrease in the national oil reserve. One source has it at a 30% decrease. That is massive, the worst since 1984. The left is all-in on the green new deal. RINOs and DEMS are all-in on wars and wearing blue and gold ribbons while homicide in the U.S. is out of control and our schools are spending far too much on DEI instead of reading and math skills. Check out these sources below. University of Michigan and Ohio State University spend nearly 30 million annually on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion staff.
DEI University of Michigan is $15.5 million annually:
Yup. This all plays right into the hands of the Leftists who WANT our country to collapse. Their aim is to build their utopia on its ashes. They always think that the next time is the time it will work.
Like I have always said, the left is Hell bent on destroying our democracy. They have this sick notion that out of the ashes of our of our wonderful system of government the workers will arise shoulder to shoulder and lead us into a Communist paradise. No matter what history tells these idiots, communism is a failed system. It never has worked and it never will. If the Chinese don't get to us first, the green initiative and the burning of our cities by the left led rioters will.
How did an article on the war in Ukraine slide so quickly into unrelated and utterly fatuous comments about the "left" being "Hell bent on destroying our democracy?" Can you give me a specific example, LonesomePolecat?
Which party is passing laws to empower state legislatures to overrule the will of the voters? Which party has passed laws impeding the right to vote in more than twenty states? Which party is replete with angry members who still believe, without any evidence and contrary to countless audits, court rulings, and investigations, that the 2020 Presidential election was fraudulent? Such attacks on our democratic processes and the results of our elections undermine faith in our system and lay the groundwork for a more successful effort to deny the will of the voters in the next Presidential election.
It's the far right that's shown its colors -- its love for orange-faced autocrats and bullies; its yearning for a tough guy to rule with an iron hand. It's been the forces on the left that have fought for civil rights for African Americans, women, and other groups that have not enjoyed full participation and representation in our society. Get over it.
I'm sorry it took so long to address your post. I answer posts like yours about twice a month and it gets tiring.
I will address you post and try to answer all of your concerns on the following conditions:
1. when answering me you will not change the subject. I try to use facts and history to address subjects in all of my posts. When confronted with something they can't refute, they will say something like, "Well what about Trump?" When the subject is say, Biden. That is what I mean about a subject change. They can't answer what I have presented so they divert.
2. No matter how angry you get with me through frustration, you do not call me names and I promise I won't do that to you. IOW, let's keep this civil.
I find that people on the left usually can't do the above two things. They get real nasty.
I am actually far more concerned about Chinese Imperialism, because their soft power on the West Coast has grown at a frightening rate, and they've already shown they can feed our federal authorities crafty lies to get them to wreck our country on the inside.
I majored in Chinese and it's a pretty cool language, actually. If we all could speak and read Chinese, it might make us all a bit more civilized and cultured.
But the Communist regime of China is another beast altogether. Monsters.
I respectfully disagree with this notion. As a liberal, a crashed economy would hurt me as much as it hurts righties. Why would I want that for myself or you? Makes no sense. I know most of Bari's commentators are addicted to the notion that the Evil Commie Librul Leftie McLeft Woke Groomers want to burn down everything. That notion is as absurb as Lefty McGroomer claiming that right wingers want to set up death camps for progressives. You don't, do you?
A crashed economy is not going to hurt the powerful on the left. Amazon, Meta, Apple will be fine. Oh, some of the smaller players on the left, you perhaps, would be hurt, but they don’t care about you. They want power and control. You know the saying…gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.
Great Depression II will harm everyone, even Big Corporate, so profoundly that I honestly don't believe anyone is trying to bring that about. Democrats can't organize a one-car funeral, so to think they're orchestrating the vast conspiracy needed to destroy our economy makes me smile. Republicans are too invested in screaming "commie libtard pedo groomer One World Order!!!" to bother crashing anything.
I hope I'm right, because I do not want to live through GDII.
The problem is that there are people on the Left--specifically the people who are ideologically guiding the Left--who have stated plainly that this is their aim. If it were a few random crazies, then yeah, it would be absurd. But it isn't a few crazies. It's the people who have long been on the cutting edge of Leftist thought. What they think now, the rest of the Left will think sooner or later.
Examples, please, NCMaureen. What evidence do you have that the left "means to crash the American economy?" From the time of Reagan, income disparity between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us has grown more quickly under Republican administrations that under Democrats. Republican administrations talk the talk of fiscal responsibility when a Democrat occupies the White House but when a Republican moves in, they spend like drunken sailors, cut taxes for the rich, and explode the debt and deficit. No one in Congress has fought harder for working class Americans than have two of the most liberal Senators -- Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Trump promised to revive coal mining in America. Thank goodness he failed -- coal mining jobs declined under his watch although his EPA made it easier for coal mines to pollute our rivers and atmosphere. He promised that winning a trade war with China would be easy. His tariffs hurt American manufacturers and consumers and achieved nothing. More jobs were created in the last 18 months of the Obama administration than in the first 18 months of Trump. I could go on, NCMaureen. Facts are stubborn things. Show me some that substantiate your allegations.
I'd be interested to know who those nefarious Leftists are, too, so we can keep them from crashing the economy and such. But I have no idea who they are, either.
Here is a paragraph from an editorial in today’s WSJ from some native Alaskans who have been working to have oil drilling on their lands for decades. Do you think the environmentalists they refer to are conservatives or leftists—
“ We are tired of outside groups trying to turn this project and every other oil and gas project in our region into the poster child for a global movement away from fossil fuels. This is more than a political oil debate for us; it’s about access to land we were promised many years ago. Without projects like Willow and their crucial economic benefits, many of my neighbors would be forced to leave the lands they and their ancestors have inhabited for thousands of years.…”
Leftists sacrificing even indigenous people on the altar of climate change
The fed, the fbi, the Biden admin, the self professed socialists in key roles (Bernie, AOC). Lena Khan. Gavin Newsome. Larry Fink.
The list is very long, but if you’re asking a genuine question, it’s a decent enough starting point for you to do some more thinking and reach your own conclusion.
At the end though the simplest explanation —- that they’re a bunch of mediocre politicos without any useful ideas, who haven never built and know only how to divide and defame.
"it’s a decent enough starting point for you to do some more thinking and reach your own conclusion."
What make you assume I haven't done this "thinking" to reach my own conclusion? I have done so all my life. My conclusion stands:
"The Left" is not trying to "crash the economy" to start the New World Order or any other fantasy dreamed up by QAnon goobers. Period.
I agree with your lineup of mediocre politicians, but you forgot the dimwits from the Republican side of the aisle. Boebert? Gaetz? Greene? Trump and his pals?
Do I think there is a concerted conspiracy of leftists out to crush our economy? No. But in their collective ignorance of basic science, math, and physics, coupled with their utterly deluded “moral” system can only produce failed governance that inevitably leads to very bad economic results.
If you want some specifics: unhinged hysterical desire to “kill fossil fuels”, incoherent monetary policy that will depress equity values while doing nothing whatsoever for inflation that’s constantly fed by more printed money giveaways.
Lastly, the left’s slavish allegiance to the people who have hurt more American kids than any external force ever has: the teachers unions. So long as the left is in the pocket of the teachers unions, they will continue to have a direct political incentive to perpetuate the system that condemn our kids to a life of ignorance, and sheepish fearful obedience to The Scary Moral Panic du jour.
Oh, please Zoya, it's the right, deluded by the merchants of doubt in the fossil fuel industries, that faithfully ignores science, math, and physics in their rejection of climate science and the looming crisis that's devastating growing portions of our planet. What's unhinged about acknowledging the rapidly expanding desertification, the rising sea levels and melting glaciers, the ever-increasing acreage lost each year to wildfires, the advent of the sixth great extinction event, the only such calamity sparked by a single species -- us?
As for inflation and monetary policy: At least 6 of the 7 Fed governing board were appointed or reappointed by Trump. Inflation is a global problem that's been brewing for decades as we propped up our economy with near-zero interest rates and Congress pumped yet more funny money into the system by way of deficit spending and irresponsible tax cuts. Both parties are to blame, but it's the Republicans who consistently talk the talk of fiscal responsibility until they're in control, then they go about blowing up the debt and deficits even faster than do the Democrats.
You have no evidence that the current Fed actions will do "nothing whatsoever for inflation." It's likely that these actions will spark at least a mild recession and slow the economy down. With reduced demand, prices will stabilize. It will be painful, and working people will suffer the most. The Fed's policies are not liberal and most of the Board members are solid Republicans.
But you're right about this: interest rate hikes won't solve prolonged droughts, floods, or huge losses from hurricanes, tornadoes, and other impacts from our changing climate. Food crises are emerging around the world and will only get worse, exacerbated further by the war in Ukraine. Ignoring climate science and supporting further fossil use will only accelerate the inflationary and famine inducing impacts of climate change.
As for our schools. We have a nationwide shortage of qualified school teachers. Why anyone would choose to invest in a master's degree so they can teach in our under funded schools and subject themselves to the abuse of bigoted, hostile parents is beyond me. The right's efforts to privatize and dumb down our schools is succeeding and it's a tragedy.
Promoting a fantasy that we can convert to wind and solar anytime soon. Subsidizing special interest industries.
Since Biden has been in office, Americans have lost 7.8 TRILLION DOLLARS in assets. We are in a recession. How much did the stock market go up under Trump?
Crime—-shops closing down because nothing is done about the shoplifters. Lefty DAs put them back on the street.
Growing government—87,000 new IRS agents!
A half trillion to pay off student loans for people making as much as $250,000/yr. This won’t be a one-time thing. Landscapers without a college education will be paying taxes to pay the loan for a kid with a worthless degree.
You need to try a little harder to base your allegations on facts, NCMaureen.
"Crippling the American energy industry." Fact: The Biden administration issued 34% more permits to drill on federal land in his first year in office than did Trump. The American fossil fuel giants have garnered record profits over the past year, and their stocks have been among the strongest sectors in the market.
" . . . a fanasy that we can convert to wind and solar anytime soon." In fact, it's been established that using natural gas as a "bridge" to clean renewable energy sources was a bill of goods promoted by the fossil fuel giants whom you seem to believe without question. Transitioning directly from coal to renewables is now cheaper, faster, and safer than by replacing coal with natural gas.
Donald Trump came to office in the middle of the longest bull stock market in history. The market continued to rise as it had been doing, but he failed to sustain the growth witnessed under Obama. Then along came Covid . . .
"How does Trump compare to Obama in the stock market? We share the facts on cumulative and annualized performance between Trump and Obama in the stock market. Cumulatively across the S&P 500, Trump is at 67.26% compared to Obama at 166.28% a difference of -99.02%. On the NASDAQ, Trump is at 137.56% compared to Obama at 262.26% a difference of -124.70%. Finally, on the DOW Jones, Trump is at 56.00% compared to Obama at 138.28% a difference of -82.28%."
The crime "crisis" has been largely misrepresented by the right. The rise is homicides began in 2019 under Trump and has continued. Other areas of violent crime have remained flat or declined. Smash and grab incidents in Los Angeles peaked in December of 2021 and drew lots of media attention. The incidents have declined since and robberies, burglaries, and theft are down from 2019. The right makes much of the post-Covid crime wave, blaming it on lax policing and immigrants. They deliberately ignore the explosion of gun sales during the pandemic and the impact that's had on the exploding homicide rate.
After years of Republican tax breaks for the rich and cuts to the IRS budget, huge corporations and the wealthiest plutocrats had little to worry about from an IRS audit. The number of audits dropped precipitously and the amount of uncollected taxes exploded, reaching an estimated $600 billion. The long overdue corrective action by the Biden administration will improve customer service, speed up refunds to working taxpayers, and direct the attention of auditors where it belongs -- on tax evading plutocrats and corporations. Long overdue.
I share your discomfort with the legislation to address the student loan problem. But the funds required to address the problem will not impact low-wage workers like landscapers. With child tax credits for two children and a dependent spouse, a worker making $25,000 a year would pay no federal income tax. Sadly, the same can be said for some huge multinational corporations until Biden instituted a $15% minimum.
You can actually argue drill permits? Ridiculous. Filled your tank lately? Gas was $1.99 in Jan 2021.
Landscapers can make 100k a year easily. Yes, they will pay taxes.
Tax breaks for the “rich”, because guess who pays most of the taxes? Should we give tax breaks to the poor, who you described as already paying no taxes? How many employees do poor people have?
During the Obama administration the stock market started in the dumper and had only one way to go, Up. During the Trump administration an already high stock market went even higher. Until Biden, who has wiped out at least 2 yrs of gains.
If you are unwilling to believe lectures given at Hillsdale by people who I bet you didn’t even check to see who they were, why should I believe you when npr and nbc are your sources?
And you are not very polite. You can disagree with someone without insulting them.
We have exchanged some bitter words on this BBS but on the whole the debates are civil, except when we debate a hard core leftist. It seems to me the left can't help themselves. They almost always devolve into insults, like you just did.
The depletion of the strategic oil reserve is purely political - to lower gas prices before the Midterm elections - and puts the country at risk. It's terrible policy, but who's surprised?
The strategic petroleum inventory decline was carefully crafted by examining Biden’s approval rating. No other analysis was required, just like most of this administrations actions. Restocking should not be difficult. All the government has to do is provide a floor price for domestic production that is above the marginal cost to produce a barrel. Oh wait, we can’t do that because a key constituency will throw a fit!
Maureen, if you do not understand the price of appeasement of vicious dictators, I suggest you take some time and view the Kien Burns series on the Holocaust. Europe appeased Hitler on 1938, for reasons similar to your arguments here. Six years later, 50 million people were dead, 6 million of my people among them. You also might want to view the photographs and video of towns liberated from Russian occupation: thousands of cilivians with their hands tied and a bullet to their heads.
Sorry about your tax burden, Maureen. But Europeans would trade places with you any time.
Putin is not Hitler. This is not the pre-World War II. This is a fight over Ukraine joining NATO so the US is right on Russia's border, simple as that. Our leaders caused this problem and now they're feeding the beast at our expense by waging a proxy war. And it does us no good to sink our economy and leave ourselves vulnerable trying to save one corrupt regime from another.
But NATO is already on Russia’s border, via the Baltic states and Poland.
Putin himself explained that, under his let’s call it highly idiosyncratic history, Ukraine is not and never was a real country with any existence separate from Russia and its destiny was therefore to return to the fold. And he alone decided when and whether to invade Ukraine.
Talk about NATO etc. as justifications for invading a sovereign state is to fall for political spin and disinformation.
Haver you looked at a map recently? Poland is *not* on Russia's border. And the Baltic states are ridiculously small as to be not a threat with a minuscule connecting border. Meanwhile, you can easily hit Moscow from Ukraine. In fact, Russia has been invaded most every time from that direction. You need to turn off the propagandists, like Common Sense, and go read some history and look at some maps. Russia is a well-armed has-been superpower who sees another internally decaying superpower that is well known for its "regime change as distraction wars" eying a very long stretch of land right along its border. The US itself has started wars and invaded countries over less.
You forget Kaliningrad which is wedged between Poland and Lithuania and is the base for Russia’s Baltic fleet.
It was conceivable if the West had acquiesced in Putin’s aggression against Ukraine, that his next “request” would have been a Russian corridor to connect Kaliningrad to the rest of Russia.
You are free to ignore Putin’s clearly expressed revanchist views about Tsarist Russia’s lost territories. Those closer to the action do not have that same luxury.
Russia definitely wants a direct connection to Kaliningrad, and Poland, the Baltics and even Belarus are well aware of the fact. It was a "gift" to Russia for their role in WW II. Of course, without Allied aid, Russia probably would've collapsed, but who's counting?
And Russians remember every invasion that came through Ukraine because they were dumb enough not to control that landmass. They also know what is at stake. Also, the Ukraine is roughly a third ethnic Russian and the Ukrainian government, particularly under Zelensky and his predecessor, have been carrying out a near purge of them. This isn't simple. Both sides have every reason to keep going to the bitter end and even to drag Europe into it.
Sure, there are so many forces today that want nothing more than to “hit Moscow from Ukraine”, obviously the bloodthirsty NATO being first. You should be on Russian TV, Lillia Gajewski. Or maybe you are, who knows.
Lillian is not wrong about this; over 16,000 ethnic Russians living on the Ukrainian border have been killed and photos released claiming Russia killed Ukranians. The propaganda making Russia look like a monster has been absolutely stunning. Dig deeper; this is more complicated and nuanced than you know.
Yes, but it's much easier to mess around with Russia if you're right on their border. You can also mess around in Belarus and Georgia. It's also good for getting Russia to "attack" the US/NATO so you can justify marching troops in. Don't be naive. This is all about putting the US on Russia's doorstep, and we're willing to kill a lot of Ukrainians to do it.
Funny thing is, Ukraine is the original "Rus," and could make the same claim that Rus unification necessitates that Ukraine conquer Russia in order to return its people to the natural order of things. Russia should be careful what it wishes for, it may get it in the form of Ukraine being the conqueror!
Putin's invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO policies, as you pointed out. It's about Putin's vision of him as Czar Vladimir of the United Rus, and alsso conquering a nation rich in resources that he can use, sell, and exploit.
Baloney. How does that explain Putin's invasion of Chechnya? How about his invasion of Georgia? Thousands killed and tortured. 12 oligarchs have mysteriously committed suicide in the last year. People who disagree with the regime are jailed or worse.
As I said above, Ukraine isn't "sinking our economy". It has been widely reported that COVID entitlement fraud exceeded $46 billion. Think of all the other government handouts, medicaid payments for example. What do you think the aggregate annual amount of fraud is in our system here? Our problem isn't Ukraine, but our problems will grow if we don't keep Putin in his box.
Again and again, Lillia Gajewski, you pretend to be deaf to what Putin says about Ukraine not being a real state and needed to be eliminated as such. You keep not only repeating Russian propaganda at nauseam, but you repeat only what suits your “narrative”, the endless red herring about poor Russia having to attack to fend off the big bad NATO. After seven months of unprovoked agression, you have learned nothing.
In his eyes, it's not a real state. Ukraine as been a part of Russia for as long as Russia has existed. It did not "win" its independence from Russia. It was *granted* its independence from Russia. They *voted* to leave and Russia *let* them leave because they wanted Ukraine to act as a buffer between NATO aligned Europe and them. Think of Puerto Rico suddenly deciding, nope, we want independence and then aligning with Russia and Russia putting nukes there. That's the equivalent.
Ukraine got its independence when the USSR collapsed, and ever since then Ukraine has been expecting Russia to eventually reinvade. As it turns out, they were right, so it makes sense they wanted NATO membership as an insurance policy.
Putin invaded Crimea before NATO membership was on the table, so you have the cause and effect backwards.
Putin isn't invading because Ukraine wants to join NATO; Ukraine wants to join NATO because of Putin.
Russia invaded Crimea e days after the start of the Maidan Revolution, a coup of an alerted president supported by the Obama administration. Lilia is right, our hands are not clean in this and we have used Ukraine's admission to NATO, and the EU, as a club.
Ukraine was briefly independent after WWI, snd, in fact, negotiated a peace with Germany before Russia signed Brest-Litovsk. The Baltics and Finland were the first countries to recognize the USSR - and they were among the first to be invaded less than twenty years later. Russia coordinated with Germany in a division of Poland. After WWII, somemof the baltic nations fought insurgencies for nearly a decade. If they werent in NATO now, does anyone think they woild be indepedent still? How other countries behave isnt the spur here - Russia has constant atheistic territorial ambitions. Oh yeah - they tried to take Iran after WWII, and why were the British in Afghanistan long ago? To keep Russia out.
You read Michael Tracy too? I should get off this comments thread and go read that one. I started, it looks enlightening, but I haven't found 44 minutes.
Putin's grievances are small potatoes compared to what happened to Germany in the Treaty of Versailles; if appeasement didn't work then it's sure as shit not going to work now.
Yes, Putin's grievances are small, his economy is small, his military is small . . . how exactly do you expect him to take over Europe? Which is literally the whole justification for our defense of a highly corrupt and autocratic nation. You guys have to pick one: either (a) Russia is this evil superpower headed by a crazed maniac with his hand on the button of nearly 7000 nukes so we need to tread very, very carefully or (b) Russia is a decayed power that Ukraine can easily beat with a few weapons that we've supplied them but Putin is sane enough not to take that personally. You all are living in a Hollywood script where not thinking through the plot doesn't matter because you control the ending. Well, we *don't* control the ending.
Putin doesn't want West Germany, only East Germany. His aspiration is to rebuild the Iron Curtain, which would mean roughly 1/2 of Europe gets conquered by the time he's done.
Russia is a decayed power headed by a wannabe conqueror; if he can roll over Ukraine as easily as he rolled over Georgia, then it's a matter of when, not if, he goes after Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states.
If, on the other hand, he gets quagmired in Ukraine, then eventually he'll have to do what the US did in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan: declare victory and GTFO.
Well, according to you and this article, he's not "easily" rolling over them. So we have nothing to worry about, no?
And he's not the only one "quagmired" in Ukraine. You forgot that we are too. Isn't that funny how that happens? The US population gets poorer, the military industrial complex and the politicians it owns get richer, and all this goes on and on and on, and just when we got out of Afghanistan. Funny coincidence that.
“ Which is literally the whole justification for our defense of a highly corrupt and autocratic nation”
You should begin with a course or basic geography. And then basic history.
No one thinks Putin can overrun all of Europe with his conscript army.
Putin is bombing peaceful cities. Are they perfect cities ? No. Are they blameless and free of corruption ? No. But they are peaceful cities full of women and children. If NATO doesn’t stand up against this, NATO has no purpose.
I would say not as long as they remain neutral, but it depends on how much Europe crumbles this winter with a shortage of natural gas and our economy crumbles because it can't stand the strain of even a proxy war. If Putin thinks he could pull it off, and Finland has already made noises about joining NATO, or so the media says, who knows. That was always the risk of cajoling Zelensky into not settling with Russia. If Russia sees that it has a chance at more with little risk, why not? Same thing with China and Taiwan and the Middle East and Israel. If they decide the US wolf is just a chihuahua in throwing shadows on the wall, then really there's nothing in their way.
All the more reason to make the Ukraine invasion as painful as possible for Russia; so that they don't come to see invading neighbours as a "low risk" venture.
Well, as you can tell, it's also very painful for us. The price of oil is killing our economy and Germany's economy is teetering, and where it goes, the rest of the world soon follows. We raised rates to drive down inflation, but we'll have to lower rates when the recession deepens into depression, which will once again feed inflation. Hunger pangs tend to trump the imperial ambitions of our leaders. And have you wondered what happens if Putin just decides f--k it all and hits the button? You people live in a fairy land. Again, you can't have both: Putin is so insane and so dastardly that we must involve him in a quagmire in Ukraine to "teach him a lesson" (as if the US is in any position to take the moral high ground in "lesson teaching") and Putin is not so insane and so dastardly to take the rest of the world with him by resorting to nuclear war. I wonder how your brains work. And I see you still haven't read the article, or this would be a much different conversation.
Putin's not a dictator, no matter how much the West screams that he is. We might not like the electoral system in Russia (although the US played a big part in creating it) but Putin is still subject to it and can be voted out if he gets unpopular.
As for appeasement of vicious dictators - you know the US was funding Europe and Germany during WW2 right? You know they took hundreds of Nazi scientists and gave them a home in the US federal organizations? You know the US has a long history of turning a blind eye to the human rights violations of various leaders of various countries as long as it is in their interest, right? Take Saddam, who was funded to fight the Iranians in 80s because they had the poor taste to overthrow the dictator the US / UK installed on them. Didn't seem to have much of a problem with him then did we? Or Saudi, which has a significantly worse human rights record than Russia. Currently we're enabling them to commit genocide in Yemen.
As for this conflict between Russia Ukraine, I don't trust anything coming out the MSM, Russia or Ukraine. They're all lying. My question is, what does it have to do with us? Don't start with your moralizing, as we have no morals. What is our interest in prolonging this conflict? How does it benefit us? Do we want Europe to bankrupt and deindustrialize itself? And a strong Russia / China marriage?
Thank you, everything you said are truths no one wants to acknowledge, including what's coming out of the MSM (and Common Sense, which is so often MSM adjacent).
Running against Putin in an election is a great way to get poisoned. Putin is a dictator as much as Kim Jong Un is (North Korea also has elections after all).
The US interest is in Russia finding it very, very difficult to conquer territory to their west. If conquest is easy for Putin, he's just going to keep doing it.
Navalny alternates between exile and being thrown in prison; he's treated by the Kremlin the way the CCP treats the Dalai Lama.
Putin started with Chechnya, then Georgia, then Crimea, and now hes come for the rest of Ukraine. The signs have been there all along.
The US cares because 1) Sooner or later Russian expansion will run into American allied states (e.g. Finland), and because 2) EU countries are much better for the US economy than Russian-style countries (with no rules against IP theft and massive state-sponsored hacking farms, for example). So the US has a vested interest in not seeing Putin roll tanks through half of Europe in his dream of rebuilding the Iron Curtain.
Better to nip conquest in the bud than let it snowball, as we saw with Germany in the 1930s.
The difference is no boots on the ground in Ukraine. If anything this is more like arming the Taliban when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, except hopefully Zelenskyy isn't the next Osama Bin Laden.
Our involvement in Vietnam started with no boots on the ground. Most conflicts start with no boots on the ground and then escalate. If Biden and/or NATO decides to move troops into Ukraine, would your position change? There is zero talk of trying to deescalate this conflict. The only option presented by our media is supplying more weapons and more money to Ukraine.
Our involvement in Afghanistan also started with no boots on the ground. Granted, 9/11 likely changed the plan for Afghanistan but most did not see us being there for 20+ years at a cost of trillions of dollars.
You think that only because the media tells you they are. I haven't heard many rumblings lately. And Belarus and Georgia aren't, and along with Ukraine, they are the ones that matter.
The Baltic states begged to join and it worked, Finland and Sweden both want in; it's too late for Georgia as they already got conquered in 2008, and Belarus is content being a vassal state controlled by the Kremlin.
Ukraine used to be controlled by a Kremlin puppet government, but the post-2014 government is much more into asserting their independence, which is why Putin invaded Crimea. Ever since then, Ukraine has wanted to join NATO because they knew it was a matter of when, not if, Putin came for Kiev.
Germans invaded Russia and slaughtered everyone in their invasion path - a little info you missed in your demonization of the Russians in the war. (NOT justifying ANY of the horrors committed). However Russia lost 25 million people so we could claim victory
Maybe you should take a look at how the Ukrainians are targeting and killing Russian speaking Ukrainians using very similar German tactics of marking those families houses with a sign, for the special units to come clean out. Don’t moralize
WW II is irrelevant to this discussion. Why not talk about when the Swedes, the Lithuanians and the Poles all invaded Ukraine centuries ago? Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and cases of torture and murder of civilians are coming forth in large numbers. Your defense of Russian (really Putin’s) behavior is really weak. Russia is the largest country in the world, perhaps the most endowed with natural resources, brilliant people - it should be a light for the world in every way. Instead, it is cursed by a long history of terrible leaders, murderers and thieves, of which Putin is just one more. Sad, yes. Defensible, nyet.
I'm not sure how you can say that. We're being drawn into this war with the justification that this exactly like WWII, only Putin is Hitler and Russia is Germany. You hear that ad nauseam. Otherwise, what is the point of defending one tiny random corrupt country from another larger corrupt country?
Are you suggesting we should not have engaged in WW II against Germany because it was one random country against another (well, several countries in that case) and didn't touch our shores? Should we not have challenged Japan in WW II as they took over Southeast Asia and with eyes on Australia and New Zealand?
The world is a tough place, whether we like it or not. The point of defending "one tiny random corrupt country" (like the U.S. is not corrupt!) against another, Russia, which has invaded and ruled many of its neighbors over the last century, is so a regional war does not become a global war.
I just got back from the Baltic states. You see Ukranian flags everywhere. They know and will freely tell you that if the Ukrainians can't stop the Russians, they know they will be next.
I am suggesting that *everyone* draws World War II into the discussion to defend our so-called intervention (which is more accurately termed "interference") into Ukraine, so you can't suggest it is *not* relevant if someone reminds you of the Russian experience during World War II. It's a matter of consistency.
No, most Europeans do not want to emulate our levels of crime, poverty, disfunction and poor public education. By the way, lower income earners in most European countries, especially Scandinavia, pay much more tax than our low earners do.
Are you an isolationist NCMaureen? Do you believe America and Americans should live in a bubble unperturbed about the rise of Russia or China or any other warring nation with expansionist designs? If you’re not, then your questions are moot.
Regardless, if you do believe you won’t eventually be affected by what happens in the rest of the world, that America should just take care of its own, I’d suggest you’re sadly mistaken.
Americans should always take care of its own first. always. even on the plane they tell you. if the oxygen mask drops. do your own mask FIRST before helping others. good advice. track the funds we are sending into a black hole. yes that is a burden on Americans..
Contained proxy wars to nip expansion in the bud are cheaper in the long run than appeasing and letting things snowball.
WWII would have been much cheaper if the annexation of Austria had been opposed, rather than kicking the can down the road until the Panzer tanks rolled into Poland.
Hi Maureen, I think you have valid points regarding corruption and accountability for these large expenditures. Two questions: 1) how much benefit do you think France, let’s say, would have gotten had the WW I Allies stopped Germany in the early to mid 1930s rather than appease that dictator?
2) What are the relative sizes of the US expenditures in Ukraine compared to, say, writing off college debt?
And what about our imperialism? What about our role in the 2014 coup in the Ukraine. If you think Russia is the only imperialist nation on the planet, I'd have to ask you if you're serious.
To be honest, you sound like someone that just regurgitates the Big Bad Putin argument as a justification for war. Putin didn't just decide to start a war out of nowhere. This conflict has been brewing and our government did nothing to try and prevent it. The Democrats are all in on war and "Russian Imperialism" is the justification. It's no different than how fighting Trump was justification for any actions because we were "fighting for democracy..."
This (latest) episode of Russian imperialism could've been completely AVOIDED if 1). The west hadn't put its energy systems completely at Putin's mercy because of idiotic climate policies, and 2.) Ukraine had simply committed not to join NATO. Putin is portrayed as some sort of diabolical Dr. Evil character, when he's not much more than a 2-bit opportunist trying to protect what he has.
I disagree. I think Putin has (had?) dreams about re-creating the Soviet Union, which I understand is a popular position in Russia. It's an irrational dream, but that doesn't mean a lot of people there aren't wishing for it. My take is that nipping it in the bud is doing the entire world a favor.
The same can be said of the US. We promised not to expand NATO to the east when the Soviet Union fell. We immediately expanded NATO to the east. Imagine Russia and China expanding their military presence into Mexico and Canada--we'd be ready to go to war over that. I don't disagree that there are people wanting the Soviet Union to reunite. I disagree that the expansion of NATO can be disregarded as a contributing factor into the Ukraine.
You say you don't agree with the "Big Bad Putin" augments, but you keep excusing Putin for invading and trying to destroying another country, and never do you criticize Putin. Your Poor Putin arguments are nothing more then saying that Putin had "no choice" but to be a murderer. You make it sound like Putin was the victim. The victims are Ukrainians. Defending their country from a ruthless invader has made the Ukrainians united.
I don't excuse Putin or his actions. The issue is this isn't as simple as Putin is to blame. My question to you is what would the US do if China and/or Russia expanded their military alliance and presence to Canada and/or Mexico? Would we sit back and allow it to happen? The reality is NATO expanded closer and closer to Russia after the US agreed not to do so when the Soviet Union fell. This conflict is about more than just Putin being an asshole. My belief is that our government had much more to do with the invasion than we want to admit. And call me cynical but it's too convenient that less than 6 months after we left Afghanistan, we're back in another war and printing billions for the military industrial complex.
Wrong, I called Putin a war criminal. I said Russia should pay reparations to Ukraine.
I would love Ukraine to crush Russia. But even with American backing, the best we can hope for is a retreat, a cease fire.
Russia is a country over 1000 yrs old, and its history consists of one military victory after another. The Russians believe they defeated Hitler, not the US, not England. Their national pride comes from toughness, resilience. We can’t ignore what flows in the veins of Russians and think we can crush their imperialism. That’s a spirit, not hardware.
My husband and I plan to watch Steven Kotkin NCM. Thanks for the recommendation. There's much to Russian history and there is a theory that the Rothschilds funded a private revolution creating the Bolsheviks, and had the entire royal Romanov family exterminated.
The relative cost? 10 million people are going to starve to death because we can’t budge on the Donbas and global markets have lost $10 trillion minimum with more to come. Not to mention energy prices going up 10x and food……..this is easily going to net 100 fold the cost of the student loan gimmick.
Even if we decide to clownishly compare these two things which are not comparable, Germany didn’t have nukes and the mistake was not failing to die for Sudetenland, the mistake was failing to ramp up arms production.
Literally the day this war started I said they needed to give Russia the Donbas region to buy time and turn Eastern Europe into a weapons depot.
Once deterrence has failed you don’t just immediately get into a slap fight with someone who has nukes because it makes you feel righteous and because the situation rhymes 0.03% with something that happened 80 years ago.
If it’s any comfort, all of the reprobate simpletons who set the conditions for this happening agree with you.
You're arguing that Russia should be able to invade and conquer any sovereign nation it wants simply because it has nukes?
No. Putin does not get to bully the world simply because he has The Bomb.
The Donbas region is not ours to give away. It's Ukraine's. They have every right to defend and keep it, just like we have every right to defend and keep our land. Ukraine asked for the West's weapons and financial aid and he would do the fighting. I think that's a very acceptable tradeoff for sending the message to Russia and China that such bald aggression will not be appeased.
Well I have good news for you, Shane. People who agree with you are 100% in charge and they are not elected so your plan will continue to become reality essentially no matter what.
So far your approach has resulted in suffering that is difficult to calculate. If you want to focus only on the people of Ukraine and ignore the mass starvation and collapsing global economy and people who will freeze to death in Europe that’s fine.
So how would the people of the Donbas region be doing if they were living under territory conceded to Putin instead of living under Zelensky? Well they’d be living under Putin, which is marginally worse. However, there is the upside where they would have the benefit of not getting blown up by missiles.
So Putin is bad but getting blown up by missiles is also bad. It’s a tough choice, I agree.
Now of course you will say the Ukrainian Nationalists have a right to fight Putin to the death if they want. And that’s fine. But we are funding the Ukrainian Nationalists entirely and there is no reason to believe that the Ukrainian Nationalist view is the majority view of Ukrainians.
I mean you can believe the propaganda we are being fed on this issue if you want to. The propagandists certainly take the position that all Ukrainians are Ukrainian Nationalists who think it’s worth having your house blown up to keep Putin out of Donbas, but that’s probably false. Millions of people are fleeing, and have fled the country, specifically because they don’t think dying for Donbas is the smart move.
Next will be Taiwan because we can’t let China control the South China Sea. That of course would be a terrific argument if global collectivists hadn’t already handed the keys to our economy to China.
Again, people who agree with you are 100% in charge and they can’t be voted out so the wisdom of your plan will become evident over the coming decades.
If China announced it wanted part of the United States, would you agree in order to avoid bloodshed and economic harm? Or would you fight to keep what's yours? I'd fight. But maybe you'd be happy to learn Mandarin.
My "approach" is that sovereign nations remain sovereign and foreign invaders butt out. Your approach is that sovereign nations should submit to conquest because God Forbid blood be spilled defending one's freedom and territory.
I prefer my approach. Your approach means we'd all be speaking German the past eighty years.
As for Ukraine-Russia, my preference would have been for Putin and Zelensky to quietly negotiate Russia's purchase of the most Russian-centric parts of the Donbas, agree on a map with a new border, tell the people of Donbas to move to whichever side of the border best suits their needs, and cover the cost of relocation. Putin gets part of his provinces, Z rids himself of people who don't want to be Ukrainians. Win-win.
I have no idea if that was tried. I hope so, but it really doesn't matter, though. Ukraine is a sovereign nation and has the right to kick out foreign invaders. That is the right of every sovereign nation, including ours, and if the resulting war is beastly, so be it.
If China invaded the US that would be like Russia invading France and I would suggest full scale war in both cases.
This is not the same. The decision has to be made based on net loss of freedom and net human suffering incurred. This is much more like Hong Kong except the loss of freedom had territory been negotiated away peacefully would have been less than what we just casually watched in Hong Kong. Oh I’m sorry so the fascist takeover of Hong Kong was fine because there was paperwork?? No.
The government steals half of my money. I am currently 50% a slave and I have chosen to do nothing about it. At what point does that change? 70% or 80%? I don’t know. But I’m not interested in a violent overthrow of the government even though I am partially enslaved. And please don’t give me the shit about how I’m actually free because I’m still allowed to go to the park and scream into a bullhorn about Joe Biden and have group sex if I want. Money is the only thing that matters.
We basically agree on the back room deal that *should* have been made. But no that wasn’t tried because of course it wasn’t because the entire point of this is having the war.
You remember when Trump gave the order to pull out of Syria and a bureaucrat joked to a media outlet about how they didn’t do it? You know the intelligence agencies that orchestrated a coup to overthrow the 2016 election?
Yeah, that's what I thought, you little coward bitch. Enjoy being safe and snug in the castle walls while you advocate for other peoples sons to go die.
Not to totally discount your point, but I don’t really trust that a psychopath facing assassination cares about what happens to the rest of us.
Nukes aren’t super-likely, but I’m definitely factoring that in when calculating “is the Donbas region worth all of this” where the downside for the Donbas region is not extermination but a change in government to one where they won’t be allowed to criticize Putin anymore, and the cost, just to this point, has been the widespread destruction of all of Ukraine and countless war crimes rapes and mass graves and the pending starvation of 10 million people.
I don’t want Putin in charge of the Donbas region………but what has happened thus far is so clearly worse than having Putin running Donbas instead of Zelensky. It’s truly not even close.
The Russian border is right there. Let the people in Donbas who wish to live under Putin's rule pack up and move several miles east. Same landscape, same jobs or lack thereof, same everything. Russia and Ukraine can pay for move housing and businesses. Once Donbas is empty of Putin admirers, no more problem.
"2) What are the relative sizes of the US expenditures in Ukraine compared to, say, writing off college debt?"
Both are things we would not be doing. There is little reason [not] to believe this is a war of choice mostly by Western powers. This is a war between corrupt country A and corrupt country B.
As for college debt. That should come from the massive endowments these colleges and universities have.
Try not to be so illogical. If Zelensky was corrupt he wouldn’t have put his life on the line defending his country. He would have taken the money and run,
Zelensky is a Christian reformer who wants Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
I’m simply amazed Ukraine went from having a “Nazi problem” 2 years ago (per Time and NY Times among many others) to being a model country we should be willing to support without question.
You wouldn’t be amazed if you knew that the pro- western Christian reformer Zelensky was not elected until April 2019. Are you amazed at the deterioration in America over the last 20 months? Elections have consequences and ignorance is not bliss.
I'll leave Your insulting views, as others have pointed them out before.
I've "heard" that the government was corrupt in the past. And that there were some questionable practices *recently.* I don't recall, however, so there is that. May have had to do with newspapers, but dunno if true, even if that was it.
If he'd cut and run, he'd have been corrupt, no doubt. But I think a person can be corrupt in some ways and, at same time, a Christian reformer in other ways.
He sure has done a good job keeping the country together. That much can't be doubted.
The Pandora Papers suggest he's racked up a net worth of $850M in offshore accounts since becoming president. I think his annual pay is around $20K a year. Even Paul Pelosi can't top those earnings.
One theory I've heard but can't prove (and won't waste time trying) is that the Ukraine was a money-laundering playground for much of the west ever since the coup in 2014. Putin knew it and disrupted that and now the west is upset.
Can you imagine if one of the Trump kids was getting $50K a month from a company based in a country that we sent billions in "aid" to? That's not to suggest that the Trump family isn't on the take from other sources just that the left would be outraged.
The “world”? Depends. We can see on this series of posts many people of “the world” believe, with regard to US involvement, the negatives outweigh the positives. Looking at it that way does not mean people think Putin is a good guy but it doesn’t mean he is “Hitler” (and neither was Trump Hitler nor DeSantis nor Tucker nor …). It does not mean these people are isolationists just that this war has more negatives than positives for the people of the US. I assume you remember when the wonder kids from Brussels laughed at Trump when he warned of over-reliance on Russian energy.
Sanctions have NOT hurt Russia given they simply sell their fuel through third parties like China with both China and Russia making bank.
Given I can’t see an endgame to this conflict, I see the negatives far outweighing the positives.
This is really the cost of doing business with a brutal dictator as if he were a rational member of the world community. Germany is particularly at fault. Europe was especially stupid about their anti-energy agenda.
What is it worth to get rid of Putin? Probably more that $100 billion, especially if it deters China from its belligerent ambitions.
You're thinking way smaller than China is. And they don't need to fight us. Do you actually realize how many of our basics are made in China? All rhey need to do is just stop shipping us things like antibiotics. So no our "superior naval power" will not save Taiwan or us.
So how well did those sanctions against Russia work? Oh, that's right. Their ruble is doing just fine. Meanwhile, Germany's economy is on the verge of collapse, the US dollar is losing its status as the world currency, and our inflation is nearing 10%. Maybe you want to rethink what you *know* about how powerful the US is economically.
Lillia is right about our naval power. There is no way our decaying Navy can protect Taiwan, just off the coast of mainland China, any more than China could invade Catalina island. We simply can't project power that far against a peer or near-peer military power.
Yes, but to paraphrase from former Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen, Argentina is no China. Japan is certainly an X factor as you say, and I'm sure there's a lot of discussion in Japan about what their role might be that I'm not privy to.
Are you a Navy guy? My understanding is, the U.S. Navy is still vastly more powerful than China's, but they now have numerical superiority, which is "not nothing" according to a top admiral.
In a conventional war, the U.S. would mop the ocean floor with China's navy, and could probably decimate their land forces with some precision bombing raids and a massive barrage of Tomahawks.
If it escalated to nuclear, both countries would lose, but China would lose 10x the people we would, largely because their pop. is concentrated along the coasts whereas we are more sparsely distributed in a similar size land mass. (Now if they took out SF, Chicago, and DC, the evil side of me questions whether that would actually be so bad.)
I'm not a Navy guy, but I can swim if that helps. I think head to head in a swimming pool, the U.S. would still prevail. The problem is projecting power that far - think resupplying munitions, fuel, logistics, and rotating sailors. Remember that we don't have Subic Bay and Clark AFB any longer. Guam could be incapacitated and Japan may or may not be willing to be dragged into a war by being our only source of near supply, other than possibly Australia. And don't think the PRC won't have a significant 5th column in Taiwan. The scene on the ground there may not so much represent a defense as a chaotic civil war. Our fleet is declining and in disrepair as recent accidents show, though maybe CRT and equity training will tip the scales in our favor. China won't resort to nukes because they know time is on their side. Taiwan will have to defend itself the way Ukraine has if it wants to remain independent and free.
Stop allowing MIC sycophants to manipulate you with their constant threats of “if we don’t do this or that CHINA’S GOING TO INVADE TAIWAN.” Taiwan is a heavily armed island with fewer than 15 beaches that would allow for an amphibious invasion, all of which are bordered by cliffs. China would need to deploy *at least* 1.5 million troops if they had any hopes of being successful against Taiwans 450,000 man military and that number is likely way too low. Then there’s the whole problem of transporting 1.5 million troops over 100 miles to invade- that would require something like 1500 war ships and thousands more vessels- China currently has 355 ships and submarines total. And again, these are all lowball estimates.
Uh, China doesn't need to invade us. They just cut off our supplies. You really don't understand the position our so-called leaders and captains of industry have left us in, do you? And all China has to do to Taiwan is surround them and cut off their supplies. They'll starve to death. And given that China is obviously not afraid to kill their own people . . . I'd say you're the one being manipulated. This is not a fight we want. Regular American people will suffer and the nation would not survive it. We are absolutely nothing close to the power we used to be.
1. I’m not interested in fighting any wars with anyone, that includes China and/or Russia.
2. Taiwan has a 28 month supply of rice and 12 months supply of fruits/veggies for its population in the case of a Chinese blockade. They also have large domestic pork production and aquaponic farms.
3. China is significantly more vulnerable to a food blockade. I assure you, this won’t be the route they take.
4. Contrary to popular belief, we don’t *need* 95% of the shit we import from China. We are vulnerable with respect to pharmaceutical production, I’ll grant you that. Otherwise, they can keep their plastic toys and solar panels. We’ll be okay.
5. I highly suggest you do real research instead of just regurgitating Warhawk talking points w/ regards to China and the leverage/power they hold over us. China is vital to convenience, not survival.
Troop carriers crossing the Strait would be very vulnerable to air strikes, and Taiwan does have around 300 combat aircraft including over 100 of their own indigenous fighter-bombers. They also have a lot of missiles.
Obviously China has numerical superiority in every category, but any such adventure would be very expensive for them... and is not guaranteed to succeed. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is a highly advanced democratic state with some of the most advanced industries in the world. They are an important asset to the U.S. and Japan, both of which countries have warned China against an incursion.
Should they just go ahead and invade, we'd be forced to sanction China at every level. Apple would be skrewed given their most profitable devices are all assembled there. Which is why they're opening factories in SE Asia and the U.S. currently (Arizona, Texas).
But China would be royally skrewed. Their manufacturers and exporters would lose 25-30% of their business and this would likely tip their already-shaky economy into recession. Their real estate bubble which is already starting to pop would burst more quickly, probably hundreds of millions of people would lose their assets and savings, and you would start to see open questioning of Beijing's policies, if not an uprising which is virtually impossible given the size of domestic military. They're very good at shooting unarmed college students, anyway.
EDIT: I would also note that people including even some liberals would demand the U.S. defend Taiwan. If we're willing to do so much for a corrupt, backward shit hole like Ukraine, why wouldn't we help a fellow democracy that is very pro-American despite lack of diplo relations? It would spark a debate perhaps but in the end the U.S. would be forced to do the right thing, and China's economy would likely tank as a result. So might ours, but unlike them, we can re-source products to other manufacturing regions like SE Asia, Mexico, and our own homeland where manufacturing is actually undergoing a renaissance.
China has twice the size of our Navy and is building the equivalent of the British Royal Navy every year. They will surround each of our carrier groups with massive numbers of their own battleships and then say "I dare you!"
China doesn't have even a single operational aircraft carrier. The numbers don't matter as much as their capabilities. When was the last time China's navy won a battle?
And what does that have to do with our support of Ukraine? The numbers didn't matter much in Ukraine.
After seeing what is happening to Russia in Ukraine China's military leaders may be thinking twice about attacking Taiwan with a navy that has never been battle tested. They don't want their first battle to be against the US Navy.
No, China does have aircraft carriers now. Look up the Shandong and the Fujian. Not sure if they're totally operational yet, though. Give them a year or two and they will be.
In addition, they have several retired Soviet carriers such as the Minsk, to study. Not sure why the Russians thought it was a great idea to give this tech to China, but I guess they needed the cash.
They don't have to. All they have to do is cut off our supply chain. And then they'll attack us. Our reliance on China has been a disaster in the making since Clinton and Bush brought them into the global trade network.
"attack" comes in many forms. some rob you with a six gun. some with a fountain pen.. Michael; Shellenberger says it best. China makes almost 100% of our "green energy" ( solar panels and wind machine parts). most of our medicines.. and well just about everything.. cheap labor has its risks
Nobody is. The US is the only country in the world with enough transportation capabilities to project real power across the globe. The two oceans at our coasts are effectively our main defense.
Granted, no crystal ball. But we're not gonna be invaded by China.
Taiwan may be another story, and You may be right we won't have the arms to prevent it. ICBW, but I'm still of the opinion that if China really, REALLY wants Taiwan, they'll get it in the end.
One thing, as has been "said" elsewhere, China is watching all this. Taiwan is harder to invade than Ukraine was. So this may delay the (inevitable?) attack.
Taiwan will have to really up its game to make the cost of an invasion too high for China. Biden's remarks (we will defend China) don't encourage them to make those investments.
Japan won't stand for an invasion of Taiwan, nor will the U.S., regardless the utterings of the senile dementia leadership and his handlers.
For its part, Taiwan would fight hard. Although, their military is not as prepared as it was 40 years ago, when the World War Two generation was still in charge. But they still have universal draft, advanced weaponry, and 70 years to prepare for invasion. They also have PhD scientists and nuclear reactors and as far back as the 1980s, it was rumored they have nuclear bombs in pieces, waiting to be assembled in time of national emergency. Even if not true, such rumors have a deterrent effect.
But if the Communists do move on Taiwan, it would likely escalate quickly into a regional war and, eventually, World War Three. Trump was pretty resolute on this topic; he literally told Xi he would bomb Beijing if they invaded Taiwan. Biden, who knows what if anything is in his brain at this point. God help us.
Like most-a the MAGA crowd, it all comes down to Trump and Biden.
I can't recall who I just read that said that it was the *NAVAL* arena that would make the difference. That the U.S. would need a strong *NAVY.* I dunno that it has one, ever since China developed the hypersonic missal.
ICBW, but I think that if China puts 1.4 BILLION people to the problem, they just may succeed. You think the U.S. and Japan can actually win a war against them? I ask what that's based on?
See if You can leave Trump outta it. I doubt it, but thought I'd ask.
No, we could not win a war against China. They have something far more important than weapons or people. They have the foundation of our supply chain. If Trump got one thing right, it was even in a flimsy way trying to move some production back here. (I didn't have to mention Trump, but I just wanted to needle you.)
If Trump were president today, Ukraine would not have been invaded, and China would not be threatening Taiwan.
Why? Because Trump would say "If you invade Taiwan, I'll halt all trade". Obviously that didn't stop the Russians, but it sure would screw China. And China is Russia's financial backer.
You must have a very long nose. What America will get out of this is obvious - an end to Russian imperialism without putting one American boot on the ground.
Russians have no will to fight in Ukraine whereas Ukrainians are fighting for the survival of their nation. A Ukrainian victory is inevitable and would already have occurred if America’s cognitively impaired President had supplied weapons earlier.
You are as illogical as Jordan Peterson and as uncaring as Tucker Carlson, who has at least admitted that he was wrong. You are still clueless.
Russian imperialism doesn't affect me, my community, or this country, and I see no reason to believe that a loss in Ukraine will end Russian imperialism. We're hurting ourselves more by fighting them than we would by allowing their expansion.
Please tone down the hate and the personal attacks, especially when your comment is mostly just imagination, speculation, and insults.
Just like we were going to stop the spread of communism by fighting a war in Vietnam? Did that not start "without putting one American boot on the ground?" What happens when this escalates to requiring boots on the ground? Will you then decide it's not worth fighting or funding? There is not a single mention of trying to negotiate some kind of resolution. The only thing our government talks about is more war. Do you really expect the Ukraine to win this without requiring actual personnel? To say a Ukrainian victory is inevitable and would have occurred sooner with more weapons makes you sound like you work for the CIA or Northrop Grumman. Please provide an example of when we've ever been successful winning a conflict by doing nothing besides supply weapons and "aid.". At some point it requires aircraft and/or personnel. Once we provide either, it's a full blown war.
Jordan might be the most intelligent and compassionate person I've seen in the modern world. An extremely rare celebrity who sincerely has no concern for money or power. Incredible person and my role model.
That's certainly a part of it but even before that you can see how his lectures got enormous amounts of views. I think more than anything he has risen to prominence because so many people have been moved and helped through his insights.
Some people seem to believe that the 100 billion the US might end by spending to help Ukraine fend off the Russian invasion is some kind of charity, while Putin’s Russia poses no existential threat to the US. This is totally short-sighted, as Ukraine is just the first bite that the Russian and Chinese empires would want. As to the money, it’s pretty mean to whine about 100 billions against tens of thousands of destroyed lives, after Trump and Biden together have wasted more than 5 trillion dollars in the last few years. It’s also outright absurd to imagine that we don’t help the Ukrainians, the money saved will fix the problems in the US. Exactly how many problems have the last 5 trillions spent in the US solved? I mean, other than causing rampant inflation ?
History has repeatedly taught us that if you don't dissuade such aggression, it continues and often results in a much wider war that would plunge the entire world into recession, including the U.S. And a wider war is much more expensive as we all know. Our problems here in the U.S. are due to the gross mismanagement of our economy by our elected officials over many years. We are spending trillions on entitlements that enable inactivity and bad habits, and on programs that don't work but line the pockets of the well-connected. We have an open border and incoherent public health policy. Not defending Ukraine won't solve our problems here - we have to do that. They are not connected.
Using western weapons and tactics against Sovi, er Russian weapons and tactics are of real value to the western military. No really, this use of our weapons against the Russians has the potential to reap great profits.
The experience we are getting in the use of our weapons and tactics is obtainable no where else. Does this help mitigate our debt problem? No, but maybe in the long run, we can design and build more effective weapons. Maybe we can save money on weapons which we know will not work. Or we can spend appropriate amounts of money on weapons which we know do work.
Computer models of battlefields are learning from the battles in Ukraine. The Russians are not only losing... they aren't learning from the losses.
So, we are getting smarter and that might translate into saving money in NATO for the long term. Meanwhile, the threat from Russia will diminish when Putin dies. In 10 years, we will be richer, and maybe safer because of this war... that is what we get out of it. Wisdom to fight the Russians effectively will be of value for decades.
Fools? No, we aren't. If we had done nothing, Lynne, not lifted a finger, and instead let Putin sweep through Ukraine and call it his? What message would China absorb from that? Simple: America and the West will not oppose conquerors with anything other than strong Tweets. That means we, China, can do what we want to whomever we want, so let's start with Taiwan and the Japanese islands and go from there.
In 2014, Russia took over Crimea without much opposition. They probably figured that the rest of Ukraine would fall easily as well. Well, they learned differently. The difference is the motivation of the population. Crimean population had little support for Ukraine. But the rest of Ukraine is a different story and Russia found that out.
I think that China has a clear understanding that Taiwan doesn't want Chinese rule. And the lesson from Ukraine is for China to stay out of Taiwan.
Russia moved on the Crimea two days after the Maidan Revolution/coup started. The Obama administration was reportedly instrumental in that coup. A coup which overthrew an duly elected President albeit one favorable to Russia. Then the Ukraine-as-part-of-NATO Saber rattling began.
Agree with all you said here, David. Russia would have been smarter to pitch Z a border shift, in order that the parts of far eastern Ukraine that want to live in Russia do so with a border shift, in exchange for serious dough, trade agreements, or both. If done quietlym Z might have been OK with ridding himself of the hostile population in exchange for a good enough price.
China is derivative. They haven't had an original idea since the Ming dynasty. Their society is top down in every way. Yes, they learn from the west. They even steal from the west.
But when the lesson is that individual initiative wins the battle, they stop... This is because China will never allow its lower leaders to take initiative.
The article refers to the lesson learned in Crimea by the Ukrainians. That lesson is that decisions taken in the battle by lower level officers and even enlisted fighters are effective. But the Chinese society cannot learn that lesson. Top down rule by authority is too ingrained for China to ever change.
Individual initiative is what created American exceptionalism. Which I both believe in and applaud. But in case you have not noticed, the idea of American exceptionalism is under attack, from within and without.
As for your dismissiveness of China. China has existed far longer than has almost any culture currently in existence. Far, far longer than ours. They have a goal of world economic domination. I think it unwise to use their past to diminish their future. That does not even work in college football. The future is not yet writtenn.
Lynn, I totally agree with you. China is standing by watching the 'war games' in Europe. It is a larger, more ambitious and ruthless enemy than Russia or Iran.
I agree, unless the western population (Europeans and Americans) are not so motivated as the Ukrainians. The article is clear about the importance of motivation in the effectiveness of the troops. If the west cannot field a motivated military... then we are weak, even if our weapons are the best.
The immediate question is whether our leadership is weak. If the U.S. did not help Ukraine, the Chinese would be encouraged to think we would not help Taiwan.
I almost always agree with you, but that is really simplistic. Have we been baited? Is China reading our military prowess in anticipation of action in Taiwan?
Really? You don't think they are surmising that we are stretched thin? That we send significant treasure to a place we have no obligation to and turn a blind eye to the fentanyly they produce that is flooding the border? I worry that they are playing chess and the current administration does not even understand a game is being played.
And making the military industrial complex richer and more of an institution than it already is. If you want that bigger and better, then your comment makes total sense.
Sorry, you missed my point. I want to make the military smaller and better. I want the military to stop making purchases which are ineffective... but expensive.
We need a military. Why? One word... Putin. Putins will crop up periodically in this world. Sad, but there they are.
And we must have a military to stop the Putins of the world. Anything which make that effort more efficient means that we spend less for better.
Okay...yes I did miss the point! Thanks for setting me straight! I am familiar with his address....It is a good reminder. I am taking a class on the Constitution and I do not think I learned about this portion of our history in school....pathetic to admit...making up for lost time! Thanks for the link to the address.
Ike's address was unusual. He was leaving the office of the Presidency and he wanted to say farewell to America as a public figure His service to the nation had been military and then political and he was done with it. Heart attack during office and great sacrifice to the nation... he was entitled to give a farewell.
He coined the "military industrial complex" phrase and the hippies of the anti Vietnam war grabbed ahold of it. It is true, there is a military industrial complex.
But there is also the thing that he mentioned right after that military thing... a science-government link which also promised to sully science. It doesn't have the same ring as the military industrial complex, but it is just as important. He lamented the situation that large government institutions were taking over the realm of science.
He said:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
But he also said:
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. " and : "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded."
And we get ... climate change. I challenge you to look at the "science" behind climate and reflect on the influence of government institutions and the power of money in regards climate crisis. Indeed, Ike's farewell address is one hellova smart speach... 60 years ago.
Yes, he is correct, and so are you. Weapons and military structures need live battleground testing to rate their effectiveness under real war conditions, and this is one of the biggest proving grounds we've had in ages. Iraq and Afghanistan tested our soldiers, small arms and ammo, battlefield transportation, medical response, and logistics. Ukraine is testing our BAWs: Big Ass Weapons. Those artillery pieces are a wonder to behold, and this live fire testing is proving their worth. Even if thousands of Russian conscripts are dying in the process.
Also, restocking the massive drawdown of our weapons stocks will create a lot of factory jobs and strengthen our industrial economy. That our rich war contractors and their pet politicians will be made even richer is also true.
Realpolitik, no matter how true, is raw, bloody, and unpleasant.
It is in our national interest and a national priority to prevent Putin from expanding Russian influence and control over former Eastern Bloc nations and rebuilding a threatening Soviet empire at the expense of free Europe. The political experiment in appeasement that allowed Hitler to annex Austria and invade Czechoslovakia and Poland and led directly to World War Two in Europe should be a cautionary tale. Putin has repeatedly stated that the biggest mistake in Russia's history was allowing the break-up of the Soviet Union. His ambition is to restore hegemony over Eastern Europe and to weaken NATO and US influence in the West. The
US does not have the luxury of isolation anymore, either economically or militarily. The money spent in defending the Ukraine is well spent and much preferred to sending our troops to defend Europe against Putin's aggression.
Maureen, your comment ignores the steps that entangled the U.S. and then NATO in Ukraine in the first place. It was hardly a plot from the left but the persistence of neocons, most of them Republicans, who ignored our pledge at the end of the cold war and the advice of our most informed advisors, like George Kennan, not to extend NATO eastward.
Much of that effort was undertaken to advance the interests of American corporations. Neocon Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland and the late Senator John McCain called for the overthrow of a legally-elected albeit corrupt President of Ukraine in 2014, meeting with neo-Nazis among others, and passing out sandwiches to the Maidan rebels. Shortly thereafter, American Big Ag companies moved in to snatch up rich Ukrainian farm land, fossil fuel companies looked to the oil wells in the Donbas and the chance to sell LNG in Ukraine once the Russian gas was shut off. Big finance profited from the loans that were extended to prop up the government and the MIC began selling weapons to the expanded NATO members.
If you'd bother to look, you'd find that what remains of the left in this country (not the corporate Democratic Party) has been opposed to our policies in Ukraine for years. Take a look at Tom Dispatch, Consortium News, or Google up Chris Hedges' articles and interviews. We're waging a proxy war in hopes of weakening Putin and Russia and advancing the interests of American corporations. The war was entirely avoidable had we abided by our agreements at the end of the Cold War of the Minsk agreements of 2014.
"Much of that effort was undertaken to advance the interests of American corporations."
Almost everything--everything--this nation does or does not do is in service to Big Corporate. As two-time Medal of Honor winner General Smedley Butler correctly noted nearly a century ago:
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
Yes, I’ve heard this argument. Always America’s fault. No other country involves itself in the politics of other nations, right?
Ukraine is an independent country now and if its people want to join NATO, I don’t blame them.
Of course Putin is threated by NATO at its doorstep. But NATO is a defensive organization. Why should he fear it? It’s his pride and ambition to restore a Russian empire that drives the attack.
America is not unique in this. Every nation on Earth involves itself in other people's politics and spies on their friends, neighbors, and neutrals, hoping to gain an edge for power, profit, and politics. We spy on Israel, Israel spies on us, we spy on England, England spies on France, which spies on Australia, which spies on China, which interferes with . . .
Always was, always will be.
I agree with you. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and if it wishes to join NATO, the EU, or the Barnum and Bailey Circus, it has every right to do so. Putin has no right to invade and conquer, and Ukraine is correctly repelling him and his unhappy troops.
Quite right about Ukrainian sovereignty, Shane, but it was silly and provocative for it to make EU and NATO membership a constitutional goal after the Maidan revolt. Ukraine has long been rated one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It does not now and won't for a long time meet the standards for EU or NATO membership. Putin's invasion was unjustified and should be repelled. But the long chain of events that led to the invasion could have been handled differently without compromising American security unless "security" is defined as advancing American corporate interests as it so often has been in the past.
Agreed, particularly with your last sentence . . . advancing the interests of Big Corporate takes precedence over almost every thing else this nation does.
A nuclear attack on Western Europe and.perhaps the United States, after he evacuated his leadership to underground shelters in the Urals,, just as the Soviets would nave done.
$100bn is a small price to pay unless we're willing to be rich but without influence, like say Japan.
The era of unchallenged US supremacy is over. (I'd say the change began when China joined the WTO). Our GDP is 20 $trillion, China's is closing in, already at $12t. Given our population we're unlikely to hang on to the #1 GDP spot. So we need to help allies and challenge competitors when needed - If we don't put up then we're giving up.
This war could have ended much earlier as Putin wanted to negotiate. Boris Johnson's wife Carrie Johnson persuaded Boris to send missiles and artillery to Ukraine so that was the end of peace and Boris. Goodbye Boris.
Russia's ties to Crimea go back centuries, and when we supported the Maidan revolt to install a pro-western administration, planning the revolt during the Sochi Olympics while Putin was on his best behavior, Putin's reaction was entirely predictable, if deplorable. But Ukraine's claim to Crimea is circumstantial at best. It was assigned to Ukraine by Khrushchev in the mid 1950s for administrative purposes. The population of Crimea is 60% Russian, Stalin having "relocated" the Tartars decades earlier. It was never part of Ukraine prior to the administrative assignment within the USSR.
Yes, Russia agreed to recognize Ukraine's borders at the end of the cold war if Ukraine gave up its nukes. But it's factually wrong to assert that Crimea had long, close ties to Ukraine. Russian troops were stationed throughout Crimea prior to the "invasion" to ensure Russian access to its vital seaport in Sebastopol, a Russian possession since Peter the Great.
The events of 2014 -- the Maidan revolt and the Russian annexation of Crimea and fighting in Donbas were "settled" by the Minsk agreements, signed in September of that year. This agreement called for a cease fire, prisoner exchanges, and reform of the Ukrainian constitution, eliminating its aspirations for NATO membership, and granting a degree of autonomy to parts of the Donbas -- areas with large ethnic Russian populations that had suffered abuse and discrimination from right wing elements of the Ukrainian government. While both sides violated elements of the agreement, it was Ukraine, not Russia, that formally disavowed the treaty in 2018. The U.S. could have done more to pressure Ukraine toward a full implementation of the agreement. We didn't, Ukraine formally ended the agreement, and the road to a wider conflict was opened. That doesn't justify or excuse the subsequent Russian invasion or the wanton attacks on civilians, the torture, abuse, and killing of combatants, or other war crimes. I do believe, however, that this war was avoidable. We chose not to pursue such options.
This is a very sensible view, Richard, and I agree with virtually all of it. I would have preferred, as I'm sure you did, that Ukraine and Russia had quietly negotiated a new border that would "move" the Russian population centers of Donbas formally into Russia, create a land bridge through eastern Crimea to protect the port, and otherwise settle their differences peacefully. They could have announced this border move jointly along with trade agreements that benefitted both, told the Donbas people to move to whichever side of the border suited them best, paid for the relocations, and called it a day.
It's nuts that the US is supporting the Ukrainians to the extent that we are. Yes, Russia is an invading force and has no right to invade another country. Yes, the war is brutal and horrible (as far as I know, all wars are). Since when, however, should we be giving so much open support to the Ukrainians? During the Cold War, the US would covertly supply militaries and/or paramilitary organizations with arms, but at least we did so covertly. Now, we are openly handing over advanced arms and billions of dollars in aid (God knows if it really gets where it needs to, Ukraine is still a corrupt old-Soviet-bloc country) to the Ukrainians with no thought of how that could impact Russia's response. They are still a nuclear power and I would not be surprised to see Putin use tactical nukes. He is a thug and he will be deposed by his underlings if he can't produce some sort of result from this war.
Meanwhile, we have Joe Biden, who has been wrong on every single foreign policy decision since he's been in elected office, promising support to Ukraine with no strings attached and vague warnings about when military force might be used AND no clear goal in sight as to when supply/aid may cease.
10% to the big guy from all those board of directors earnings by Hunter. One can only imagine what dirt the Ukrainians have on Hunter that Joe knows about.
I expected something more thoughtful than this from you. As a civics refresher, it is for Congress to appropriate funds not the President in these situations. Given the massive bi-partisan support, under your theory, Ukraine must have “dirt” on pretty much everyone in Congress.
If your claim was even remotely true, do you really imagine that every single member of the GOP would have passed up such a golden opportunity to attack President Biden?
You seem to forget that many Republican Congress-critters are swamp creatures, feeding at the same trough as the Democrats.
You also seem to forget that some Republicans (especially the Congress-critter variety) never got over their Cold War hate for Russia or their belief that Russia never really stopped being Communist.
So the Big Guy isn't Robinette? Then who? And what about the Chinese cash that was laundered to him through Hunter? "Golden opportunity?" How many politicians are taking Chinese cash? Or other "favors" such as Swalwell enjoyed? If you're that willfully gullible please don't waste our time.
Nice deflection and completely unresponsive to my point of nearly unanimous Congressional support of Ukraine’s self-defense.
In trying to keep an irrelevant talking point in this discussion, you are necessarily claiming that a significant portion of the GOP is in the pocket of Ukraine or China. That seems a pretty desperate ploy when all you needed to say was something about how far too many members of Congress have allowed themselves to be misled on, as a former President called it, Putin’s “genius” move in invading Ukraine.
Bottom line, unless you have any contrary evidence, the US policy on arming and funding Ukraine is bi-partisan and so not subject to 10%ism theorizing.
No deflection, at all. You dismissed "the Big Guy" smoking gun as not being remotely true. I merely pointed out the foolishness of that claim. If you were pointing to the funding of the Ukraine effort, you weren't clear. I agree that both sides of the aisle are pumping vast amounts of cash into Ukraine, much of which is wholly unrelated to the war effort. That's equally dumb. But probably not related to corruption.
While we now seem to be in agreement on the subject matter of my comment, it appears that the insertion of your 10% claim was no more than a verbal tic or declaration of party loyalty before you got around to addressing the topic at hand. I must admit, I missed that subtlety, but now we are on the same page.
She didn't make a link to GOP voters and dirt on Biden, you inferred that.
Remember that brief month when the government freaked out over virus research labs in Ukraine, which they said don't exist but are also concerning?
Yes, there's lots and lots of corruption in Ukraine, has been for a long time. We know about Hunter but I assume there is far more we don't know about. The whole thing is rotten top to bottom. This war was easily preventable.
Since you misunderstood my comment, let me make it clear: if, as NCMom and later Bruce Miller did, you link US involvement in Ukraine to their having compromising information on Biden père et fils, then it must follow, for that theory to be correct, that Ukraine has the goods not only on President Biden but on members of both parties which must then explain the overwhelmingly bi-partisan support of Ukraine by Congress which, unlike President Biden, calls the financial tune under our Constitution.
My conclusion was that the claims about Ukraine and dirt on the Bidens as motivating US assistance was an insertion of the irrelevant into what should be an adult discussion of an important topic.
we have a blue and yellow flag or some sort od support sign in almost every yard here. both parties use this horrible "war" as a rallying cry to their cause.. not to mention a way to spend billions of dollars.. it certainly is bipartisan.. but not altruisitc
No one is pretending that Western assistance to Ukraine arises out of altruism. In international affairs, each country acts out of its perceived national interests. You might disagree with any particular state’s conclusion.
"If they have dirt on Biden they must have dirt on Republicans and everyone who voted to join."
Either-or fallacy. There can be many many other reasons for Represetatives to join the vote.
I understood your comment perfectly. Your conclusion was both fallacious and false. Please stop treating commenters here like we are dumb. It's not an "adult conversation" when someone comes in with fallacies and self-praise for their imaginary maturity.
I’ll try one last time. Let’s assume Ukraine had “dirt” on members of the the Biden family, of what relevance would that be here if an overwhelming majority in Congress, untainted by any “dirt”, voted to fund the Ukrainian military and assist its economy? Ukraine would not need to even threaten its use.
I see no relevant purpose served in inserting it into this conversation, and you have suggested no basis for any connection between such “dirt” and this outpouring of US bi-partisan support for Ukraine, let alone provided evidence for one.
Yes this war was preventable but your heroes Carlson and Peterson didn’t speak up against it. Carlson said no one would care if Russia invaded Ukraine and he promoted the moron Douglas Macgregor as an expert. Macgregor absurdly claimed Russia had legitimate reasons to fear Ukraine and now Peterson is saying it is naive to think Ukraine can win. Does this help you? Choose better heroes.
Whatever person you think considers Carlson a "hero" doesn't exist. You have an imaginary, hateful stereotype you are projecting on to me. Tucker has nothing to do with this story and I don't discuss him with people like you who force him into conversations purely so you can rage-hate the man.
Both of those people spoke out against the war. Peterson did so in the strongest and most condemnatory terms possible. I don't consider Tucker a hero, I consider him part of the propaganda machine. You don't have a clue what you are talking about and you are not really listening. You a rage spirit here to insult people, and that's it.
Near unanimous support from Congress just proves that the two parties aren't all that different. Sure their messaging sounds different and Americans love to fight amongst one another over the belief that there's a significance difference but the reality is they're mostly one and the same. Both cater to big corporations, including the military industrial complex. If you want to know who runs our government, look at which corporations/industries seem to benefit financially no matter what party is in office. I'll give you a hint: banks and defense. Another hint, neither party cares about the average American beyond the value in exploiting us for the benefit of the elite. Everything our federal government does is now a crisis (COVID, this war, the climate, "defending democracy from MAGA republicans..." and every crisis is justification for printing Billions or Trillions that ultimately ends up in the same hands. We Americans are getting played.
We are not supporting an insurgency but rather one side in a conventional war. There is really no way to "covertly" supply the kind of weaponry required to effectively counter the Russian invasion. Russian imperial aspirations are not limited to Ukraine and if the Ukrainians are willing to fight for their own freedom, I don't see why the Russians shouldn't be stopped here.
Even if Russia doesn’t intend to invade any other country it should be stopped at Ukraine’s borders. Unjustified invasions are like rapes. One is one too many.
Well honestly I don't care if Ukraine wins of losses. It is not our problem
For last 30 years we Americans have sent trillions of $ abroad, while at same time there was never money for things at home.
Currently we are facing several major crisis in US:
- Healthcare is unaffordable
- Social Security is running out of money
- infrastructure is falling apart
- Student debt crisis
- opioid crisis (killed more Americans than people have died in war in Ukraine )
- Housing crisis (if you are under 30 chances are you will never own home)
- mental health crisis or major cities look like open air mental institutions
- crime is rampant
- inflation is killing middle class (what is left of middle class)
- ballooning debt that we will leave our children
- out of control deficit
these are only ones ot of top of my head
For last 30 years, nothing was done for any of these issues and time is running out. Our politicians are more than willing to send $60+ Billion to one of most corrupt nations in the world, while Americans don't have access to drinking water and basic infrastructure.
So no, honestly I don't care about Ukraine, it is European problem, and Europe is more than rich enough to deal with it. Our founding fathers have warned us exactly about this, why we should not meddle in European problems, we left hat continent with a reason, no need to spend taxpayer $$$ there.
I wish people of Ukraine all luck, but honestly, we Americans need to think about helping ourselves, before it is too late.
It is a European problem, but they can't afford to defend themselves; they spend all their tax money on free education, free Healthcare, paid parent leave, daycare, etc. It's a choice we are facing now too.
I tend to agree with you, but we live in an interconnected world. And the whole world is suffering because of Putin’s aggression. America has always been expected to shoulder most of the burden, and I chafe at that. Europeans do need to do more. Maybe a cold, expensive winter will change their minds. And it’s not just households that will suffer. Big European manufacturers use a lot of energy, and they will take a hit. Americans invest in those companies, and they will take a hit too. It’s that interconnectedness….
EU + UK have population of over 500 Million people, that is singinficantly more than we. Their combined GDP is similar to our own.
Europe has more than enough money. They can defend for themselves.
And yes it is interconnected world. If you think our European friends are addicted to Russian gas, wait until you see how addicted they are on China. The will be 0 use to us, in any confrontation in Asia. Europe is dying continent fast declining importance in the world, future is in Asia and Pacific.
And honestly, I dont care about Putin and Russia, we had Bush (war criminal, invaded Iraq on lie and damaged US more than Putin). Lets start cleaning up at home, because world will need US in the future, we cant help them, if we bankrupt ourselves and kill ourselves with opioids.
Raziel - Agreed. There’s a lot of ethnic struggles in other countries that have been going on since before the US was founded. Sometimes we need to butt out & mind our own business. It’s hubris to think we know what’s best for everyone else.
I object to calling GW Bush a “war criminal”. Hussein had convinced most of the members of his government that they did have WMDs, so our intelligence was based on bad info. Was the bad intel solely the fault of our own agencies? Maybe. I’m not informed enough on the topic to have a strong opinion.
However, in the aftermath of 9/11, there was a very strong national urge to “do something”, and Hussein happened to be that something. The military invasion was a spectacular success as far as invasions go, but the problem was that once the Ba’athist regime was overthrown, there was no clear and decisive objective. That’s when the occupation started to go downhill until the surge in 2007. At that point, Iraq was a somewhat stable country... until the Obama administration threw it away to focus on Afghanistan (and we see how well that turned out).
The US military conducted itself like choirboys in comparison to other invading countries. Other than counter-insurgency ops, the US built schools and hospitals. How often in history have invading armies done that?
Was GW Bush justified in pushing the invasion of Iraq? No, but for years he had pretty broad support for it. Only Bernie Sanders voted against the invasion.
Is it fair to call GW Bush a “war criminal” considering all that? I don’t think so.
After reading all of that before I post it, I almost cringe at the fact that I’m defending Bush. He can be called a lot of things, but I don’t think “war criminal” is one of them.
I'm not sure if You understand the concept of having ALLIANCES, Raziel.
Yeah, Europe is in too tight with the Chinese. It remains to be seen if they're gonna roll *over* for them, right? Leastways, I don't have a crystal ball on that.
Bush? This is 2022. When Putin is someone to be reckoned with.
China: MFN, WTO, unfair trade treaties, ignored their June 6 slaughter of unarmed students - this was all Democrats (maybe a bit of G.H.W. Bush sprinkled in as well)
Iraq: bipartisan. Both sides went full Rambo.
Libya: Democrats
Ukraine: Democrats (and RINOs).
See a trend here? The Democrats are the warmongering party, despite all their gaslighting to the contrary. And the dumb liberal voters just swallow the propaganda.
Great comment. Recently traveled to Spain. Everything was clean and beautiful. No litter. No potholes. No burned out buildings. We have work to do HERE.
This is one-a rare occasions when I gotta say You're wrong, Raziel.
I'm *all* for AMERICA FIRST!
But *America only* is a really myopic way of looking at things. If Russia can be held to winning the Donbas and all-a that crap, it'll be a win for Ukraine and the U.S. and it's allies. You underestimate the value of that.
Then we can concentrate on CHINA for the next tens years, right?
EU and UK have population of 500 million people with GDP that is similar to our own. If they are unable to defend them self against Russia (Population of 140 million and 1/10 GDP) then they are useless in any conflict with China or anything else.
Our European "allies" have underinvested in defense for last 30 years, because their primary way of thinking is, US will defend us, we dont have to do anything.
At same time those "allies" have developed welfare states that provide "goodies" to population that we can only dream of. They have free college, free healthcare, paid maternity leave and many others.
And if you think that our "allies" are addicted to Russia for energy, wait till you see how addicted they are to trade with China and how "willing" will be to help.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know, Raziel. But it sounds like Your view is that Europe should just go to the dogs and get absorbed into Russia if they can't *defend* themselves against Russia.
The problem with that is that was *why* NATO was created in the first place. Where would the U.S. end up if we just ignored treaties and allowed that to happen? One guess.
I would also point out that EU has upped their defense payouts, and added two members to boot. Does that factor into Your thinking?
This entire article feels like it should have a “brought to you by Lockheed Martin” introduction. It reads like pure propaganda. It stands out to me that A) most Americans don’t understand anything about Ukraine except Big Bad Putin and his “price hikes” B) there’s no discussion of our role in the 2014 coup that happened in Ukraine, and C) the Democratic Party is now a full war supporting entity. When a handful of GOP in congress are the few questioning the war spending, I know we’re in trouble. For four years we were inundated with fears that Trump would start WW3. And here we are, fighting a war with Russia under a career Democrat politician. And the saddest part is if you question the war, you’re labeled a conservative. If we were at war with Russia under Trump, the dems would have impeached him again and the Rachel Maddow’s would want DT charged with war crimes. Instead it’s now patriotic to support a war we don’t clearly benefit from. I just don’t get it.
I am not opposed to learning "another side" of an arugment but as Ihave pointed out re the last few columns that have appeared here, I don't pay for something I can read in the NYTimes for 25 cents a week. What is happening to Bari? - Are these really the only people she can find to fill her CS platform? How about a viewpoint that we don't get in all the MSM I am close to unsubscribing.
I agree. This was straight MSM propaganda. I'd love for CS to have someone break down how we got to this point with Ukraine. The little I've learned makes me question the entire conflict.
Read Jacques Baud at Postil Magazine. I'm not sure it's 100% accurate, but it is certainly more enquiring than this uncritical piece. Even in the first paragraph about territorial gains/losses, the authors make the avoidable error of ascribing motives to Russia that it simply does not have.
That was a well-written piece. As you said, it may not be 100% accurate but it definitely presents a different point of view. Even if only half is true, it challenges what we're being told by our media and politicians.
After the last six years, I've come to realize that very little in our media is about finding truth. It is about pushing narratives. For four years, we watched the liberal MSM viciously attack DT. I don't like him nor do I feel sorry for him. That said I recognize that the media's actions likely did more damage to our country and society than DT's actions. Then we had two years of COVID narrative pushed on us that mostly turned out to be completely wrong. American trust in the media is at an all time low and it's clear why.
Interestingly, in this article, Baud mentions the American attitude as knowing better than others. That attitude exists within our country. Our own media and government have told Americans that they know what is best for us. Millions of Americans support censorship of anything the government and media deem misinformation. It is so scary to see.
One of the most difficult things for us to do is question our own beliefs and our own team's actions. We see this every day in politics. It's always the other team's fault. We have to learn to criticize ourselves before we blame others. Putin is by no means innocent in this conflict but neither is the west.
Trump ended wars, pulled out U.S. troops, made the Europeans pay more for their own defense, negotiated a historic treaty between Israel & five Arab/Muslim states... and got no credit for it.
Biden broke the budget, pandered to the odious Iranian regime, and put us closer to nuclear confrontation with Russia than since 1962... and the Dems are jumping for joy.
A girl can dream, but can she reason and speak fairly? Victory is Russia being driven out of Ukraine and the Russian people dealing with Putin for listening to Tucker Carlson and Colonel Douglas Macgregor Blimp.
All of its territory such as what? The Crimea, which Obama allowed Russia to annex? The Eastern provinces, that Russia took also under Obama's "watch?"
If that’s actually how they are defining victory then the people running Ukraine are extraordinarily dangerous buffoons.
You don’t just take back Crimea. You would also have to remove Putin from power and install a Ukraine friendly government in Moscow. Good luck with that.
Is Greta Thunberg running Ukraine? Because that is some poorly considered imbecilic utopianism.
“Oh yeah we just take back Crimea and then collect profits.”
Their official and maximalist position is not necessarily what they’ll settle for if push comes to shove. But regardless, it doesn’t follow that “you” have to remove Putin from power and all the rest of what you wrote.
Well yeah I mean someone somewhere has to remove Putin and replace him with a friendly. Can you put a percentage chance on that happening? That would obviously be the best thing ever………but pursuing this maybe-not-super-likely goal has a fairly extreme death and destruction toll at this point.
Crimea has been under de facto Russian control since 1783. It’s their only year round warm water naval base. It is an absolutely vital part of their national security and they will defend it to the last.
Attempting to “liberate” Crimea will result in WW3 in which hundreds of millions would die, if not billions.
I would encourage you to stop sucking up the propaganda, and realize that the stakes here are far higher than DC would have you believe. There is no scenario where Russia “loses” and they don’t lash out. In the Kremlin, Putin is a moderate and if he falls, he is more likely to be replaced by someone worse than otherwise.
We’re playing with nuclear fire here and nobody in charge appears to want to de-escalate. That should scare the living hell out of everyone.
I would encourage you to not make assumptions where I am concerned. I only reiterated the official Ukrainian position, which frankly I would take too if it was my country at stake.
As for the rest, I have no particular reason to take your word for any of it.
You just openly admitted that you cannot refute or confirm my assertion on the history of the region, but you’re willing to take a position on the war without that knowledge.
The beautiful thing about the modern internet is that you don’t have to take my word for it, or the Ukrainian government’s or the Russian’s or DC’s. It’s perfectly accessible.
And you divined that response from which statement in my comments? Fight to the death sounds pretty dramatic but it’s possible that Putin’s military collapses from low morale and poor leadership or his regime does from mounting internal and external pressures. The battlefield, though undeniably important, is not the only arena that bears watching.
“And you divined that response from which statement in my comments?”
———————————————
Ahh ha!! So now we are pretending that we don’t know why you cited Erdogan. It’s like radio mystery theater!! Discussing war is fun.
You know if we’re going to invade Russia and take back Crimea, I bet there are other territories that Putin should not have control of because he is mean.
The key to global conflict is figuring out who is mean. Once you know who is mean you can charge forward heedlessly because no matter what catastrophes ensue you can always defend your position with
Turkey also shot down a Russian fighter over Syria some years ago. Of course, as you know, there’s quite a long history of - shall we say - antagonism between the imperial predecessors of Russia and Turkey which generally ended with Turkey ceding territory.
It’s all about perceived national interests. Remember when Turkey was for years a close ally of Israel’s until Erdogan destroyed that relationship as part of his neo-Ottoman fantasy until he’s now running hard after Israel to patch things up - while trying to screw Greece and Cyprus? It’s a big chessboard out there, so nothing should surprise anyone.
The people who want to triple the price of everything so that you are poor and desperate for government intervention will be the ones who win this war.
If you see a single mother crying at the grocery store, tell her it’s worth it because we’re
Those same people who want us to eat bugs? To own nothing and enjoy it? To care more about who won yesterday's game than that our retirement accounts are being destroyed and our children can't even afford housing?
We’re pushing close to spending 100 billion dollars to protect a country that we have ZERO alliances or treaties with, that is not vital to us in any officially recognized way, shape or form, and for what? So Western Europe is protected? The same Western Europe that’s spent the last decade funding the Russian war machine by importing Russian gas? The same Western Europe who hasn’t sent any money to Ukraine since the Spring?
And what’s the plan to deal with the 11 million ethnic Russians living in Ukraine? Why does no one ever talk about them? What’s the plan to heal the very deep wounds the Ukrainian government has inflicted on them in the last 8 years? Kind of hard to move forward as a country when your government has demonized and alienated 18% of the population by banning their language and culture from television and radio.
Yes. The question nobody ever seems to ask is "what next?". What happens if Russia is defeated? Who comes to power in a defeated Russia ? In all of the wars for "democracy" in the last 60 years, when has the war ever resulted in the US leaving behind a new democratic system? Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
No one except Putin & his massive ego want this war.
Ukrainians don’t want this war. Russians in Ukraine don’t want this war. Russians in Russia don’t want this war. Not only are Ukrainian mothers & children dying & suffering because of Putin, but Russian mothers & children are suffering as well.Millions of Russians have been running away from Russia in the past year, which is now accelerating since the draft.
Putin must be defeated & this war must be stopped as soon as possible. His goal has always been to re-create the Soviet union & expand Russia, no matter how many people he kills in the process.
*side note: if anyone is watching Jimmy Dore videos on this Russia war, go ahead & stop right now. All Jimmy Dore videos on this particular topic use Russian propaganda as their sources. Find a non-propaganda source. 
Perhaps instead of labeling opposing views as "Russian Propaganda," you could argue your opinion. "Putin must be defeated & this war must be stopped as soon as possible" sounds just like pro-war propaganda. How about we just focus on trying to end the war as soon as possible while preventing as many deaths as possible? Why does the pro-war position our government takes always include a "beat Putin" clause? You pretend to show empathy for Russian mothers and children while advocating for defeating Putin. Does fighting a war to defeat Putin not open the door for more deaths? You sound like a pro-bot here to push our government's narrative.
Russian mothers don’t want this war and they don’t want to send their children to fight in this stupid war. Which is why millions are running away. The only person who wants this war is Putin and it’s just about his ego. Invading and conquering. Killing.
Russia, like many other authoritarian countries (North Korea, Iran, China etc) does not have a free press. All official news in Russia (such as RT) is censored by the kremlin. When I refer to Russian propaganda used by Jimmy Dore, I am referring to RT which is censored by the kremlin.
You cannot trust an authoritarian country’s news sources because they are not free press and their news is direct propaganda.
No one is arguing that Russian mothers want this war. My point is you appear to show empathy for human life in one sentence, then advocate for defeating Putin in the next. Defeating Putin, if even possible without starting WW3, WILL result in more death on both sides. If you are truly concerned for innocent lives, then perhaps an ending to this war that doesn't involve "defeating Putin" would be better for everyone involved. Our government is not pursuing that whatsoever. So if you are empathetic, you should be concerned that a less destructive ending to this conflict is not being sought.
JD uses many sources. Some may be more reputable than others. I've never heard him hang his hat on a single source. Many of the issues he's raised have been well cited in multiple sources. Again, to discount everything he says as "Russian Propaganda" makes you sound like a person that can not debate a point so you resort to writing him off as a Putin puppet. This has been the way of our MSM for the last 6 years and if you scroll through these comments, you see the same thing. I suggest you scroll up and look for a couple of posts by EricStoner. He's listed an abundance of sources that aren't from "direct propaganda."
Finally, allow me ask you an honest question, do you really believe that one can trust our MSM and it is much different than the propaganda you cite from other countries? For the last 2 1/2 years, we've been fed a narrative that turned out to be largely false. Anyone that questioned that narrative was labeled right wing, a Trumper, fringe, etc and then often censored. While I agree with you that there are inaccurate news sources based in other countries, I challenge the notion that our press is much different--that's why many of us are here on Common Sense.
Ukraine will be able to defend itself until US involvement falls out of fashion and the politicians currently supporting sending 100's of billions to the effort sense a public opinion change then they will do a 180 and act as if they always opposed dumping money into the abyss.
Eventually this will happen, and Russia will take Ukraine.
some fraction of that money could have been spent on K-12 security to prevent future mass shootings. Also could have been put into hiring and training more police. Build more prisons to house the violent offenders. Seal up the border to prevent opioid smuggling (we were a few million dollars away from finishing it, actually).
So much good could have been done. Instead, fighting a proxy war with Russia that will probably blow up in our faces. But hey at least our defense manufacturers benefit.
While this was interesting and highlighted the difficulties of defeating people fighting for their homeland and freedom, I would have much more appreciated an investigation of the reports by - among others, Tucker Carlson - that, at the very beginning of the war, Russia had agreed to total withdrawal in return for Ukraine's pledge not to join NATO. In other words, if true, all the death, casualties and destruction might have been avoided - had not the Biden Administration nixed the deal.
Allow me also to point out that this article puts the lie to Biden's frighteningly idiotic claim that, because our government has F-15s and nukes, a free people can never rise up against it.
Triggernometry interviewed Tom Cooper in an interview Is Ukraine Winning? He is a Russian who seems to have a real grasp of what is going on. Why not get him? Or even Jordan Peterson who has some idea that it is naive to think Russia will lose. Anyone but the military industrial complex represented in this article.
That's something the Leftists never seem to consider about Ukraine--the people have the will to fight. We (and Russia and Britain) discovered the same thing in Afghanistan.
Who knows. But we do know that the reptilian Victoria Nuland was up to her rank armpits in Ukraine under Obama and that she now has a prominent place in the Biden cabal. In fact that was her vicious visage in the UN last week.
For Ukraine to even begin to have a fighting chance the West would have to supply them with fixed wing aircraft, attack helicopters, tanks and so forth. NATO member states have already shelled out billions of dollars in aid to provide artillery and small arms. Is it really realistic to presume that aid in the future would be increased/accelerated to provide that equipment?
At this point the most realistic outcome that does not involve the total dissolution of the Ukrainian state is to trade territory for peace. Supplying even more arms to the Ukrainians is counter productive if it provides them with false hope and delays that resolution.
ESG caused this war. It gave Putin the leverage to try it.
If your emotions tell you to leave the front door open and a grizzly bear walks into your house, it isn’t “pro-grizzly bear” to tell you you’re a moron for leaving the door open and blame you for causing this.
I mean I could blame the grizzly bear…….but it’s a bear.
If you support ESG, go get sterilized immediately.
They go into professions (like education) that allow them to brainwash and control other people's children. Their recent defensive of pedophiles (oops, "MAPs") suggests that some of them want to do more than merely brainwash.
Before this is over American taxpayers will have sent 100 billion in printed money and our critical weapons supplies will have been depleted. I’d like to know what we get out of this. OK, we help the Ukrainian people defend themselves, all good. And if we were rolling in cash I’d be cheering. But we are in a recession, we are suffering from inflation from too much printed money. Our savings are evaporating before our eyes. Our people need help.
The best that can be hoped for is a withdrawal of Russian forces. But Putin’s ego and his vision of Russia are on the line. He’s a wounded animal now. He’s not going to surrender. So what then?
Another important consideration is the massive decrease in the national oil reserve. One source has it at a 30% decrease. That is massive, the worst since 1984. The left is all-in on the green new deal. RINOs and DEMS are all-in on wars and wearing blue and gold ribbons while homicide in the U.S. is out of control and our schools are spending far too much on DEI instead of reading and math skills. Check out these sources below. University of Michigan and Ohio State University spend nearly 30 million annually on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion staff.
DEI University of Michigan is $15.5 million annually:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ending_stocks_of_crude_oil_in_the_strategic_petroleum_reserve#:~:text=US%20Crude%20Oil%20in%20the%20Strategic%20Petroleum%20Reserve%20Stocks%20is,31.19%25%20from%20one%20year%20ago.
DEI Spending Ohio State $13.4 million:
https://bamindex.org/mn00003-ohio-state-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-gender-representation-2021/
National Oil Reserve shows 31% decrease in supply: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ending_stocks_of_crude_oil_in_the_strategic_petroleum_reserve#:~:text=US%20Crude%20Oil%20in%20the%20Strategic%20Petroleum%20Reserve%20Stocks%20is,31.19%25%20from%20one%20year%20ago.
The left means to crash the American economy.
Yup. This all plays right into the hands of the Leftists who WANT our country to collapse. Their aim is to build their utopia on its ashes. They always think that the next time is the time it will work.
Like I have always said, the left is Hell bent on destroying our democracy. They have this sick notion that out of the ashes of our of our wonderful system of government the workers will arise shoulder to shoulder and lead us into a Communist paradise. No matter what history tells these idiots, communism is a failed system. It never has worked and it never will. If the Chinese don't get to us first, the green initiative and the burning of our cities by the left led rioters will.
How did an article on the war in Ukraine slide so quickly into unrelated and utterly fatuous comments about the "left" being "Hell bent on destroying our democracy?" Can you give me a specific example, LonesomePolecat?
Which party is passing laws to empower state legislatures to overrule the will of the voters? Which party has passed laws impeding the right to vote in more than twenty states? Which party is replete with angry members who still believe, without any evidence and contrary to countless audits, court rulings, and investigations, that the 2020 Presidential election was fraudulent? Such attacks on our democratic processes and the results of our elections undermine faith in our system and lay the groundwork for a more successful effort to deny the will of the voters in the next Presidential election.
It's the far right that's shown its colors -- its love for orange-faced autocrats and bullies; its yearning for a tough guy to rule with an iron hand. It's been the forces on the left that have fought for civil rights for African Americans, women, and other groups that have not enjoyed full participation and representation in our society. Get over it.
I'm sorry it took so long to address your post. I answer posts like yours about twice a month and it gets tiring.
I will address you post and try to answer all of your concerns on the following conditions:
1. when answering me you will not change the subject. I try to use facts and history to address subjects in all of my posts. When confronted with something they can't refute, they will say something like, "Well what about Trump?" When the subject is say, Biden. That is what I mean about a subject change. They can't answer what I have presented so they divert.
2. No matter how angry you get with me through frustration, you do not call me names and I promise I won't do that to you. IOW, let's keep this civil.
I find that people on the left usually can't do the above two things. They get real nasty.
What do you say? Can you do this?
And to have the rubble absorbed into a one world government. Which will mean Chinese rule for us in the US.
If we don't stop the Chinese now, in a generation we will all be speaking Mandrin. China is bent on world domination.
I am actually far more concerned about Chinese Imperialism, because their soft power on the West Coast has grown at a frightening rate, and they've already shown they can feed our federal authorities crafty lies to get them to wreck our country on the inside.
That's a far bigger concern than Ukraine.
I majored in Chinese and it's a pretty cool language, actually. If we all could speak and read Chinese, it might make us all a bit more civilized and cultured.
But the Communist regime of China is another beast altogether. Monsters.
I respectfully disagree with this notion. As a liberal, a crashed economy would hurt me as much as it hurts righties. Why would I want that for myself or you? Makes no sense. I know most of Bari's commentators are addicted to the notion that the Evil Commie Librul Leftie McLeft Woke Groomers want to burn down everything. That notion is as absurb as Lefty McGroomer claiming that right wingers want to set up death camps for progressives. You don't, do you?
A crashed economy is not going to hurt the powerful on the left. Amazon, Meta, Apple will be fine. Oh, some of the smaller players on the left, you perhaps, would be hurt, but they don’t care about you. They want power and control. You know the saying…gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.
These “they” who have these nefarious goals, who are they by name?
The only real lefties I know are pitchers.
Great Depression II will harm everyone, even Big Corporate, so profoundly that I honestly don't believe anyone is trying to bring that about. Democrats can't organize a one-car funeral, so to think they're orchestrating the vast conspiracy needed to destroy our economy makes me smile. Republicans are too invested in screaming "commie libtard pedo groomer One World Order!!!" to bother crashing anything.
I hope I'm right, because I do not want to live through GDII.
Enjoy yourself then. Why worry?
So what do you think is the cause of their destroying the economy, border, energy supply, foriegn policy, military etc,?
I cant decide if it's ignorance or arrogance (I don't know and I don't care). However. It all seems too intentional to be anything but intentional.
Exactly. If they were doing it on purpose, what would they do differently?
The problem is that there are people on the Left--specifically the people who are ideologically guiding the Left--who have stated plainly that this is their aim. If it were a few random crazies, then yeah, it would be absurd. But it isn't a few crazies. It's the people who have long been on the cutting edge of Leftist thought. What they think now, the rest of the Left will think sooner or later.
So who, exactly, have stated “plainly” by name?
Being “on the left” is not being “a liberal”.
Dennis Prager of PragerU recently did a video calling out the differences between progressives and liberals. They're not even close to the same.
I agree completely, Steven, but too many here do not note that crucial difference. I like to point that out whenever I can.
How are progressives, progressive? Please be specific.
Examples, please, NCMaureen. What evidence do you have that the left "means to crash the American economy?" From the time of Reagan, income disparity between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us has grown more quickly under Republican administrations that under Democrats. Republican administrations talk the talk of fiscal responsibility when a Democrat occupies the White House but when a Republican moves in, they spend like drunken sailors, cut taxes for the rich, and explode the debt and deficit. No one in Congress has fought harder for working class Americans than have two of the most liberal Senators -- Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Trump promised to revive coal mining in America. Thank goodness he failed -- coal mining jobs declined under his watch although his EPA made it easier for coal mines to pollute our rivers and atmosphere. He promised that winning a trade war with China would be easy. His tariffs hurt American manufacturers and consumers and achieved nothing. More jobs were created in the last 18 months of the Obama administration than in the first 18 months of Trump. I could go on, NCMaureen. Facts are stubborn things. Show me some that substantiate your allegations.
I'd be interested to know who those nefarious Leftists are, too, so we can keep them from crashing the economy and such. But I have no idea who they are, either.
Here is a paragraph from an editorial in today’s WSJ from some native Alaskans who have been working to have oil drilling on their lands for decades. Do you think the environmentalists they refer to are conservatives or leftists—
“ We are tired of outside groups trying to turn this project and every other oil and gas project in our region into the poster child for a global movement away from fossil fuels. This is more than a political oil debate for us; it’s about access to land we were promised many years ago. Without projects like Willow and their crucial economic benefits, many of my neighbors would be forced to leave the lands they and their ancestors have inhabited for thousands of years.…”
Leftists sacrificing even indigenous people on the altar of climate change
The fed, the fbi, the Biden admin, the self professed socialists in key roles (Bernie, AOC). Lena Khan. Gavin Newsome. Larry Fink.
The list is very long, but if you’re asking a genuine question, it’s a decent enough starting point for you to do some more thinking and reach your own conclusion.
At the end though the simplest explanation —- that they’re a bunch of mediocre politicos without any useful ideas, who haven never built and know only how to divide and defame.
"it’s a decent enough starting point for you to do some more thinking and reach your own conclusion."
What make you assume I haven't done this "thinking" to reach my own conclusion? I have done so all my life. My conclusion stands:
"The Left" is not trying to "crash the economy" to start the New World Order or any other fantasy dreamed up by QAnon goobers. Period.
I agree with your lineup of mediocre politicians, but you forgot the dimwits from the Republican side of the aisle. Boebert? Gaetz? Greene? Trump and his pals?
Do I think there is a concerted conspiracy of leftists out to crush our economy? No. But in their collective ignorance of basic science, math, and physics, coupled with their utterly deluded “moral” system can only produce failed governance that inevitably leads to very bad economic results.
If you want some specifics: unhinged hysterical desire to “kill fossil fuels”, incoherent monetary policy that will depress equity values while doing nothing whatsoever for inflation that’s constantly fed by more printed money giveaways.
Lastly, the left’s slavish allegiance to the people who have hurt more American kids than any external force ever has: the teachers unions. So long as the left is in the pocket of the teachers unions, they will continue to have a direct political incentive to perpetuate the system that condemn our kids to a life of ignorance, and sheepish fearful obedience to The Scary Moral Panic du jour.
Oh, please Zoya, it's the right, deluded by the merchants of doubt in the fossil fuel industries, that faithfully ignores science, math, and physics in their rejection of climate science and the looming crisis that's devastating growing portions of our planet. What's unhinged about acknowledging the rapidly expanding desertification, the rising sea levels and melting glaciers, the ever-increasing acreage lost each year to wildfires, the advent of the sixth great extinction event, the only such calamity sparked by a single species -- us?
As for inflation and monetary policy: At least 6 of the 7 Fed governing board were appointed or reappointed by Trump. Inflation is a global problem that's been brewing for decades as we propped up our economy with near-zero interest rates and Congress pumped yet more funny money into the system by way of deficit spending and irresponsible tax cuts. Both parties are to blame, but it's the Republicans who consistently talk the talk of fiscal responsibility until they're in control, then they go about blowing up the debt and deficits even faster than do the Democrats.
You have no evidence that the current Fed actions will do "nothing whatsoever for inflation." It's likely that these actions will spark at least a mild recession and slow the economy down. With reduced demand, prices will stabilize. It will be painful, and working people will suffer the most. The Fed's policies are not liberal and most of the Board members are solid Republicans.
But you're right about this: interest rate hikes won't solve prolonged droughts, floods, or huge losses from hurricanes, tornadoes, and other impacts from our changing climate. Food crises are emerging around the world and will only get worse, exacerbated further by the war in Ukraine. Ignoring climate science and supporting further fossil use will only accelerate the inflationary and famine inducing impacts of climate change.
As for our schools. We have a nationwide shortage of qualified school teachers. Why anyone would choose to invest in a master's degree so they can teach in our under funded schools and subject themselves to the abuse of bigoted, hostile parents is beyond me. The right's efforts to privatize and dumb down our schools is succeeding and it's a tragedy.
Crippling the American energy industry.
Promoting a fantasy that we can convert to wind and solar anytime soon. Subsidizing special interest industries.
Since Biden has been in office, Americans have lost 7.8 TRILLION DOLLARS in assets. We are in a recession. How much did the stock market go up under Trump?
Crime—-shops closing down because nothing is done about the shoplifters. Lefty DAs put them back on the street.
Growing government—87,000 new IRS agents!
A half trillion to pay off student loans for people making as much as $250,000/yr. This won’t be a one-time thing. Landscapers without a college education will be paying taxes to pay the loan for a kid with a worthless degree.
You need to try a little harder to base your allegations on facts, NCMaureen.
"Crippling the American energy industry." Fact: The Biden administration issued 34% more permits to drill on federal land in his first year in office than did Trump. The American fossil fuel giants have garnered record profits over the past year, and their stocks have been among the strongest sectors in the market.
" . . . a fanasy that we can convert to wind and solar anytime soon." In fact, it's been established that using natural gas as a "bridge" to clean renewable energy sources was a bill of goods promoted by the fossil fuel giants whom you seem to believe without question. Transitioning directly from coal to renewables is now cheaper, faster, and safer than by replacing coal with natural gas.
https://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2019/05/gasBridgeMyth_web-FINAL.pdf
Donald Trump came to office in the middle of the longest bull stock market in history. The market continued to rise as it had been doing, but he failed to sustain the growth witnessed under Obama. Then along came Covid . . .
"How does Trump compare to Obama in the stock market? We share the facts on cumulative and annualized performance between Trump and Obama in the stock market. Cumulatively across the S&P 500, Trump is at 67.26% compared to Obama at 166.28% a difference of -99.02%. On the NASDAQ, Trump is at 137.56% compared to Obama at 262.26% a difference of -124.70%. Finally, on the DOW Jones, Trump is at 56.00% compared to Obama at 138.28% a difference of -82.28%."
https://www.factsarefirst.com/comparison/donald-trump/barack-obama
The crime "crisis" has been largely misrepresented by the right. The rise is homicides began in 2019 under Trump and has continued. Other areas of violent crime have remained flat or declined. Smash and grab incidents in Los Angeles peaked in December of 2021 and drew lots of media attention. The incidents have declined since and robberies, burglaries, and theft are down from 2019. The right makes much of the post-Covid crime wave, blaming it on lax policing and immigrants. They deliberately ignore the explosion of gun sales during the pandemic and the impact that's had on the exploding homicide rate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lapd-warn-crime-wave-data-show-theft-robberies-rcna9236
After years of Republican tax breaks for the rich and cuts to the IRS budget, huge corporations and the wealthiest plutocrats had little to worry about from an IRS audit. The number of audits dropped precipitously and the amount of uncollected taxes exploded, reaching an estimated $600 billion. The long overdue corrective action by the Biden administration will improve customer service, speed up refunds to working taxpayers, and direct the attention of auditors where it belongs -- on tax evading plutocrats and corporations. Long overdue.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/18/1093380881/on-tax-day-the-treasury-department-urges-for-more-funding-to-the-irs
I share your discomfort with the legislation to address the student loan problem. But the funds required to address the problem will not impact low-wage workers like landscapers. With child tax credits for two children and a dependent spouse, a worker making $25,000 a year would pay no federal income tax. Sadly, the same can be said for some huge multinational corporations until Biden instituted a $15% minimum.
You can actually argue drill permits? Ridiculous. Filled your tank lately? Gas was $1.99 in Jan 2021.
Landscapers can make 100k a year easily. Yes, they will pay taxes.
Tax breaks for the “rich”, because guess who pays most of the taxes? Should we give tax breaks to the poor, who you described as already paying no taxes? How many employees do poor people have?
During the Obama administration the stock market started in the dumper and had only one way to go, Up. During the Trump administration an already high stock market went even higher. Until Biden, who has wiped out at least 2 yrs of gains.
If you are unwilling to believe lectures given at Hillsdale by people who I bet you didn’t even check to see who they were, why should I believe you when npr and nbc are your sources?
They aren’t doing it on purpose. They cluelessly think they are saving the planet. You aren’t very astute.
And you are not very polite. You can disagree with someone without insulting them.
We have exchanged some bitter words on this BBS but on the whole the debates are civil, except when we debate a hard core leftist. It seems to me the left can't help themselves. They almost always devolve into insults, like you just did.
When they lack ideas and good arguments, they insult. It's all they've got.
you are not very astute if you think they are "clueless"
The depletion of the strategic oil reserve is purely political - to lower gas prices before the Midterm elections - and puts the country at risk. It's terrible policy, but who's surprised?
Exactly!
The strategic petroleum inventory decline was carefully crafted by examining Biden’s approval rating. No other analysis was required, just like most of this administrations actions. Restocking should not be difficult. All the government has to do is provide a floor price for domestic production that is above the marginal cost to produce a barrel. Oh wait, we can’t do that because a key constituency will throw a fit!
Maureen, if you do not understand the price of appeasement of vicious dictators, I suggest you take some time and view the Kien Burns series on the Holocaust. Europe appeased Hitler on 1938, for reasons similar to your arguments here. Six years later, 50 million people were dead, 6 million of my people among them. You also might want to view the photographs and video of towns liberated from Russian occupation: thousands of cilivians with their hands tied and a bullet to their heads.
Sorry about your tax burden, Maureen. But Europeans would trade places with you any time.
Putin is not Hitler. This is not the pre-World War II. This is a fight over Ukraine joining NATO so the US is right on Russia's border, simple as that. Our leaders caused this problem and now they're feeding the beast at our expense by waging a proxy war. And it does us no good to sink our economy and leave ourselves vulnerable trying to save one corrupt regime from another.
But NATO is already on Russia’s border, via the Baltic states and Poland.
Putin himself explained that, under his let’s call it highly idiosyncratic history, Ukraine is not and never was a real country with any existence separate from Russia and its destiny was therefore to return to the fold. And he alone decided when and whether to invade Ukraine.
Talk about NATO etc. as justifications for invading a sovereign state is to fall for political spin and disinformation.
Haver you looked at a map recently? Poland is *not* on Russia's border. And the Baltic states are ridiculously small as to be not a threat with a minuscule connecting border. Meanwhile, you can easily hit Moscow from Ukraine. In fact, Russia has been invaded most every time from that direction. You need to turn off the propagandists, like Common Sense, and go read some history and look at some maps. Russia is a well-armed has-been superpower who sees another internally decaying superpower that is well known for its "regime change as distraction wars" eying a very long stretch of land right along its border. The US itself has started wars and invaded countries over less.
You forget Kaliningrad which is wedged between Poland and Lithuania and is the base for Russia’s Baltic fleet.
It was conceivable if the West had acquiesced in Putin’s aggression against Ukraine, that his next “request” would have been a Russian corridor to connect Kaliningrad to the rest of Russia.
You are free to ignore Putin’s clearly expressed revanchist views about Tsarist Russia’s lost territories. Those closer to the action do not have that same luxury.
Russia definitely wants a direct connection to Kaliningrad, and Poland, the Baltics and even Belarus are well aware of the fact. It was a "gift" to Russia for their role in WW II. Of course, without Allied aid, Russia probably would've collapsed, but who's counting?
Was going to comment on Kaliningrad bordering Poland - thanks for checking the map!
Latvia and Estonia’s population are also both about a quarter Russian, so sounds like a good reason to ‘liberate’ them as well.
Ukranians remember the Holodomor. You may not know anything about that, but they do. They will fight because they know what's at stake.
And Russians remember every invasion that came through Ukraine because they were dumb enough not to control that landmass. They also know what is at stake. Also, the Ukraine is roughly a third ethnic Russian and the Ukrainian government, particularly under Zelensky and his predecessor, have been carrying out a near purge of them. This isn't simple. Both sides have every reason to keep going to the bitter end and even to drag Europe into it.
Sure, there are so many forces today that want nothing more than to “hit Moscow from Ukraine”, obviously the bloodthirsty NATO being first. You should be on Russian TV, Lillia Gajewski. Or maybe you are, who knows.
Warhawk 101: Accuse a person making reasonable arguments of being a traitor. How well does that work in real debates I wonder?
I've been around a while. People like you are very tiresome.
Lillian is not wrong about this; over 16,000 ethnic Russians living on the Ukrainian border have been killed and photos released claiming Russia killed Ukranians. The propaganda making Russia look like a monster has been absolutely stunning. Dig deeper; this is more complicated and nuanced than you know.
And Ukraine has significant resources. And ports.
The US can hit Moscow from anywhere at any time. They don't need the Ukraine for that.
Yes, but it's much easier to mess around with Russia if you're right on their border. You can also mess around in Belarus and Georgia. It's also good for getting Russia to "attack" the US/NATO so you can justify marching troops in. Don't be naive. This is all about putting the US on Russia's doorstep, and we're willing to kill a lot of Ukrainians to do it.
Funny thing is, Ukraine is the original "Rus," and could make the same claim that Rus unification necessitates that Ukraine conquer Russia in order to return its people to the natural order of things. Russia should be careful what it wishes for, it may get it in the form of Ukraine being the conqueror!
Putin's invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO policies, as you pointed out. It's about Putin's vision of him as Czar Vladimir of the United Rus, and alsso conquering a nation rich in resources that he can use, sell, and exploit.
Baloney. How does that explain Putin's invasion of Chechnya? How about his invasion of Georgia? Thousands killed and tortured. 12 oligarchs have mysteriously committed suicide in the last year. People who disagree with the regime are jailed or worse.
As I said above, Ukraine isn't "sinking our economy". It has been widely reported that COVID entitlement fraud exceeded $46 billion. Think of all the other government handouts, medicaid payments for example. What do you think the aggregate annual amount of fraud is in our system here? Our problem isn't Ukraine, but our problems will grow if we don't keep Putin in his box.
It's also cheaper to fight a contained proxy war than appease an expansionist and let things snowball.
The people bitching that the Ukraine war is too costly for the US are a classic example of pennywise/poundfoolish.
True. As some commentators have said here, it's kind of a bargain as wars go.
Yup, and the case study for US approved UAV’s came included.
I negligently failed to add Putin's assassination of enemies in western countries with Novichok, among other methods.
Again and again, Lillia Gajewski, you pretend to be deaf to what Putin says about Ukraine not being a real state and needed to be eliminated as such. You keep not only repeating Russian propaganda at nauseam, but you repeat only what suits your “narrative”, the endless red herring about poor Russia having to attack to fend off the big bad NATO. After seven months of unprovoked agression, you have learned nothing.
In his eyes, it's not a real state. Ukraine as been a part of Russia for as long as Russia has existed. It did not "win" its independence from Russia. It was *granted* its independence from Russia. They *voted* to leave and Russia *let* them leave because they wanted Ukraine to act as a buffer between NATO aligned Europe and them. Think of Puerto Rico suddenly deciding, nope, we want independence and then aligning with Russia and Russia putting nukes there. That's the equivalent.
I agree that’s the backstory. Ukraine chose, Russia agreed, they become a buffer. Though like threesomes, such bargains rarely have happy endings?
Not really, but backstories have relevance.
So does this: https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia
Ukraine got its independence when the USSR collapsed, and ever since then Ukraine has been expecting Russia to eventually reinvade. As it turns out, they were right, so it makes sense they wanted NATO membership as an insurance policy.
Putin invaded Crimea before NATO membership was on the table, so you have the cause and effect backwards.
Putin isn't invading because Ukraine wants to join NATO; Ukraine wants to join NATO because of Putin.
You have that completely back-ass-ward.
Try this: https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia
Russia invaded Crimea e days after the start of the Maidan Revolution, a coup of an alerted president supported by the Obama administration. Lilia is right, our hands are not clean in this and we have used Ukraine's admission to NATO, and the EU, as a club.
Ukraine was briefly independent after WWI, snd, in fact, negotiated a peace with Germany before Russia signed Brest-Litovsk. The Baltics and Finland were the first countries to recognize the USSR - and they were among the first to be invaded less than twenty years later. Russia coordinated with Germany in a division of Poland. After WWII, somemof the baltic nations fought insurgencies for nearly a decade. If they werent in NATO now, does anyone think they woild be indepedent still? How other countries behave isnt the spur here - Russia has constant atheistic territorial ambitions. Oh yeah - they tried to take Iran after WWII, and why were the British in Afghanistan long ago? To keep Russia out.
It's very frustrating that people don't see this.
Sorry, I thought you had commented on something else. Yes, it is very, very frustrating.
They said the same thing about Hitler, only re: the Kaiser. “Heir Hitler is an honorable man.” Neville Chamberlain.
No one ever said Putin was honorable. I just said he's not Hitler and Russia is not post-World War I Germany.
How many more people does he need to kill to reach Hitler status? Or is there another metric we should know about?
Yeah, we know, every critic of this war is Neville Chamberlain and the only two options are nuclear brinkmanship or obsequious appeasement. https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-fairy-tale-version-of-world-war?utm_medium=reader2
You read Michael Tracy too? I should get off this comments thread and go read that one. I started, it looks enlightening, but I haven't found 44 minutes.
Putin's grievances are small potatoes compared to what happened to Germany in the Treaty of Versailles; if appeasement didn't work then it's sure as shit not going to work now.
Yes, Putin's grievances are small, his economy is small, his military is small . . . how exactly do you expect him to take over Europe? Which is literally the whole justification for our defense of a highly corrupt and autocratic nation. You guys have to pick one: either (a) Russia is this evil superpower headed by a crazed maniac with his hand on the button of nearly 7000 nukes so we need to tread very, very carefully or (b) Russia is a decayed power that Ukraine can easily beat with a few weapons that we've supplied them but Putin is sane enough not to take that personally. You all are living in a Hollywood script where not thinking through the plot doesn't matter because you control the ending. Well, we *don't* control the ending.
Putin doesn't want West Germany, only East Germany. His aspiration is to rebuild the Iron Curtain, which would mean roughly 1/2 of Europe gets conquered by the time he's done.
Russia is a decayed power headed by a wannabe conqueror; if he can roll over Ukraine as easily as he rolled over Georgia, then it's a matter of when, not if, he goes after Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states.
If, on the other hand, he gets quagmired in Ukraine, then eventually he'll have to do what the US did in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan: declare victory and GTFO.
Well, according to you and this article, he's not "easily" rolling over them. So we have nothing to worry about, no?
And he's not the only one "quagmired" in Ukraine. You forgot that we are too. Isn't that funny how that happens? The US population gets poorer, the military industrial complex and the politicians it owns get richer, and all this goes on and on and on, and just when we got out of Afghanistan. Funny coincidence that.
Please supply some evidence that any of that is true.
“ Which is literally the whole justification for our defense of a highly corrupt and autocratic nation”
You should begin with a course or basic geography. And then basic history.
No one thinks Putin can overrun all of Europe with his conscript army.
Putin is bombing peaceful cities. Are they perfect cities ? No. Are they blameless and free of corruption ? No. But they are peaceful cities full of women and children. If NATO doesn’t stand up against this, NATO has no purpose.
Completely correct - people who don’t think that is true - should educate themselves on the topic
Absolutely correct
So is Finland next for Vlad?
I would say not as long as they remain neutral, but it depends on how much Europe crumbles this winter with a shortage of natural gas and our economy crumbles because it can't stand the strain of even a proxy war. If Putin thinks he could pull it off, and Finland has already made noises about joining NATO, or so the media says, who knows. That was always the risk of cajoling Zelensky into not settling with Russia. If Russia sees that it has a chance at more with little risk, why not? Same thing with China and Taiwan and the Middle East and Israel. If they decide the US wolf is just a chihuahua in throwing shadows on the wall, then really there's nothing in their way.
Again, things no one thought through.
I don't think Finland has much to worry about, given Russia's (non) performance militarily in Ukraine. It might be more the other way around.
All the more reason to make the Ukraine invasion as painful as possible for Russia; so that they don't come to see invading neighbours as a "low risk" venture.
Well, as you can tell, it's also very painful for us. The price of oil is killing our economy and Germany's economy is teetering, and where it goes, the rest of the world soon follows. We raised rates to drive down inflation, but we'll have to lower rates when the recession deepens into depression, which will once again feed inflation. Hunger pangs tend to trump the imperial ambitions of our leaders. And have you wondered what happens if Putin just decides f--k it all and hits the button? You people live in a fairy land. Again, you can't have both: Putin is so insane and so dastardly that we must involve him in a quagmire in Ukraine to "teach him a lesson" (as if the US is in any position to take the moral high ground in "lesson teaching") and Putin is not so insane and so dastardly to take the rest of the world with him by resorting to nuclear war. I wonder how your brains work. And I see you still haven't read the article, or this would be a much different conversation.
I think Finland today would make mincemeat of Russia in a conventional encounter.
You must be related to Charles Lindberg and Father Coughlin.
Ah, yes, the old don't address the point, just call the other person a Nazi/anti-Semite/whatever-ist-ite-phobic routine.
Ah yes, back to the well of comparing [insert opponent of neoliberalism] to Hitler.
You could save everyone time by just typing “Regurgitating All Western Propaganda Talking Points” next time 🤣🤣
Putin's not a dictator, no matter how much the West screams that he is. We might not like the electoral system in Russia (although the US played a big part in creating it) but Putin is still subject to it and can be voted out if he gets unpopular.
As for appeasement of vicious dictators - you know the US was funding Europe and Germany during WW2 right? You know they took hundreds of Nazi scientists and gave them a home in the US federal organizations? You know the US has a long history of turning a blind eye to the human rights violations of various leaders of various countries as long as it is in their interest, right? Take Saddam, who was funded to fight the Iranians in 80s because they had the poor taste to overthrow the dictator the US / UK installed on them. Didn't seem to have much of a problem with him then did we? Or Saudi, which has a significantly worse human rights record than Russia. Currently we're enabling them to commit genocide in Yemen.
As for this conflict between Russia Ukraine, I don't trust anything coming out the MSM, Russia or Ukraine. They're all lying. My question is, what does it have to do with us? Don't start with your moralizing, as we have no morals. What is our interest in prolonging this conflict? How does it benefit us? Do we want Europe to bankrupt and deindustrialize itself? And a strong Russia / China marriage?
Thank you, everything you said are truths no one wants to acknowledge, including what's coming out of the MSM (and Common Sense, which is so often MSM adjacent).
Running against Putin in an election is a great way to get poisoned. Putin is a dictator as much as Kim Jong Un is (North Korea also has elections after all).
The US interest is in Russia finding it very, very difficult to conquer territory to their west. If conquest is easy for Putin, he's just going to keep doing it.
Poppycock. The main opposition is the Communist Party. They're all still alive and kicking and standing in elections. Even Navalny, was still alive the last time I checked. Whom I presume you are referring to, he's not popular in Russia, so he doesn't win any of his elections. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109765/attitude-toward-activity-of-alexei-navalny-russia/
Putin has been in power for 20 odd years give or take. If he was so interested in conquest, don't you think we would have seen signs of it before now?
Again why does the US care about what Putin does in Europe?
Navalny alternates between exile and being thrown in prison; he's treated by the Kremlin the way the CCP treats the Dalai Lama.
Putin started with Chechnya, then Georgia, then Crimea, and now hes come for the rest of Ukraine. The signs have been there all along.
The US cares because 1) Sooner or later Russian expansion will run into American allied states (e.g. Finland), and because 2) EU countries are much better for the US economy than Russian-style countries (with no rules against IP theft and massive state-sponsored hacking farms, for example). So the US has a vested interest in not seeing Putin roll tanks through half of Europe in his dream of rebuilding the Iron Curtain.
Better to nip conquest in the bud than let it snowball, as we saw with Germany in the 1930s.
This sounds like the same argument used to fight a war in Vietnam. "Stopping the spread of communism" worked out well.
The difference is no boots on the ground in Ukraine. If anything this is more like arming the Taliban when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, except hopefully Zelenskyy isn't the next Osama Bin Laden.
Our involvement in Vietnam started with no boots on the ground. Most conflicts start with no boots on the ground and then escalate. If Biden and/or NATO decides to move troops into Ukraine, would your position change? There is zero talk of trying to deescalate this conflict. The only option presented by our media is supplying more weapons and more money to Ukraine.
Our involvement in Afghanistan also started with no boots on the ground. Granted, 9/11 likely changed the plan for Afghanistan but most did not see us being there for 20+ years at a cost of trillions of dollars.
Thanks but Ken Burns is not on my list of people to pay attention to.
And I already know a thing or two about the holocaust and the war on the eastern front.
I just got back from Hungary. no one begged me for asylum or to get in my suitcase.
Countries sharing borders with Russia sure do keep begging to join NATO though.
You think that only because the media tells you they are. I haven't heard many rumblings lately. And Belarus and Georgia aren't, and along with Ukraine, they are the ones that matter.
The Baltic states begged to join and it worked, Finland and Sweden both want in; it's too late for Georgia as they already got conquered in 2008, and Belarus is content being a vassal state controlled by the Kremlin.
Ukraine used to be controlled by a Kremlin puppet government, but the post-2014 government is much more into asserting their independence, which is why Putin invaded Crimea. Ever since then, Ukraine has wanted to join NATO because they knew it was a matter of when, not if, Putin came for Kiev.
You obviously did not read the article.
I am beginning to think miles is a troll here to spread misinformation. He said above that Hokkaido, Japan is controlled by Russia. Absolute nonsense.
https://japan-forward.com/threats-begin-as-major-politician-claims-hokkaido-belongs-to-russia/
Perhaps you forgot
Germans invaded Russia and slaughtered everyone in their invasion path - a little info you missed in your demonization of the Russians in the war. (NOT justifying ANY of the horrors committed). However Russia lost 25 million people so we could claim victory
Maybe you should take a look at how the Ukrainians are targeting and killing Russian speaking Ukrainians using very similar German tactics of marking those families houses with a sign, for the special units to come clean out. Don’t moralize
WW II is irrelevant to this discussion. Why not talk about when the Swedes, the Lithuanians and the Poles all invaded Ukraine centuries ago? Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and cases of torture and murder of civilians are coming forth in large numbers. Your defense of Russian (really Putin’s) behavior is really weak. Russia is the largest country in the world, perhaps the most endowed with natural resources, brilliant people - it should be a light for the world in every way. Instead, it is cursed by a long history of terrible leaders, murderers and thieves, of which Putin is just one more. Sad, yes. Defensible, nyet.
I'm not sure how you can say that. We're being drawn into this war with the justification that this exactly like WWII, only Putin is Hitler and Russia is Germany. You hear that ad nauseam. Otherwise, what is the point of defending one tiny random corrupt country from another larger corrupt country?
Are you suggesting we should not have engaged in WW II against Germany because it was one random country against another (well, several countries in that case) and didn't touch our shores? Should we not have challenged Japan in WW II as they took over Southeast Asia and with eyes on Australia and New Zealand?
The world is a tough place, whether we like it or not. The point of defending "one tiny random corrupt country" (like the U.S. is not corrupt!) against another, Russia, which has invaded and ruled many of its neighbors over the last century, is so a regional war does not become a global war.
I just got back from the Baltic states. You see Ukranian flags everywhere. They know and will freely tell you that if the Ukrainians can't stop the Russians, they know they will be next.
I am suggesting that *everyone* draws World War II into the discussion to defend our so-called intervention (which is more accurately termed "interference") into Ukraine, so you can't suggest it is *not* relevant if someone reminds you of the Russian experience during World War II. It's a matter of consistency.
And World War II is an interesting subject that we mythologize. Here are two articles from Michael Tracy. https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-fairy-tale-version-of-world-war and https://mtracey.substack.com/p/yes-americans-overwhelmingly-opposed.
They are enlightening.
Bullshit.
congrats. I think you win the Godwin today
No, most Europeans do not want to emulate our levels of crime, poverty, disfunction and poor public education. By the way, lower income earners in most European countries, especially Scandinavia, pay much more tax than our low earners do.
Are you an isolationist NCMaureen? Do you believe America and Americans should live in a bubble unperturbed about the rise of Russia or China or any other warring nation with expansionist designs? If you’re not, then your questions are moot.
Regardless, if you do believe you won’t eventually be affected by what happens in the rest of the world, that America should just take care of its own, I’d suggest you’re sadly mistaken.
Americans should always take care of its own first. always. even on the plane they tell you. if the oxygen mask drops. do your own mask FIRST before helping others. good advice. track the funds we are sending into a black hole. yes that is a burden on Americans..
Contained proxy wars to nip expansion in the bud are cheaper in the long run than appeasing and letting things snowball.
WWII would have been much cheaper if the annexation of Austria had been opposed, rather than kicking the can down the road until the Panzer tanks rolled into Poland.
Please see another comment I posted that responds to this.
No thanks. Reading your clueless comment that asked what America gets out of this - an end to Russian imperialism - was enough.
Perhaps your posts would be taken more seriously if you offered up something other than insulting a person you disagree with.
Hi Maureen, I think you have valid points regarding corruption and accountability for these large expenditures. Two questions: 1) how much benefit do you think France, let’s say, would have gotten had the WW I Allies stopped Germany in the early to mid 1930s rather than appease that dictator?
2) What are the relative sizes of the US expenditures in Ukraine compared to, say, writing off college debt?
The answer to #1 is obvious, but, so what? My question was, how does the USA benefit?
#2- we shouldn’t be writing off student debt. It’s illegal for starters, and immoral.
How does the U.S. benefit from the end of Russian imperialism? Are you serious.
And what about our imperialism? What about our role in the 2014 coup in the Ukraine. If you think Russia is the only imperialist nation on the planet, I'd have to ask you if you're serious.
To be honest, you sound like someone that just regurgitates the Big Bad Putin argument as a justification for war. Putin didn't just decide to start a war out of nowhere. This conflict has been brewing and our government did nothing to try and prevent it. The Democrats are all in on war and "Russian Imperialism" is the justification. It's no different than how fighting Trump was justification for any actions because we were "fighting for democracy..."
This (latest) episode of Russian imperialism could've been completely AVOIDED if 1). The west hadn't put its energy systems completely at Putin's mercy because of idiotic climate policies, and 2.) Ukraine had simply committed not to join NATO. Putin is portrayed as some sort of diabolical Dr. Evil character, when he's not much more than a 2-bit opportunist trying to protect what he has.
I disagree. I think Putin has (had?) dreams about re-creating the Soviet Union, which I understand is a popular position in Russia. It's an irrational dream, but that doesn't mean a lot of people there aren't wishing for it. My take is that nipping it in the bud is doing the entire world a favor.
The same can be said of the US. We promised not to expand NATO to the east when the Soviet Union fell. We immediately expanded NATO to the east. Imagine Russia and China expanding their military presence into Mexico and Canada--we'd be ready to go to war over that. I don't disagree that there are people wanting the Soviet Union to reunite. I disagree that the expansion of NATO can be disregarded as a contributing factor into the Ukraine.
I suggest you listen to the youtube videos of a Russian historian named Steven Kotkin. Set aside about 8hrs.
I think you will learn Russian imperialism is not going away any time soon. It is baked into the bones of Russians. They have long memories.
To Rundio, smits3, and Maureen,
You say you don't agree with the "Big Bad Putin" augments, but you keep excusing Putin for invading and trying to destroying another country, and never do you criticize Putin. Your Poor Putin arguments are nothing more then saying that Putin had "no choice" but to be a murderer. You make it sound like Putin was the victim. The victims are Ukrainians. Defending their country from a ruthless invader has made the Ukrainians united.
I don't excuse Putin or his actions. The issue is this isn't as simple as Putin is to blame. My question to you is what would the US do if China and/or Russia expanded their military alliance and presence to Canada and/or Mexico? Would we sit back and allow it to happen? The reality is NATO expanded closer and closer to Russia after the US agreed not to do so when the Soviet Union fell. This conflict is about more than just Putin being an asshole. My belief is that our government had much more to do with the invasion than we want to admit. And call me cynical but it's too convenient that less than 6 months after we left Afghanistan, we're back in another war and printing billions for the military industrial complex.
Wrong, I called Putin a war criminal. I said Russia should pay reparations to Ukraine.
I would love Ukraine to crush Russia. But even with American backing, the best we can hope for is a retreat, a cease fire.
Russia is a country over 1000 yrs old, and its history consists of one military victory after another. The Russians believe they defeated Hitler, not the US, not England. Their national pride comes from toughness, resilience. We can’t ignore what flows in the veins of Russians and think we can crush their imperialism. That’s a spirit, not hardware.
My husband and I plan to watch Steven Kotkin NCM. Thanks for the recommendation. There's much to Russian history and there is a theory that the Rothschilds funded a private revolution creating the Bolsheviks, and had the entire royal Romanov family exterminated.
You think Russia is going to invade France?
The relative cost? 10 million people are going to starve to death because we can’t budge on the Donbas and global markets have lost $10 trillion minimum with more to come. Not to mention energy prices going up 10x and food……..this is easily going to net 100 fold the cost of the student loan gimmick.
Even if we decide to clownishly compare these two things which are not comparable, Germany didn’t have nukes and the mistake was not failing to die for Sudetenland, the mistake was failing to ramp up arms production.
Literally the day this war started I said they needed to give Russia the Donbas region to buy time and turn Eastern Europe into a weapons depot.
Once deterrence has failed you don’t just immediately get into a slap fight with someone who has nukes because it makes you feel righteous and because the situation rhymes 0.03% with something that happened 80 years ago.
If it’s any comfort, all of the reprobate simpletons who set the conditions for this happening agree with you.
Let’s not forget the 350 million people worldwide that are now in a food scarcity position
stop being so gestalt
You're arguing that Russia should be able to invade and conquer any sovereign nation it wants simply because it has nukes?
No. Putin does not get to bully the world simply because he has The Bomb.
The Donbas region is not ours to give away. It's Ukraine's. They have every right to defend and keep it, just like we have every right to defend and keep our land. Ukraine asked for the West's weapons and financial aid and he would do the fighting. I think that's a very acceptable tradeoff for sending the message to Russia and China that such bald aggression will not be appeased.
Well I have good news for you, Shane. People who agree with you are 100% in charge and they are not elected so your plan will continue to become reality essentially no matter what.
So far your approach has resulted in suffering that is difficult to calculate. If you want to focus only on the people of Ukraine and ignore the mass starvation and collapsing global economy and people who will freeze to death in Europe that’s fine.
So how would the people of the Donbas region be doing if they were living under territory conceded to Putin instead of living under Zelensky? Well they’d be living under Putin, which is marginally worse. However, there is the upside where they would have the benefit of not getting blown up by missiles.
So Putin is bad but getting blown up by missiles is also bad. It’s a tough choice, I agree.
Now of course you will say the Ukrainian Nationalists have a right to fight Putin to the death if they want. And that’s fine. But we are funding the Ukrainian Nationalists entirely and there is no reason to believe that the Ukrainian Nationalist view is the majority view of Ukrainians.
I mean you can believe the propaganda we are being fed on this issue if you want to. The propagandists certainly take the position that all Ukrainians are Ukrainian Nationalists who think it’s worth having your house blown up to keep Putin out of Donbas, but that’s probably false. Millions of people are fleeing, and have fled the country, specifically because they don’t think dying for Donbas is the smart move.
Next will be Taiwan because we can’t let China control the South China Sea. That of course would be a terrific argument if global collectivists hadn’t already handed the keys to our economy to China.
Again, people who agree with you are 100% in charge and they can’t be voted out so the wisdom of your plan will become evident over the coming decades.
If China announced it wanted part of the United States, would you agree in order to avoid bloodshed and economic harm? Or would you fight to keep what's yours? I'd fight. But maybe you'd be happy to learn Mandarin.
My "approach" is that sovereign nations remain sovereign and foreign invaders butt out. Your approach is that sovereign nations should submit to conquest because God Forbid blood be spilled defending one's freedom and territory.
I prefer my approach. Your approach means we'd all be speaking German the past eighty years.
As for Ukraine-Russia, my preference would have been for Putin and Zelensky to quietly negotiate Russia's purchase of the most Russian-centric parts of the Donbas, agree on a map with a new border, tell the people of Donbas to move to whichever side of the border best suits their needs, and cover the cost of relocation. Putin gets part of his provinces, Z rids himself of people who don't want to be Ukrainians. Win-win.
I have no idea if that was tried. I hope so, but it really doesn't matter, though. Ukraine is a sovereign nation and has the right to kick out foreign invaders. That is the right of every sovereign nation, including ours, and if the resulting war is beastly, so be it.
If China invaded the US that would be like Russia invading France and I would suggest full scale war in both cases.
This is not the same. The decision has to be made based on net loss of freedom and net human suffering incurred. This is much more like Hong Kong except the loss of freedom had territory been negotiated away peacefully would have been less than what we just casually watched in Hong Kong. Oh I’m sorry so the fascist takeover of Hong Kong was fine because there was paperwork?? No.
The government steals half of my money. I am currently 50% a slave and I have chosen to do nothing about it. At what point does that change? 70% or 80%? I don’t know. But I’m not interested in a violent overthrow of the government even though I am partially enslaved. And please don’t give me the shit about how I’m actually free because I’m still allowed to go to the park and scream into a bullhorn about Joe Biden and have group sex if I want. Money is the only thing that matters.
We basically agree on the back room deal that *should* have been made. But no that wasn’t tried because of course it wasn’t because the entire point of this is having the war.
Serious question - in a couple comments you’ve referred to unelected people in charge. Who are you referring to?
You remember when Trump gave the order to pull out of Syria and a bureaucrat joked to a media outlet about how they didn’t do it? You know the intelligence agencies that orchestrated a coup to overthrow the 2016 election?
Those people.
Are you listening to yourself?
WHAT THE HELL HAS THE WEST DONE FOR 80 YEARS?!?! ALL THE USA HAS DONE HAS BULLIED PEOPLE BECAUSE OF OUR MILITARY MIGHT.
How about this Shane. Fight this war yourself. You and all the other war whores, go over and fight for Ukraine yourselves.
Go fuck yourself, Russ.
Yeah, that's what I thought, you little coward bitch. Enjoy being safe and snug in the castle walls while you advocate for other peoples sons to go die.
Worthless fucking coward.
“You think Russia is going to invade France?”
A man can dream.
😂😂
Finlandization of France and Western Europe would be sufficient and reason enough to act now in Ukraine to avoid this possible result down the road.
I have to say that gave me a chuckle.
you mean they havent'. ? LOL
Kevin Durant?
Even Putin understands that Russia can’t use its nukes unless it wants to be totally destroyed.
Not to totally discount your point, but I don’t really trust that a psychopath facing assassination cares about what happens to the rest of us.
Nukes aren’t super-likely, but I’m definitely factoring that in when calculating “is the Donbas region worth all of this” where the downside for the Donbas region is not extermination but a change in government to one where they won’t be allowed to criticize Putin anymore, and the cost, just to this point, has been the widespread destruction of all of Ukraine and countless war crimes rapes and mass graves and the pending starvation of 10 million people.
I don’t want Putin in charge of the Donbas region………but what has happened thus far is so clearly worse than having Putin running Donbas instead of Zelensky. It’s truly not even close.
The Russian border is right there. Let the people in Donbas who wish to live under Putin's rule pack up and move several miles east. Same landscape, same jobs or lack thereof, same everything. Russia and Ukraine can pay for move housing and businesses. Once Donbas is empty of Putin admirers, no more problem.
Putin can’t activate the use of nuclear weapons all by himself.
Would it surprise you if I told you that there are multiple evil people in Russia?
So like Putin bad but also other bads are there.
To answer #2.
"2) What are the relative sizes of the US expenditures in Ukraine compared to, say, writing off college debt?"
Both are things we would not be doing. There is little reason [not] to believe this is a war of choice mostly by Western powers. This is a war between corrupt country A and corrupt country B.
As for college debt. That should come from the massive endowments these colleges and universities have.
Naw. This is a war between corrupt country A and an *invading force, namely RUSSIA.* That makes a difference, right?
Try not to be so illogical. If Zelensky was corrupt he wouldn’t have put his life on the line defending his country. He would have taken the money and run,
Zelensky is a Christian reformer who wants Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
I’m simply amazed Ukraine went from having a “Nazi problem” 2 years ago (per Time and NY Times among many others) to being a model country we should be willing to support without question.
You wouldn’t be amazed if you knew that the pro- western Christian reformer Zelensky was not elected until April 2019. Are you amazed at the deterioration in America over the last 20 months? Elections have consequences and ignorance is not bliss.
I'll leave Your insulting views, as others have pointed them out before.
I've "heard" that the government was corrupt in the past. And that there were some questionable practices *recently.* I don't recall, however, so there is that. May have had to do with newspapers, but dunno if true, even if that was it.
If he'd cut and run, he'd have been corrupt, no doubt. But I think a person can be corrupt in some ways and, at same time, a Christian reformer in other ways.
He sure has done a good job keeping the country together. That much can't be doubted.
The Pandora Papers suggest he's racked up a net worth of $850M in offshore accounts since becoming president. I think his annual pay is around $20K a year. Even Paul Pelosi can't top those earnings.
One theory I've heard but can't prove (and won't waste time trying) is that the Ukraine was a money-laundering playground for much of the west ever since the coup in 2014. Putin knew it and disrupted that and now the west is upset.
Can you imagine if one of the Trump kids was getting $50K a month from a company based in a country that we sent billions in "aid" to? That's not to suggest that the Trump family isn't on the take from other sources just that the left would be outraged.
I used to think "corrupt" was a moniker that didn't apply here, but now I'm not so sure. Remove "corrupt" and you simply have an invasion.
Not really.
Mebbe not to You. To the world?
To the people of Ukrainian. Absolutely.
The “world”? Depends. We can see on this series of posts many people of “the world” believe, with regard to US involvement, the negatives outweigh the positives. Looking at it that way does not mean people think Putin is a good guy but it doesn’t mean he is “Hitler” (and neither was Trump Hitler nor DeSantis nor Tucker nor …). It does not mean these people are isolationists just that this war has more negatives than positives for the people of the US. I assume you remember when the wonder kids from Brussels laughed at Trump when he warned of over-reliance on Russian energy.
Sanctions have NOT hurt Russia given they simply sell their fuel through third parties like China with both China and Russia making bank.
Given I can’t see an endgame to this conflict, I see the negatives far outweighing the positives.
This is really the cost of doing business with a brutal dictator as if he were a rational member of the world community. Germany is particularly at fault. Europe was especially stupid about their anti-energy agenda.
What is it worth to get rid of Putin? Probably more that $100 billion, especially if it deters China from its belligerent ambitions.
If Russia drains our weapons reserves, what is there to "deter" China? This was a stupid, stupid conflict to get into.
Our navy deters China. Ukraine is a land war. We won't need anti-tank weapons if China tries to invade Taiwan, we will need the Navy.
You're thinking way smaller than China is. And they don't need to fight us. Do you actually realize how many of our basics are made in China? All rhey need to do is just stop shipping us things like antibiotics. So no our "superior naval power" will not save Taiwan or us.
China is probably overreaching. Their demographics do not bode well for their future.
As far as boycotts are concerned, we managed to get along well enough during COVID and all of its disruptions and lockdowns. They need the money.
So how well did those sanctions against Russia work? Oh, that's right. Their ruble is doing just fine. Meanwhile, Germany's economy is on the verge of collapse, the US dollar is losing its status as the world currency, and our inflation is nearing 10%. Maybe you want to rethink what you *know* about how powerful the US is economically.
Lillia is right about our naval power. There is no way our decaying Navy can protect Taiwan, just off the coast of mainland China, any more than China could invade Catalina island. We simply can't project power that far against a peer or near-peer military power.
Have you ever heard of the Faukland Islands war? England's Navy was much smaller than ours was but they projected a lot of power across an ocean.
And there is also Japan, which is the X factor in this.
Yes, but to paraphrase from former Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen, Argentina is no China. Japan is certainly an X factor as you say, and I'm sure there's a lot of discussion in Japan about what their role might be that I'm not privy to.
Are you a Navy guy? My understanding is, the U.S. Navy is still vastly more powerful than China's, but they now have numerical superiority, which is "not nothing" according to a top admiral.
In a conventional war, the U.S. would mop the ocean floor with China's navy, and could probably decimate their land forces with some precision bombing raids and a massive barrage of Tomahawks.
If it escalated to nuclear, both countries would lose, but China would lose 10x the people we would, largely because their pop. is concentrated along the coasts whereas we are more sparsely distributed in a similar size land mass. (Now if they took out SF, Chicago, and DC, the evil side of me questions whether that would actually be so bad.)
I'm not a Navy guy, but I can swim if that helps. I think head to head in a swimming pool, the U.S. would still prevail. The problem is projecting power that far - think resupplying munitions, fuel, logistics, and rotating sailors. Remember that we don't have Subic Bay and Clark AFB any longer. Guam could be incapacitated and Japan may or may not be willing to be dragged into a war by being our only source of near supply, other than possibly Australia. And don't think the PRC won't have a significant 5th column in Taiwan. The scene on the ground there may not so much represent a defense as a chaotic civil war. Our fleet is declining and in disrepair as recent accidents show, though maybe CRT and equity training will tip the scales in our favor. China won't resort to nukes because they know time is on their side. Taiwan will have to defend itself the way Ukraine has if it wants to remain independent and free.
Stop allowing MIC sycophants to manipulate you with their constant threats of “if we don’t do this or that CHINA’S GOING TO INVADE TAIWAN.” Taiwan is a heavily armed island with fewer than 15 beaches that would allow for an amphibious invasion, all of which are bordered by cliffs. China would need to deploy *at least* 1.5 million troops if they had any hopes of being successful against Taiwans 450,000 man military and that number is likely way too low. Then there’s the whole problem of transporting 1.5 million troops over 100 miles to invade- that would require something like 1500 war ships and thousands more vessels- China currently has 355 ships and submarines total. And again, these are all lowball estimates.
Uh, China doesn't need to invade us. They just cut off our supplies. You really don't understand the position our so-called leaders and captains of industry have left us in, do you? And all China has to do to Taiwan is surround them and cut off their supplies. They'll starve to death. And given that China is obviously not afraid to kill their own people . . . I'd say you're the one being manipulated. This is not a fight we want. Regular American people will suffer and the nation would not survive it. We are absolutely nothing close to the power we used to be.
🙄
1. I’m not interested in fighting any wars with anyone, that includes China and/or Russia.
2. Taiwan has a 28 month supply of rice and 12 months supply of fruits/veggies for its population in the case of a Chinese blockade. They also have large domestic pork production and aquaponic farms.
3. China is significantly more vulnerable to a food blockade. I assure you, this won’t be the route they take.
4. Contrary to popular belief, we don’t *need* 95% of the shit we import from China. We are vulnerable with respect to pharmaceutical production, I’ll grant you that. Otherwise, they can keep their plastic toys and solar panels. We’ll be okay.
5. I highly suggest you do real research instead of just regurgitating Warhawk talking points w/ regards to China and the leverage/power they hold over us. China is vital to convenience, not survival.
Taiwan also has 1.5 million reservists.
Troop carriers crossing the Strait would be very vulnerable to air strikes, and Taiwan does have around 300 combat aircraft including over 100 of their own indigenous fighter-bombers. They also have a lot of missiles.
Obviously China has numerical superiority in every category, but any such adventure would be very expensive for them... and is not guaranteed to succeed. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is a highly advanced democratic state with some of the most advanced industries in the world. They are an important asset to the U.S. and Japan, both of which countries have warned China against an incursion.
Should they just go ahead and invade, we'd be forced to sanction China at every level. Apple would be skrewed given their most profitable devices are all assembled there. Which is why they're opening factories in SE Asia and the U.S. currently (Arizona, Texas).
But China would be royally skrewed. Their manufacturers and exporters would lose 25-30% of their business and this would likely tip their already-shaky economy into recession. Their real estate bubble which is already starting to pop would burst more quickly, probably hundreds of millions of people would lose their assets and savings, and you would start to see open questioning of Beijing's policies, if not an uprising which is virtually impossible given the size of domestic military. They're very good at shooting unarmed college students, anyway.
EDIT: I would also note that people including even some liberals would demand the U.S. defend Taiwan. If we're willing to do so much for a corrupt, backward shit hole like Ukraine, why wouldn't we help a fellow democracy that is very pro-American despite lack of diplo relations? It would spark a debate perhaps but in the end the U.S. would be forced to do the right thing, and China's economy would likely tank as a result. So might ours, but unlike them, we can re-source products to other manufacturing regions like SE Asia, Mexico, and our own homeland where manufacturing is actually undergoing a renaissance.
China has twice the size of our Navy and is building the equivalent of the British Royal Navy every year. They will surround each of our carrier groups with massive numbers of their own battleships and then say "I dare you!"
The fact that you said battleships means you know very little about naval operations lol.
China doesn't have even a single operational aircraft carrier. The numbers don't matter as much as their capabilities. When was the last time China's navy won a battle?
And what does that have to do with our support of Ukraine? The numbers didn't matter much in Ukraine.
After seeing what is happening to Russia in Ukraine China's military leaders may be thinking twice about attacking Taiwan with a navy that has never been battle tested. They don't want their first battle to be against the US Navy.
No, China does have aircraft carriers now. Look up the Shandong and the Fujian. Not sure if they're totally operational yet, though. Give them a year or two and they will be.
In addition, they have several retired Soviet carriers such as the Minsk, to study. Not sure why the Russians thought it was a great idea to give this tech to China, but I guess they needed the cash.
China is not going to attack the United States.
They don't have to. All they have to do is cut off our supply chain. And then they'll attack us. Our reliance on China has been a disaster in the making since Clinton and Bush brought them into the global trade network.
"attack" comes in many forms. some rob you with a six gun. some with a fountain pen.. Michael; Shellenberger says it best. China makes almost 100% of our "green energy" ( solar panels and wind machine parts). most of our medicines.. and well just about everything.. cheap labor has its risks
No, they're just going to build up their military power to the point where we have to obey them.
Nobody is. The US is the only country in the world with enough transportation capabilities to project real power across the globe. The two oceans at our coasts are effectively our main defense.
They don't need to. We are attacking each other.
Granted, no crystal ball. But we're not gonna be invaded by China.
Taiwan may be another story, and You may be right we won't have the arms to prevent it. ICBW, but I'm still of the opinion that if China really, REALLY wants Taiwan, they'll get it in the end.
One thing, as has been "said" elsewhere, China is watching all this. Taiwan is harder to invade than Ukraine was. So this may delay the (inevitable?) attack.
Taiwan will have to really up its game to make the cost of an invasion too high for China. Biden's remarks (we will defend China) don't encourage them to make those investments.
Sorry, but I don't believe Biden's ideas have much sway in Taiwan, one way or the other. They know the situation they're in.
That's not even to mention that the Biden *admin* says Biden is wrong and we won't defend 'em.
Japan won't stand for an invasion of Taiwan, nor will the U.S., regardless the utterings of the senile dementia leadership and his handlers.
For its part, Taiwan would fight hard. Although, their military is not as prepared as it was 40 years ago, when the World War Two generation was still in charge. But they still have universal draft, advanced weaponry, and 70 years to prepare for invasion. They also have PhD scientists and nuclear reactors and as far back as the 1980s, it was rumored they have nuclear bombs in pieces, waiting to be assembled in time of national emergency. Even if not true, such rumors have a deterrent effect.
But if the Communists do move on Taiwan, it would likely escalate quickly into a regional war and, eventually, World War Three. Trump was pretty resolute on this topic; he literally told Xi he would bomb Beijing if they invaded Taiwan. Biden, who knows what if anything is in his brain at this point. God help us.
Like most-a the MAGA crowd, it all comes down to Trump and Biden.
I can't recall who I just read that said that it was the *NAVAL* arena that would make the difference. That the U.S. would need a strong *NAVY.* I dunno that it has one, ever since China developed the hypersonic missal.
ICBW, but I think that if China puts 1.4 BILLION people to the problem, they just may succeed. You think the U.S. and Japan can actually win a war against them? I ask what that's based on?
See if You can leave Trump outta it. I doubt it, but thought I'd ask.
No, we could not win a war against China. They have something far more important than weapons or people. They have the foundation of our supply chain. If Trump got one thing right, it was even in a flimsy way trying to move some production back here. (I didn't have to mention Trump, but I just wanted to needle you.)
If Trump were president today, Ukraine would not have been invaded, and China would not be threatening Taiwan.
Why? Because Trump would say "If you invade Taiwan, I'll halt all trade". Obviously that didn't stop the Russians, but it sure would screw China. And China is Russia's financial backer.
NC Maureen
You must have a very long nose. What America will get out of this is obvious - an end to Russian imperialism without putting one American boot on the ground.
Russians have no will to fight in Ukraine whereas Ukrainians are fighting for the survival of their nation. A Ukrainian victory is inevitable and would already have occurred if America’s cognitively impaired President had supplied weapons earlier.
You are as illogical as Jordan Peterson and as uncaring as Tucker Carlson, who has at least admitted that he was wrong. You are still clueless.
Russian imperialism doesn't affect me, my community, or this country, and I see no reason to believe that a loss in Ukraine will end Russian imperialism. We're hurting ourselves more by fighting them than we would by allowing their expansion.
Please tone down the hate and the personal attacks, especially when your comment is mostly just imagination, speculation, and insults.
All imperialism affects you.
This is like saying "everything that happens everywhere affects everyone" true in an allegorical sense but useless in real life.
That’s like saying “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
There is no logic to either statement.
Try explaining with something meaningful, helpful, or educational, rather than reasserting a conclusion that I find baseless.
Jordan Peterson is illogical? Seriously?? 🧐
“ A Ukrainian victory is inevitable ”
This is a statement hoping for wish fulfillment.
The question is what does a “victory” look like?
Personal attacks are unnecessary and unhelpful.
Just like we were going to stop the spread of communism by fighting a war in Vietnam? Did that not start "without putting one American boot on the ground?" What happens when this escalates to requiring boots on the ground? Will you then decide it's not worth fighting or funding? There is not a single mention of trying to negotiate some kind of resolution. The only thing our government talks about is more war. Do you really expect the Ukraine to win this without requiring actual personnel? To say a Ukrainian victory is inevitable and would have occurred sooner with more weapons makes you sound like you work for the CIA or Northrop Grumman. Please provide an example of when we've ever been successful winning a conflict by doing nothing besides supply weapons and "aid.". At some point it requires aircraft and/or personnel. Once we provide either, it's a full blown war.
Jordan might be the most intelligent and compassionate person I've seen in the modern world. An extremely rare celebrity who sincerely has no concern for money or power. Incredible person and my role model.
That's certainly a part of it but even before that you can see how his lectures got enormous amounts of views. I think more than anything he has risen to prominence because so many people have been moved and helped through his insights.
Some people seem to believe that the 100 billion the US might end by spending to help Ukraine fend off the Russian invasion is some kind of charity, while Putin’s Russia poses no existential threat to the US. This is totally short-sighted, as Ukraine is just the first bite that the Russian and Chinese empires would want. As to the money, it’s pretty mean to whine about 100 billions against tens of thousands of destroyed lives, after Trump and Biden together have wasted more than 5 trillion dollars in the last few years. It’s also outright absurd to imagine that we don’t help the Ukrainians, the money saved will fix the problems in the US. Exactly how many problems have the last 5 trillions spent in the US solved? I mean, other than causing rampant inflation ?
Bingo. They're not related.
History has repeatedly taught us that if you don't dissuade such aggression, it continues and often results in a much wider war that would plunge the entire world into recession, including the U.S. And a wider war is much more expensive as we all know. Our problems here in the U.S. are due to the gross mismanagement of our economy by our elected officials over many years. We are spending trillions on entitlements that enable inactivity and bad habits, and on programs that don't work but line the pockets of the well-connected. We have an open border and incoherent public health policy. Not defending Ukraine won't solve our problems here - we have to do that. They are not connected.
Using western weapons and tactics against Sovi, er Russian weapons and tactics are of real value to the western military. No really, this use of our weapons against the Russians has the potential to reap great profits.
The experience we are getting in the use of our weapons and tactics is obtainable no where else. Does this help mitigate our debt problem? No, but maybe in the long run, we can design and build more effective weapons. Maybe we can save money on weapons which we know will not work. Or we can spend appropriate amounts of money on weapons which we know do work.
Computer models of battlefields are learning from the battles in Ukraine. The Russians are not only losing... they aren't learning from the losses.
So, we are getting smarter and that might translate into saving money in NATO for the long term. Meanwhile, the threat from Russia will diminish when Putin dies. In 10 years, we will be richer, and maybe safer because of this war... that is what we get out of it. Wisdom to fight the Russians effectively will be of value for decades.
You know who is really being educated by this? China. Standing on the Russian sideline and taking it all in. We are fools.
Fools? No, we aren't. If we had done nothing, Lynne, not lifted a finger, and instead let Putin sweep through Ukraine and call it his? What message would China absorb from that? Simple: America and the West will not oppose conquerors with anything other than strong Tweets. That means we, China, can do what we want to whomever we want, so let's start with Taiwan and the Japanese islands and go from there.
I think to do nothing would have been foolish as well. I feel great compassion for the people of Ukraine.
I'm delighted to see we agree, Lynne.
In 2014, Russia took over Crimea without much opposition. They probably figured that the rest of Ukraine would fall easily as well. Well, they learned differently. The difference is the motivation of the population. Crimean population had little support for Ukraine. But the rest of Ukraine is a different story and Russia found that out.
I think that China has a clear understanding that Taiwan doesn't want Chinese rule. And the lesson from Ukraine is for China to stay out of Taiwan.
Russia moved on the Crimea two days after the Maidan Revolution/coup started. The Obama administration was reportedly instrumental in that coup. A coup which overthrew an duly elected President albeit one favorable to Russia. Then the Ukraine-as-part-of-NATO Saber rattling began.
Agree with all you said here, David. Russia would have been smarter to pitch Z a border shift, in order that the parts of far eastern Ukraine that want to live in Russia do so with a border shift, in exchange for serious dough, trade agreements, or both. If done quietlym Z might have been OK with ridding himself of the hostile population in exchange for a good enough price.
But, czars will czar, and here we are.
China is derivative. They haven't had an original idea since the Ming dynasty. Their society is top down in every way. Yes, they learn from the west. They even steal from the west.
But when the lesson is that individual initiative wins the battle, they stop... This is because China will never allow its lower leaders to take initiative.
The article refers to the lesson learned in Crimea by the Ukrainians. That lesson is that decisions taken in the battle by lower level officers and even enlisted fighters are effective. But the Chinese society cannot learn that lesson. Top down rule by authority is too ingrained for China to ever change.
Individual initiative is what created American exceptionalism. Which I both believe in and applaud. But in case you have not noticed, the idea of American exceptionalism is under attack, from within and without.
As for your dismissiveness of China. China has existed far longer than has almost any culture currently in existence. Far, far longer than ours. They have a goal of world economic domination. I think it unwise to use their past to diminish their future. That does not even work in college football. The future is not yet writtenn.
Couldn't agree more with *all-a* that. TYTY.
Lynn, I totally agree with you. China is standing by watching the 'war games' in Europe. It is a larger, more ambitious and ruthless enemy than Russia or Iran.
All 3 are enemies of western civilization.
And learning that the U.S. and NATO are not feckless, weak victims that will be easy to exploit.
I agree, unless the western population (Europeans and Americans) are not so motivated as the Ukrainians. The article is clear about the importance of motivation in the effectiveness of the troops. If the west cannot field a motivated military... then we are weak, even if our weapons are the best.
The immediate question is whether our leadership is weak. If the U.S. did not help Ukraine, the Chinese would be encouraged to think we would not help Taiwan.
I almost always agree with you, but that is really simplistic. Have we been baited? Is China reading our military prowess in anticipation of action in Taiwan?
Sadly, I think the jury is out on that.
Really? You don't think they are surmising that we are stretched thin? That we send significant treasure to a place we have no obligation to and turn a blind eye to the fentanyly they produce that is flooding the border? I worry that they are playing chess and the current administration does not even understand a game is being played.
As I posted elsewhere, this may delay China's invasion of Taiwan. It is my understanding that Taiwan would be harder to invade than Ukraine.
Loooong term? Dunno.
Oh please they have started a modern opium war.
Yeah? I know. I was talking about Taiwan.
I was talking about China.
And making the military industrial complex richer and more of an institution than it already is. If you want that bigger and better, then your comment makes total sense.
Sorry, you missed my point. I want to make the military smaller and better. I want the military to stop making purchases which are ineffective... but expensive.
We need a military. Why? One word... Putin. Putins will crop up periodically in this world. Sad, but there they are.
And we must have a military to stop the Putins of the world. Anything which make that effort more efficient means that we spend less for better.
Would that the university-government science complex find ways to be more effective and cheaper. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address Then we might not be strapped with paying off useless student debt...
The government never finds a way to make things cheaper.
Okay...yes I did miss the point! Thanks for setting me straight! I am familiar with his address....It is a good reminder. I am taking a class on the Constitution and I do not think I learned about this portion of our history in school....pathetic to admit...making up for lost time! Thanks for the link to the address.
Ike's address was unusual. He was leaving the office of the Presidency and he wanted to say farewell to America as a public figure His service to the nation had been military and then political and he was done with it. Heart attack during office and great sacrifice to the nation... he was entitled to give a farewell.
He coined the "military industrial complex" phrase and the hippies of the anti Vietnam war grabbed ahold of it. It is true, there is a military industrial complex.
But there is also the thing that he mentioned right after that military thing... a science-government link which also promised to sully science. It doesn't have the same ring as the military industrial complex, but it is just as important. He lamented the situation that large government institutions were taking over the realm of science.
He said:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
But he also said:
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. " and : "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded."
And we get ... climate change. I challenge you to look at the "science" behind climate and reflect on the influence of government institutions and the power of money in regards climate crisis. Indeed, Ike's farewell address is one hellova smart speach... 60 years ago.
A true realpolitik comment, and totally correct.
Yes, he is correct, and so are you. Weapons and military structures need live battleground testing to rate their effectiveness under real war conditions, and this is one of the biggest proving grounds we've had in ages. Iraq and Afghanistan tested our soldiers, small arms and ammo, battlefield transportation, medical response, and logistics. Ukraine is testing our BAWs: Big Ass Weapons. Those artillery pieces are a wonder to behold, and this live fire testing is proving their worth. Even if thousands of Russian conscripts are dying in the process.
Also, restocking the massive drawdown of our weapons stocks will create a lot of factory jobs and strengthen our industrial economy. That our rich war contractors and their pet politicians will be made even richer is also true.
Realpolitik, no matter how true, is raw, bloody, and unpleasant.
It is in our national interest and a national priority to prevent Putin from expanding Russian influence and control over former Eastern Bloc nations and rebuilding a threatening Soviet empire at the expense of free Europe. The political experiment in appeasement that allowed Hitler to annex Austria and invade Czechoslovakia and Poland and led directly to World War Two in Europe should be a cautionary tale. Putin has repeatedly stated that the biggest mistake in Russia's history was allowing the break-up of the Soviet Union. His ambition is to restore hegemony over Eastern Europe and to weaken NATO and US influence in the West. The
US does not have the luxury of isolation anymore, either economically or militarily. The money spent in defending the Ukraine is well spent and much preferred to sending our troops to defend Europe against Putin's aggression.
Bullshit.
Maureen, your comment ignores the steps that entangled the U.S. and then NATO in Ukraine in the first place. It was hardly a plot from the left but the persistence of neocons, most of them Republicans, who ignored our pledge at the end of the cold war and the advice of our most informed advisors, like George Kennan, not to extend NATO eastward.
Much of that effort was undertaken to advance the interests of American corporations. Neocon Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland and the late Senator John McCain called for the overthrow of a legally-elected albeit corrupt President of Ukraine in 2014, meeting with neo-Nazis among others, and passing out sandwiches to the Maidan rebels. Shortly thereafter, American Big Ag companies moved in to snatch up rich Ukrainian farm land, fossil fuel companies looked to the oil wells in the Donbas and the chance to sell LNG in Ukraine once the Russian gas was shut off. Big finance profited from the loans that were extended to prop up the government and the MIC began selling weapons to the expanded NATO members.
If you'd bother to look, you'd find that what remains of the left in this country (not the corporate Democratic Party) has been opposed to our policies in Ukraine for years. Take a look at Tom Dispatch, Consortium News, or Google up Chris Hedges' articles and interviews. We're waging a proxy war in hopes of weakening Putin and Russia and advancing the interests of American corporations. The war was entirely avoidable had we abided by our agreements at the end of the Cold War of the Minsk agreements of 2014.
https://medium.com/@rdebacher/whats-really-up-in-ukraine-db58fec7d162
"Much of that effort was undertaken to advance the interests of American corporations."
Almost everything--everything--this nation does or does not do is in service to Big Corporate. As two-time Medal of Honor winner General Smedley Butler correctly noted nearly a century ago:
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
Yes, I’ve heard this argument. Always America’s fault. No other country involves itself in the politics of other nations, right?
Ukraine is an independent country now and if its people want to join NATO, I don’t blame them.
Of course Putin is threated by NATO at its doorstep. But NATO is a defensive organization. Why should he fear it? It’s his pride and ambition to restore a Russian empire that drives the attack.
America is not unique in this. Every nation on Earth involves itself in other people's politics and spies on their friends, neighbors, and neutrals, hoping to gain an edge for power, profit, and politics. We spy on Israel, Israel spies on us, we spy on England, England spies on France, which spies on Australia, which spies on China, which interferes with . . .
Always was, always will be.
I agree with you. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and if it wishes to join NATO, the EU, or the Barnum and Bailey Circus, it has every right to do so. Putin has no right to invade and conquer, and Ukraine is correctly repelling him and his unhappy troops.
Quite right about Ukrainian sovereignty, Shane, but it was silly and provocative for it to make EU and NATO membership a constitutional goal after the Maidan revolt. Ukraine has long been rated one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It does not now and won't for a long time meet the standards for EU or NATO membership. Putin's invasion was unjustified and should be repelled. But the long chain of events that led to the invasion could have been handled differently without compromising American security unless "security" is defined as advancing American corporate interests as it so often has been in the past.
Agreed, particularly with your last sentence . . . advancing the interests of Big Corporate takes precedence over almost every thing else this nation does.
A nuclear attack on Western Europe and.perhaps the United States, after he evacuated his leadership to underground shelters in the Urals,, just as the Soviets would nave done.
$100bn is a small price to pay unless we're willing to be rich but without influence, like say Japan.
The era of unchallenged US supremacy is over. (I'd say the change began when China joined the WTO). Our GDP is 20 $trillion, China's is closing in, already at $12t. Given our population we're unlikely to hang on to the #1 GDP spot. So we need to help allies and challenge competitors when needed - If we don't put up then we're giving up.
I agree, EP. you make a great point about China joining the WTO being a really key and underappreciated turning point.
This war could have ended much earlier as Putin wanted to negotiate. Boris Johnson's wife Carrie Johnson persuaded Boris to send missiles and artillery to Ukraine so that was the end of peace and Boris. Goodbye Boris.
Who says Putin wanted to negotiate? Putin? And was his offer to negotiate before or after he invaded and stole the Crimea?
Russia's ties to Crimea go back centuries, and when we supported the Maidan revolt to install a pro-western administration, planning the revolt during the Sochi Olympics while Putin was on his best behavior, Putin's reaction was entirely predictable, if deplorable. But Ukraine's claim to Crimea is circumstantial at best. It was assigned to Ukraine by Khrushchev in the mid 1950s for administrative purposes. The population of Crimea is 60% Russian, Stalin having "relocated" the Tartars decades earlier. It was never part of Ukraine prior to the administrative assignment within the USSR.
Yes, Russia agreed to recognize Ukraine's borders at the end of the cold war if Ukraine gave up its nukes. But it's factually wrong to assert that Crimea had long, close ties to Ukraine. Russian troops were stationed throughout Crimea prior to the "invasion" to ensure Russian access to its vital seaport in Sebastopol, a Russian possession since Peter the Great.
The events of 2014 -- the Maidan revolt and the Russian annexation of Crimea and fighting in Donbas were "settled" by the Minsk agreements, signed in September of that year. This agreement called for a cease fire, prisoner exchanges, and reform of the Ukrainian constitution, eliminating its aspirations for NATO membership, and granting a degree of autonomy to parts of the Donbas -- areas with large ethnic Russian populations that had suffered abuse and discrimination from right wing elements of the Ukrainian government. While both sides violated elements of the agreement, it was Ukraine, not Russia, that formally disavowed the treaty in 2018. The U.S. could have done more to pressure Ukraine toward a full implementation of the agreement. We didn't, Ukraine formally ended the agreement, and the road to a wider conflict was opened. That doesn't justify or excuse the subsequent Russian invasion or the wanton attacks on civilians, the torture, abuse, and killing of combatants, or other war crimes. I do believe, however, that this war was avoidable. We chose not to pursue such options.
This is a very sensible view, Richard, and I agree with virtually all of it. I would have preferred, as I'm sure you did, that Ukraine and Russia had quietly negotiated a new border that would "move" the Russian population centers of Donbas formally into Russia, create a land bridge through eastern Crimea to protect the port, and otherwise settle their differences peacefully. They could have announced this border move jointly along with trade agreements that benefitted both, told the Donbas people to move to whichever side of the border suited them best, paid for the relocations, and called it a day.
But nobody asked me, so this shit happened.
Who says Putin wanted to negotiate? Putin? And was his offer to negotiate before or after he invaded and stole the Crimea?
Please read the history of WW2 to learn what happens when a tyrant is not stopped at the beginning of a mad lust for power.
Gee, did I miss something Mary Ellen?
They did not know then, just like we do not know now.
Please read a history of WW2.
It's nuts that the US is supporting the Ukrainians to the extent that we are. Yes, Russia is an invading force and has no right to invade another country. Yes, the war is brutal and horrible (as far as I know, all wars are). Since when, however, should we be giving so much open support to the Ukrainians? During the Cold War, the US would covertly supply militaries and/or paramilitary organizations with arms, but at least we did so covertly. Now, we are openly handing over advanced arms and billions of dollars in aid (God knows if it really gets where it needs to, Ukraine is still a corrupt old-Soviet-bloc country) to the Ukrainians with no thought of how that could impact Russia's response. They are still a nuclear power and I would not be surprised to see Putin use tactical nukes. He is a thug and he will be deposed by his underlings if he can't produce some sort of result from this war.
Meanwhile, we have Joe Biden, who has been wrong on every single foreign policy decision since he's been in elected office, promising support to Ukraine with no strings attached and vague warnings about when military force might be used AND no clear goal in sight as to when supply/aid may cease.
Wars are started by fools like this. God help us.
10% to the big guy from all those board of directors earnings by Hunter. One can only imagine what dirt the Ukrainians have on Hunter that Joe knows about.
I expected something more thoughtful than this from you. As a civics refresher, it is for Congress to appropriate funds not the President in these situations. Given the massive bi-partisan support, under your theory, Ukraine must have “dirt” on pretty much everyone in Congress.
If your claim was even remotely true, do you really imagine that every single member of the GOP would have passed up such a golden opportunity to attack President Biden?
You seem to forget that many Republican Congress-critters are swamp creatures, feeding at the same trough as the Democrats.
You also seem to forget that some Republicans (especially the Congress-critter variety) never got over their Cold War hate for Russia or their belief that Russia never really stopped being Communist.
I have to admit, at first my Army training from 80's colored my opinion on this conflict. Any chance to stick it to Russia.....
So the Big Guy isn't Robinette? Then who? And what about the Chinese cash that was laundered to him through Hunter? "Golden opportunity?" How many politicians are taking Chinese cash? Or other "favors" such as Swalwell enjoyed? If you're that willfully gullible please don't waste our time.
Nice deflection and completely unresponsive to my point of nearly unanimous Congressional support of Ukraine’s self-defense.
In trying to keep an irrelevant talking point in this discussion, you are necessarily claiming that a significant portion of the GOP is in the pocket of Ukraine or China. That seems a pretty desperate ploy when all you needed to say was something about how far too many members of Congress have allowed themselves to be misled on, as a former President called it, Putin’s “genius” move in invading Ukraine.
Bottom line, unless you have any contrary evidence, the US policy on arming and funding Ukraine is bi-partisan and so not subject to 10%ism theorizing.
No deflection, at all. You dismissed "the Big Guy" smoking gun as not being remotely true. I merely pointed out the foolishness of that claim. If you were pointing to the funding of the Ukraine effort, you weren't clear. I agree that both sides of the aisle are pumping vast amounts of cash into Ukraine, much of which is wholly unrelated to the war effort. That's equally dumb. But probably not related to corruption.
While we now seem to be in agreement on the subject matter of my comment, it appears that the insertion of your 10% claim was no more than a verbal tic or declaration of party loyalty before you got around to addressing the topic at hand. I must admit, I missed that subtlety, but now we are on the same page.
She didn't make a link to GOP voters and dirt on Biden, you inferred that.
Remember that brief month when the government freaked out over virus research labs in Ukraine, which they said don't exist but are also concerning?
Yes, there's lots and lots of corruption in Ukraine, has been for a long time. We know about Hunter but I assume there is far more we don't know about. The whole thing is rotten top to bottom. This war was easily preventable.
Since you misunderstood my comment, let me make it clear: if, as NCMom and later Bruce Miller did, you link US involvement in Ukraine to their having compromising information on Biden père et fils, then it must follow, for that theory to be correct, that Ukraine has the goods not only on President Biden but on members of both parties which must then explain the overwhelmingly bi-partisan support of Ukraine by Congress which, unlike President Biden, calls the financial tune under our Constitution.
My conclusion was that the claims about Ukraine and dirt on the Bidens as motivating US assistance was an insertion of the irrelevant into what should be an adult discussion of an important topic.
I hope my position on this narrow issue is clear.
we have a blue and yellow flag or some sort od support sign in almost every yard here. both parties use this horrible "war" as a rallying cry to their cause.. not to mention a way to spend billions of dollars.. it certainly is bipartisan.. but not altruisitc
No one is pretending that Western assistance to Ukraine arises out of altruism. In international affairs, each country acts out of its perceived national interests. You might disagree with any particular state’s conclusion.
Let me explain where your logic fails.
"If they have dirt on Biden they must have dirt on Republicans and everyone who voted to join."
Either-or fallacy. There can be many many other reasons for Represetatives to join the vote.
I understood your comment perfectly. Your conclusion was both fallacious and false. Please stop treating commenters here like we are dumb. It's not an "adult conversation" when someone comes in with fallacies and self-praise for their imaginary maturity.
I’ll try one last time. Let’s assume Ukraine had “dirt” on members of the the Biden family, of what relevance would that be here if an overwhelming majority in Congress, untainted by any “dirt”, voted to fund the Ukrainian military and assist its economy? Ukraine would not need to even threaten its use.
I see no relevant purpose served in inserting it into this conversation, and you have suggested no basis for any connection between such “dirt” and this outpouring of US bi-partisan support for Ukraine, let alone provided evidence for one.
One correction, I meant to refer to NCMaureen.
Yes this war was preventable but your heroes Carlson and Peterson didn’t speak up against it. Carlson said no one would care if Russia invaded Ukraine and he promoted the moron Douglas Macgregor as an expert. Macgregor absurdly claimed Russia had legitimate reasons to fear Ukraine and now Peterson is saying it is naive to think Ukraine can win. Does this help you? Choose better heroes.
Whatever person you think considers Carlson a "hero" doesn't exist. You have an imaginary, hateful stereotype you are projecting on to me. Tucker has nothing to do with this story and I don't discuss him with people like you who force him into conversations purely so you can rage-hate the man.
Both of those people spoke out against the war. Peterson did so in the strongest and most condemnatory terms possible. I don't consider Tucker a hero, I consider him part of the propaganda machine. You don't have a clue what you are talking about and you are not really listening. You a rage spirit here to insult people, and that's it.
Near unanimous support from Congress just proves that the two parties aren't all that different. Sure their messaging sounds different and Americans love to fight amongst one another over the belief that there's a significance difference but the reality is they're mostly one and the same. Both cater to big corporations, including the military industrial complex. If you want to know who runs our government, look at which corporations/industries seem to benefit financially no matter what party is in office. I'll give you a hint: banks and defense. Another hint, neither party cares about the average American beyond the value in exploiting us for the benefit of the elite. Everything our federal government does is now a crisis (COVID, this war, the climate, "defending democracy from MAGA republicans..." and every crisis is justification for printing Billions or Trillions that ultimately ends up in the same hands. We Americans are getting played.
To be fair with regards to Congress, there isn't a rug big enough......
Now I understand you. How about those Lazers from outer space sent by George Soros??
Funny, How about those chocolate rations?
https://nevertrustawizard.substack.com/p/the-secret-of-npcs
Lasers
We are not supporting an insurgency but rather one side in a conventional war. There is really no way to "covertly" supply the kind of weaponry required to effectively counter the Russian invasion. Russian imperial aspirations are not limited to Ukraine and if the Ukrainians are willing to fight for their own freedom, I don't see why the Russians shouldn't be stopped here.
Even if Russia doesn’t intend to invade any other country it should be stopped at Ukraine’s borders. Unjustified invasions are like rapes. One is one too many.
From what I’ve seen, it looks like large parts of this war is resembling an insurgency.
I’m not trying to refute what you’re saying, but I think the situation on the ground is a lot more complicated that we may realize.
All the more reason to advise caution instead of openly shipping sophisticated weaponry to Ukraine to fight a nuclear power
Germany has already arrested people for peddling equipment the US provided to Ukraine there, including stinger missiles.
I will have a controversial opinion.
Well honestly I don't care if Ukraine wins of losses. It is not our problem
For last 30 years we Americans have sent trillions of $ abroad, while at same time there was never money for things at home.
Currently we are facing several major crisis in US:
- Healthcare is unaffordable
- Social Security is running out of money
- infrastructure is falling apart
- Student debt crisis
- opioid crisis (killed more Americans than people have died in war in Ukraine )
- Housing crisis (if you are under 30 chances are you will never own home)
- mental health crisis or major cities look like open air mental institutions
- crime is rampant
- inflation is killing middle class (what is left of middle class)
- ballooning debt that we will leave our children
- out of control deficit
these are only ones ot of top of my head
For last 30 years, nothing was done for any of these issues and time is running out. Our politicians are more than willing to send $60+ Billion to one of most corrupt nations in the world, while Americans don't have access to drinking water and basic infrastructure.
So no, honestly I don't care about Ukraine, it is European problem, and Europe is more than rich enough to deal with it. Our founding fathers have warned us exactly about this, why we should not meddle in European problems, we left hat continent with a reason, no need to spend taxpayer $$$ there.
I wish people of Ukraine all luck, but honestly, we Americans need to think about helping ourselves, before it is too late.
It is a European problem, but they can't afford to defend themselves; they spend all their tax money on free education, free Healthcare, paid parent leave, daycare, etc. It's a choice we are facing now too.
Which is exactly why Americans haven't been able to afford those things. Time to stop providing Europe with military protection.
Bread and circuses to keep the masses' attention elsewhere. It has worked since antiquity, dear Raziel, so why not keep it up?
I tend to agree with you, but we live in an interconnected world. And the whole world is suffering because of Putin’s aggression. America has always been expected to shoulder most of the burden, and I chafe at that. Europeans do need to do more. Maybe a cold, expensive winter will change their minds. And it’s not just households that will suffer. Big European manufacturers use a lot of energy, and they will take a hit. Americans invest in those companies, and they will take a hit too. It’s that interconnectedness….
EU + UK have population of over 500 Million people, that is singinficantly more than we. Their combined GDP is similar to our own.
Europe has more than enough money. They can defend for themselves.
And yes it is interconnected world. If you think our European friends are addicted to Russian gas, wait until you see how addicted they are on China. The will be 0 use to us, in any confrontation in Asia. Europe is dying continent fast declining importance in the world, future is in Asia and Pacific.
And honestly, I dont care about Putin and Russia, we had Bush (war criminal, invaded Iraq on lie and damaged US more than Putin). Lets start cleaning up at home, because world will need US in the future, we cant help them, if we bankrupt ourselves and kill ourselves with opioids.
Raziel - Agreed. There’s a lot of ethnic struggles in other countries that have been going on since before the US was founded. Sometimes we need to butt out & mind our own business. It’s hubris to think we know what’s best for everyone else.
I’m with you 100% on the Ukrainian war now.
I object to calling GW Bush a “war criminal”. Hussein had convinced most of the members of his government that they did have WMDs, so our intelligence was based on bad info. Was the bad intel solely the fault of our own agencies? Maybe. I’m not informed enough on the topic to have a strong opinion.
However, in the aftermath of 9/11, there was a very strong national urge to “do something”, and Hussein happened to be that something. The military invasion was a spectacular success as far as invasions go, but the problem was that once the Ba’athist regime was overthrown, there was no clear and decisive objective. That’s when the occupation started to go downhill until the surge in 2007. At that point, Iraq was a somewhat stable country... until the Obama administration threw it away to focus on Afghanistan (and we see how well that turned out).
The US military conducted itself like choirboys in comparison to other invading countries. Other than counter-insurgency ops, the US built schools and hospitals. How often in history have invading armies done that?
Was GW Bush justified in pushing the invasion of Iraq? No, but for years he had pretty broad support for it. Only Bernie Sanders voted against the invasion.
Is it fair to call GW Bush a “war criminal” considering all that? I don’t think so.
After reading all of that before I post it, I almost cringe at the fact that I’m defending Bush. He can be called a lot of things, but I don’t think “war criminal” is one of them.
I'm not sure if You understand the concept of having ALLIANCES, Raziel.
Yeah, Europe is in too tight with the Chinese. It remains to be seen if they're gonna roll *over* for them, right? Leastways, I don't have a crystal ball on that.
Bush? This is 2022. When Putin is someone to be reckoned with.
Not controversial at all, Raziel. Pure common sense and rational thinking. Something that the Democrats and RINOs are totally lacking, apparently.
Yeah, like You *only* are capable of common sense.
You MAGA folks have too muchuva tendency to be isolationist. That's the *opposite* of common sense. Can You see that? I have my doubts.
Our founding fathers were isolationist with good reason. And they have warnd us against meddling in Europe and their problems.
Empires cost money and tend to go bankrupt.
Empires that don't spend sufficiently collapse as well, right?
What I don't understand is why Your so much in favor of a Chinese hegemony, Raziel.
Vietnam: Democrats
Civil Rights Act: Republicans
China: MFN, WTO, unfair trade treaties, ignored their June 6 slaughter of unarmed students - this was all Democrats (maybe a bit of G.H.W. Bush sprinkled in as well)
Iraq: bipartisan. Both sides went full Rambo.
Libya: Democrats
Ukraine: Democrats (and RINOs).
See a trend here? The Democrats are the warmongering party, despite all their gaslighting to the contrary. And the dumb liberal voters just swallow the propaganda.
When You decide to comment on *Ukraine* situation, with some common sense, lemme know.
Typical conservative...bragging about the civil rights act.
Typical conservative... pointing out inconvenient facts.
Great comment. Recently traveled to Spain. Everything was clean and beautiful. No litter. No potholes. No burned out buildings. We have work to do HERE.
This is one-a rare occasions when I gotta say You're wrong, Raziel.
I'm *all* for AMERICA FIRST!
But *America only* is a really myopic way of looking at things. If Russia can be held to winning the Donbas and all-a that crap, it'll be a win for Ukraine and the U.S. and it's allies. You underestimate the value of that.
Then we can concentrate on CHINA for the next tens years, right?
EU and UK have population of 500 million people with GDP that is similar to our own. If they are unable to defend them self against Russia (Population of 140 million and 1/10 GDP) then they are useless in any conflict with China or anything else.
Our European "allies" have underinvested in defense for last 30 years, because their primary way of thinking is, US will defend us, we dont have to do anything.
At same time those "allies" have developed welfare states that provide "goodies" to population that we can only dream of. They have free college, free healthcare, paid maternity leave and many others.
And if you think that our "allies" are addicted to Russia for energy, wait till you see how addicted they are to trade with China and how "willing" will be to help.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know, Raziel. But it sounds like Your view is that Europe should just go to the dogs and get absorbed into Russia if they can't *defend* themselves against Russia.
The problem with that is that was *why* NATO was created in the first place. Where would the U.S. end up if we just ignored treaties and allowed that to happen? One guess.
I would also point out that EU has upped their defense payouts, and added two members to boot. Does that factor into Your thinking?
Preach, brother
sister
Are we assuming gender identities?
Cancelled.
I don’t care what stupid people like you think.
Sure mate ehat ever you say. Comments like this really show your intelligence.
Somewhere, somewhen, someone made a witty observation about people who call other people stupid.
This entire article feels like it should have a “brought to you by Lockheed Martin” introduction. It reads like pure propaganda. It stands out to me that A) most Americans don’t understand anything about Ukraine except Big Bad Putin and his “price hikes” B) there’s no discussion of our role in the 2014 coup that happened in Ukraine, and C) the Democratic Party is now a full war supporting entity. When a handful of GOP in congress are the few questioning the war spending, I know we’re in trouble. For four years we were inundated with fears that Trump would start WW3. And here we are, fighting a war with Russia under a career Democrat politician. And the saddest part is if you question the war, you’re labeled a conservative. If we were at war with Russia under Trump, the dems would have impeached him again and the Rachel Maddow’s would want DT charged with war crimes. Instead it’s now patriotic to support a war we don’t clearly benefit from. I just don’t get it.
This entire article feels like it should have a “brought to you by Lockheed Martin” …
Nailed it.
I am not opposed to learning "another side" of an arugment but as Ihave pointed out re the last few columns that have appeared here, I don't pay for something I can read in the NYTimes for 25 cents a week. What is happening to Bari? - Are these really the only people she can find to fill her CS platform? How about a viewpoint that we don't get in all the MSM I am close to unsubscribing.
I agree. This was straight MSM propaganda. I'd love for CS to have someone break down how we got to this point with Ukraine. The little I've learned makes me question the entire conflict.
Read Jacques Baud at Postil Magazine. I'm not sure it's 100% accurate, but it is certainly more enquiring than this uncritical piece. Even in the first paragraph about territorial gains/losses, the authors make the avoidable error of ascribing motives to Russia that it simply does not have.
That was a well-written piece. As you said, it may not be 100% accurate but it definitely presents a different point of view. Even if only half is true, it challenges what we're being told by our media and politicians.
After the last six years, I've come to realize that very little in our media is about finding truth. It is about pushing narratives. For four years, we watched the liberal MSM viciously attack DT. I don't like him nor do I feel sorry for him. That said I recognize that the media's actions likely did more damage to our country and society than DT's actions. Then we had two years of COVID narrative pushed on us that mostly turned out to be completely wrong. American trust in the media is at an all time low and it's clear why.
Interestingly, in this article, Baud mentions the American attitude as knowing better than others. That attitude exists within our country. Our own media and government have told Americans that they know what is best for us. Millions of Americans support censorship of anything the government and media deem misinformation. It is so scary to see.
One of the most difficult things for us to do is question our own beliefs and our own team's actions. We see this every day in politics. It's always the other team's fault. We have to learn to criticize ourselves before we blame others. Putin is by no means innocent in this conflict but neither is the west.
Thanks for sharing this. Very enlightening.
You're very welcome.
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
Yes it would have been better to have a point-counterpoint set of opposing views, as she has sometimes done in the past.
I would definitely like to see more of those.
Trump ended wars, pulled out U.S. troops, made the Europeans pay more for their own defense, negotiated a historic treaty between Israel & five Arab/Muslim states... and got no credit for it.
Biden broke the budget, pandered to the odious Iranian regime, and put us closer to nuclear confrontation with Russia than since 1962... and the Dems are jumping for joy.
Which may be why Trump had to go. It defies logic. It doesn't defy feelings but it defies logic. Non-machiavellian logic anyway.
Yup
There are worse things than being called a conservative.
The authors never define what they mean by "winning."
How about this:
Russia surrenders and pays huge reparations. Putin is tried for war crimes. Russian nuke stockpiles are dismantled.
Hey, a girl can dream.
Can you dream of a nuclear holocaust?
Because that’s far, far more likely than your scenario.
NCMaureen
A girl can dream, but can she reason and speak fairly? Victory is Russia being driven out of Ukraine and the Russian people dealing with Putin for listening to Tucker Carlson and Colonel Douglas Macgregor Blimp.
LOL! Wow, delusional. Let me guess - warmonger and profiteer Jack Keane is your guy.
I think victory is understood as achieving Ukraine’s stated aims of liberating all its territory. But they could have been more clear about it.
All of its territory such as what? The Crimea, which Obama allowed Russia to annex? The Eastern provinces, that Russia took also under Obama's "watch?"
Yes. All of it. That’s how the Ukrainians have defined victory.
If that’s actually how they are defining victory then the people running Ukraine are extraordinarily dangerous buffoons.
You don’t just take back Crimea. You would also have to remove Putin from power and install a Ukraine friendly government in Moscow. Good luck with that.
Is Greta Thunberg running Ukraine? Because that is some poorly considered imbecilic utopianism.
“Oh yeah we just take back Crimea and then collect profits.”
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Their official and maximalist position is not necessarily what they’ll settle for if push comes to shove. But regardless, it doesn’t follow that “you” have to remove Putin from power and all the rest of what you wrote.
Well yeah I mean someone somewhere has to remove Putin and replace him with a friendly. Can you put a percentage chance on that happening? That would obviously be the best thing ever………but pursuing this maybe-not-super-likely goal has a fairly extreme death and destruction toll at this point.
Crimea has been under de facto Russian control since 1783. It’s their only year round warm water naval base. It is an absolutely vital part of their national security and they will defend it to the last.
Attempting to “liberate” Crimea will result in WW3 in which hundreds of millions would die, if not billions.
I would encourage you to stop sucking up the propaganda, and realize that the stakes here are far higher than DC would have you believe. There is no scenario where Russia “loses” and they don’t lash out. In the Kremlin, Putin is a moderate and if he falls, he is more likely to be replaced by someone worse than otherwise.
We’re playing with nuclear fire here and nobody in charge appears to want to de-escalate. That should scare the living hell out of everyone.
I would encourage you to not make assumptions where I am concerned. I only reiterated the official Ukrainian position, which frankly I would take too if it was my country at stake.
As for the rest, I have no particular reason to take your word for any of it.
You just openly admitted that you cannot refute or confirm my assertion on the history of the region, but you’re willing to take a position on the war without that knowledge.
The beautiful thing about the modern internet is that you don’t have to take my word for it, or the Ukrainian government’s or the Russian’s or DC’s. It’s perfectly accessible.
I think that eventually Russia will lose Crimea to an insurgency but that is not the immediate objective of Ukraine.
That’s actually the view of Turkey’s President Erdogan, every inch of Ukrainian territory seized and/or illegally annexed by Russia since 2014.
So we should fight to the death for Donbas AND Erdogan?
And you divined that response from which statement in my comments? Fight to the death sounds pretty dramatic but it’s possible that Putin’s military collapses from low morale and poor leadership or his regime does from mounting internal and external pressures. The battlefield, though undeniably important, is not the only arena that bears watching.
“And you divined that response from which statement in my comments?”
———————————————
Ahh ha!! So now we are pretending that we don’t know why you cited Erdogan. It’s like radio mystery theater!! Discussing war is fun.
You know if we’re going to invade Russia and take back Crimea, I bet there are other territories that Putin should not have control of because he is mean.
The key to global conflict is figuring out who is mean. Once you know who is mean you can charge forward heedlessly because no matter what catastrophes ensue you can always defend your position with
“Yeah but he’s mean.”
We're not fighting to the death for anything. Ukrainians are.
Oh okay. Well then we should keep this going as long as possible.
Isn't Erdogan the same guy who cozied up to Vlad and bought Russian weapons?Now that's a trustworthy ally.
Turkey also shot down a Russian fighter over Syria some years ago. Of course, as you know, there’s quite a long history of - shall we say - antagonism between the imperial predecessors of Russia and Turkey which generally ended with Turkey ceding territory.
It’s all about perceived national interests. Remember when Turkey was for years a close ally of Israel’s until Erdogan destroyed that relationship as part of his neo-Ottoman fantasy until he’s now running hard after Israel to patch things up - while trying to screw Greece and Cyprus? It’s a big chessboard out there, so nothing should surprise anyone.
"It's a big chessboard" is the only thing I take about about any of this as unequivocally true.
Shhhhhh! We aren't supposed to know that.
This war will end when Joe Biden is sure he has destroyed all of the evidence and killed all of the witnesses.
The people who want to triple the price of everything so that you are poor and desperate for government intervention will be the ones who win this war.
If you see a single mother crying at the grocery store, tell her it’s worth it because we’re
“Doin’ it for Donbas!!”
Those same people who want us to eat bugs? To own nothing and enjoy it? To care more about who won yesterday's game than that our retirement accounts are being destroyed and our children can't even afford housing?
*trans children
Yes, in their wet dreams. And they're really MAPS, not just filthy pedos.
MAPS??
Minor Attracted Persons
Please see Ashley Biden’s diary for a more detailed explanation.
“She was 12, I was 30”
We’re pushing close to spending 100 billion dollars to protect a country that we have ZERO alliances or treaties with, that is not vital to us in any officially recognized way, shape or form, and for what? So Western Europe is protected? The same Western Europe that’s spent the last decade funding the Russian war machine by importing Russian gas? The same Western Europe who hasn’t sent any money to Ukraine since the Spring?
And what’s the plan to deal with the 11 million ethnic Russians living in Ukraine? Why does no one ever talk about them? What’s the plan to heal the very deep wounds the Ukrainian government has inflicted on them in the last 8 years? Kind of hard to move forward as a country when your government has demonized and alienated 18% of the population by banning their language and culture from television and radio.
Yes. The question nobody ever seems to ask is "what next?". What happens if Russia is defeated? Who comes to power in a defeated Russia ? In all of the wars for "democracy" in the last 60 years, when has the war ever resulted in the US leaving behind a new democratic system? Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Now you are asking the right questions. Follow the money.
No one except Putin & his massive ego want this war.
Ukrainians don’t want this war. Russians in Ukraine don’t want this war. Russians in Russia don’t want this war. Not only are Ukrainian mothers & children dying & suffering because of Putin, but Russian mothers & children are suffering as well.Millions of Russians have been running away from Russia in the past year, which is now accelerating since the draft.
Putin must be defeated & this war must be stopped as soon as possible. His goal has always been to re-create the Soviet union & expand Russia, no matter how many people he kills in the process.
*side note: if anyone is watching Jimmy Dore videos on this Russia war, go ahead & stop right now. All Jimmy Dore videos on this particular topic use Russian propaganda as their sources. Find a non-propaganda source. 
The Military Industrial Complex and American Elites want this war very much. Who did you think are preventing peace talks?
Perhaps instead of labeling opposing views as "Russian Propaganda," you could argue your opinion. "Putin must be defeated & this war must be stopped as soon as possible" sounds just like pro-war propaganda. How about we just focus on trying to end the war as soon as possible while preventing as many deaths as possible? Why does the pro-war position our government takes always include a "beat Putin" clause? You pretend to show empathy for Russian mothers and children while advocating for defeating Putin. Does fighting a war to defeat Putin not open the door for more deaths? You sound like a pro-bot here to push our government's narrative.
Russian mothers don’t want this war and they don’t want to send their children to fight in this stupid war. Which is why millions are running away. The only person who wants this war is Putin and it’s just about his ego. Invading and conquering. Killing.
Russia, like many other authoritarian countries (North Korea, Iran, China etc) does not have a free press. All official news in Russia (such as RT) is censored by the kremlin. When I refer to Russian propaganda used by Jimmy Dore, I am referring to RT which is censored by the kremlin.
You cannot trust an authoritarian country’s news sources because they are not free press and their news is direct propaganda.
No one is arguing that Russian mothers want this war. My point is you appear to show empathy for human life in one sentence, then advocate for defeating Putin in the next. Defeating Putin, if even possible without starting WW3, WILL result in more death on both sides. If you are truly concerned for innocent lives, then perhaps an ending to this war that doesn't involve "defeating Putin" would be better for everyone involved. Our government is not pursuing that whatsoever. So if you are empathetic, you should be concerned that a less destructive ending to this conflict is not being sought.
JD uses many sources. Some may be more reputable than others. I've never heard him hang his hat on a single source. Many of the issues he's raised have been well cited in multiple sources. Again, to discount everything he says as "Russian Propaganda" makes you sound like a person that can not debate a point so you resort to writing him off as a Putin puppet. This has been the way of our MSM for the last 6 years and if you scroll through these comments, you see the same thing. I suggest you scroll up and look for a couple of posts by EricStoner. He's listed an abundance of sources that aren't from "direct propaganda."
Finally, allow me ask you an honest question, do you really believe that one can trust our MSM and it is much different than the propaganda you cite from other countries? For the last 2 1/2 years, we've been fed a narrative that turned out to be largely false. Anyone that questioned that narrative was labeled right wing, a Trumper, fringe, etc and then often censored. While I agree with you that there are inaccurate news sources based in other countries, I challenge the notion that our press is much different--that's why many of us are here on Common Sense.
Can’t really investigate wrongdoing in Ukraine when it is at war. Am I right, folks?
Ukraine will be able to defend itself until US involvement falls out of fashion and the politicians currently supporting sending 100's of billions to the effort sense a public opinion change then they will do a 180 and act as if they always opposed dumping money into the abyss.
Eventually this will happen, and Russia will take Ukraine.
Just ask the schoolgirls in Afghanistan
I’m not sure I want to contribute any more than the $54B in US taxpayers’ dollars already invested for the win.
We don’t get a say.
some fraction of that money could have been spent on K-12 security to prevent future mass shootings. Also could have been put into hiring and training more police. Build more prisons to house the violent offenders. Seal up the border to prevent opioid smuggling (we were a few million dollars away from finishing it, actually).
So much good could have been done. Instead, fighting a proxy war with Russia that will probably blow up in our faces. But hey at least our defense manufacturers benefit.
While this was interesting and highlighted the difficulties of defeating people fighting for their homeland and freedom, I would have much more appreciated an investigation of the reports by - among others, Tucker Carlson - that, at the very beginning of the war, Russia had agreed to total withdrawal in return for Ukraine's pledge not to join NATO. In other words, if true, all the death, casualties and destruction might have been avoided - had not the Biden Administration nixed the deal.
Allow me also to point out that this article puts the lie to Biden's frighteningly idiotic claim that, because our government has F-15s and nukes, a free people can never rise up against it.
Triggernometry interviewed Tom Cooper in an interview Is Ukraine Winning? He is a Russian who seems to have a real grasp of what is going on. Why not get him? Or even Jordan Peterson who has some idea that it is naive to think Russia will lose. Anyone but the military industrial complex represented in this article.
That's something the Leftists never seem to consider about Ukraine--the people have the will to fight. We (and Russia and Britain) discovered the same thing in Afghanistan.
If that is true, then Putin and Biden equally share the blame in the deaths of Ukrainian mothers and children.
Two spooks from a opaque 'think tank' that is wholly sponsored by a single billionaire. Nice work Bari!
Exactly. We're they involved in the coup?
Who knows. But we do know that the reptilian Victoria Nuland was up to her rank armpits in Ukraine under Obama and that she now has a prominent place in the Biden cabal. In fact that was her vicious visage in the UN last week.
Please tell me you are using "reptilian" sarcastically rather because you believe the conspiracy theory about aliens.
For Ukraine to even begin to have a fighting chance the West would have to supply them with fixed wing aircraft, attack helicopters, tanks and so forth. NATO member states have already shelled out billions of dollars in aid to provide artillery and small arms. Is it really realistic to presume that aid in the future would be increased/accelerated to provide that equipment?
At this point the most realistic outcome that does not involve the total dissolution of the Ukrainian state is to trade territory for peace. Supplying even more arms to the Ukrainians is counter productive if it provides them with false hope and delays that resolution.
Not to mention, many believe providing aircraft would significantly change the perception of the West's involvement and lead to an escalation.
ESG caused this war. It gave Putin the leverage to try it.
If your emotions tell you to leave the front door open and a grizzly bear walks into your house, it isn’t “pro-grizzly bear” to tell you you’re a moron for leaving the door open and blame you for causing this.
I mean I could blame the grizzly bear…….but it’s a bear.
If you support ESG, go get sterilized immediately.
I think it's safe to say, the average liberal is anti-children anyway. They're not reproducing.
They go into professions (like education) that allow them to brainwash and control other people's children. Their recent defensive of pedophiles (oops, "MAPs") suggests that some of them want to do more than merely brainwash.
What does "winning" look like?