Colors of Blue and Gold

[Richard Smith]

Either Biden is lying or Zelenskyy is lying. Or neither is lying because it's hard to tell. Both Russians and Ukrainians use a lot of Soviet weapons.

If it was Ukraine it is no big deal. Everyone understands that Ukraine has nothing against Poland. It would clearly be a missile which they tried to knock down a Russian missile or drone. As long as Russia keeps insisting on attacking Ukraine, under the desperate illusion that one more day of missile attack will break Ukraine's will, accidents will happen from time to time. The U. S. Army Air Force bombed Switzerland from time to time because accidents do happen in war. This did not result in a war between the United States and Switzerland.

WWIII is not a "big deal"?  Unreal.  The Ukranians intentionally lied about the missile in an effort to escalate their regional conflict into a war between NATO and Russia.  The remnants of the missile were found.  They have been identified as the type being used only by Ukraine.   No one suggested they intentionally attacked Poland.  What they did was fire a missile that landed in Poland killing people and then lied about it to blame Russia in an attempt to force the US and NATO to join the conflict starting WWIII.  This demonstrates that the Ukranians are willing to falsify information in an effort to start WWIII.  Incredibly dangerous and exposes Ukraine as a corrupt country willing to do and say anything to escalate this war.  It's astounding that anyone would attempt to excuse this behavior.  The US taxpayers have already paid TWICE the annual amount that we were paying to stay in Afghanistan.  Three times the entire military budget of Russia has been spent in Ukraine with no end in sight.  The Ukranians desperately want a war between the US and Russia.  They will say or do anything for that objective.  Zelensky continued to lie and insist it was a Russian missile even after the US presented him with evidence to the contrary.  Every bit of information coming from our media out of Ukraine should be suspect.

[Joe Elliott]

WWIII is not a "big deal"?  Unreal.  The Ukranians intentionally lied about the missile in an effort to escalate their regional conflict into a war between NATO and Russia.  The remnants of the missile were found.  They have been identified as the type being used only by Ukraine.   No one suggested they intentionally attacked Poland.  What they did was fire a missile that landed in Poland killing people and then lied about it to blame Russia in an attempt to force the US and NATO to join the conflict starting WWIII.  This demonstrates that the Ukranians are willing to falsify information in an effort to start WWIII.  Incredibly dangerous and exposes Ukraine as a corrupt country willing to do and say anything to escalate this war.  It's astounding that anyone would attempt to excuse this behavior.  The US taxpayers have already paid TWICE the annual amount that we were paying to stay in Afghanistan.  Three times the entire military budget of Russia has been spent in Ukraine with no end in sight.  The Ukranians desperately want a war between the US and Russia.  They will say or do anything for that objective.  Zelensky continued to lie and insist it was a Russian missile even after the US presented him with evidence to the contrary.  Every bit of information coming from our media out of Ukraine should be suspect.

WWIII is not a "big deal"? Unreal.

WWIII is a "big deal". But so is the Russian occupation of Europe right up to the borders of France.

If the threat of WWIII is enough for us to stand down and allow Ukraine to be occupied, why couldn't the same threat be made against:
The Baltic States?
Poland?
Germany?
The low countries?
Scandinavia?

Yes, our NATO treaty obliges us to help these other countries. But couldn't it be argued it would be better to break our treaty then to have WWIII?

Indeed, since Russia could tell France: "You don't have enough nuclear weapons to devastate all of Russia. It would be better to live under us than to die from nuclear war.",
I don't see why Russia couldn't use the same arguments against France, Great Britain, or even the United States.

Backing down from Russian doesn't make it less likely for nuclear bombs to be used. It makes it more likely, in the long run. Success will encourage Russia to not only make more threats of WWIII in the future, but if we do back down now but stand up to them later, more likely to actually use some nuclear bombs. If threats alone caused us to back down before, surely using a few nuclear bombs, not just threats, would cause us to back down in the future.

Question:

Why don't you admit that it's not just Ukraine that is at stake? It's all of Europe. And maybe more.

[Richard Smith]

WWIII is not a "big deal"? Unreal.

WWIII is a "big deal". But so is the Russian occupation of Europe right up to the borders of France.

If the threat of WWIII is enough for us to stand down and allow Ukraine to be occupied, why couldn't the same threat be made against:
The Baltic States?
Poland?
Germany?
The low countries?
Scandinavia?

Yes, our NATO treaty obliges us to help these other countries. But couldn't it be argued it would be better to break our treaty then to have WWIII?

Indeed, since Russia could tell France: "You don't have enough nuclear weapons to devastate all of Russia. It would be better to live under us than to die from nuclear war.",
I don't see why Russia couldn't use the same arguments against France, Great Britain, or even the United States.

Backing down from Russian doesn't make it less likely for nuclear bombs to be used. It makes it more likely, in the long run. Success will encourage Russia to not only make more threats of WWIII in the future, but if we do back down now but stand up to them later, more likely to actually use some nuclear bombs. If threats alone caused us to back down before, surely using a few nuclear bombs, not just threats, would cause us to back down in the future.

Question:

Why don't you admit that it's not just Ukraine that is at stake? It's all of Europe. And maybe more.

The only NATO country to be attacked is Poland by Ukraine.  There is zero indication that Russia intends to invade any NATO country.  The difficulties that the Russians are having dealing with just Ukraine lend themselves to the conclusion that they are unable to invade any other countries.  It's a dangerous premise to suggest that WWIII should be risked based on a regional conflict in which the US has no direct interest.  The US taxpayers have already paid THREE times the total annual Russian military budget to finance this war. 

Do you ever ask yourself why the US always involves themselves in these endless conflicts and pays for them while other countries do little or nothing?  Don't you find that odd?  If Europe is at risk, why aren't they carrying the burden of this war instead of the US?  How long are US taxpayers going to fund this war?  Will it be like Afghanistan in which the military and politicians lied for decades about the progress being made to obtain billions of dollars only to have the entire situation fall apart within a week.  You have no concern about the Ukrainians lying to try to bait the US and NATO into WWIII? 

[Joe Elliott]

The only NATO country to be attacked is Poland by Ukraine.  There is zero indication that Russia intends to invade any NATO country.  The difficulties that the Russians are having dealing with just Ukraine lend themselves to the conclusion that they are unable to invade any other countries.  It's a dangerous premise to suggest that WWIII should be risked based on a regional conflict in which the US has no direct interest.  The US taxpayers have already paid THREE times the total annual Russian military budget to finance this war. 

Do you ever ask yourself why the US always involves themselves in these endless conflicts and pays for them while other countries do little or nothing?  Don't you find that odd?  If Europe is at risk, why aren't they carrying the burden of this war instead of the US?  How long are US taxpayers going to fund this war?  Will it be like Afghanistan in which the military and politicians lied for decades about the progress being made to obtain billions of dollars only to have the entire situation fall apart within a week.  You have no concern about the Ukrainians lying to try to bait the US and NATO into WWIII?

It is false to suggest that no other country are is doing it's share. From (from November 10, 2022 data):

https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/

Yes, the U. S. has contributed far more than any other country. As is natural, since we have the world's biggest economy.

A better measure is:

    Per cent of a nation's GDP, or "Gross Domestic Product"

which is, by country:

0.90 %   Latvia
0.30 %   Poland
0.25 %   United States
0.10 %   Great Britain
0.06 %   Canada
0.03 %   Germany

This may be a little misleading because this chart, for the U. S. shows military, financial and humanitarian aid, where I believe the figures for the other countries is just for military aid. So the total contribution, counting financial and humanitarian aid of the other countries is actually higher.

Germany's contribution being low is understandable, given their extreme dependence on energy supplies from Russia, more so than any other country. They arguably have enough to do providing heat for their homes. And their military needs to be beefed up a lot. Germany's military strength is at such a low level, they just don't have a lot of surplus they can immediately send. So much for putting one's faith in Russia's good will. Poland and Latvia are in stronger positions to help, partly because much of their military equipment is of the old Soviet style, more compatible with what Ukraine is mostly using in it's war.

And European countries, in far greater danger of direct invasion than the United States, need to start beefing up their own military, as well as sending aid to Ukraine.

It is surprising how much Poland and Latvia have contributed, given how poor those countries are, and the threat they face from Russia in the coming years. On the other hand, they are in danger of losing 100 % of their GDP if Russia overruns them so spending up to 0.9 % of aid for Ukraine is very penny foolish, but dollar wise.

And again, our military aid to Ukraine is under 10 per cent of what we spend each year on our own defense. Most of our defense expenditures over the years, does not go into doing something useful, like subtracting from Russia's offensive potential. It generally gets stored away and not used, or used in questionable wars, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. This ten per cent sent to Ukraine is by far the most productive, dollar for dollar, military expenditures, we have made in the last 60 plus years. It directly subtracts from Russia's offensive capabilities. These expenditures do immediate good. Much of this expenditures is in military aid that we consider obsolete but which is very useful for the Ukrainians. Yes, most Stinger Missiles are gone, but our military stopped using them or making them immediately available for our troops years ago, because we now have better and more useful options now.

[Richard Smith]

It is false to suggest that no other country are is doing it's share. From (from November 10, 2022 data):

https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/

Yes, the U. S. has contributed far more than any other country. As is natural, since we have the world's biggest economy.

A better measure is:

    Per cent of a nation's GDP, or "Gross Domestic Product"

which is, by country:

0.90 %   Latvia
0.30 %   Poland
0.25 %   United States
0.10 %   Great Britain
0.06 %   Canada
0.03 %   Germany

This may be a little misleading because this chart, for the U. S. shows military, financial and humanitarian aid, where I believe the figures for the other countries is just for military aid. So the total contribution, counting financial and humanitarian aid of the other countries is actually higher.

Germany's contribution being low is understandable, given their extreme dependence on energy supplies from Russia, more so than any other country. They arguably have enough to do providing heat for their homes. And their military needs to be beefed up a lot. Germany's military strength is at such a low level, they just don't have a lot of surplus they can immediately send. So much for putting one's faith in Russia's good will. Poland and Latvia are in stronger positions to help, partly because much of their military equipment is of the old Soviet style, more compatible with what Ukraine is mostly using in it's war.

And European countries, in far greater danger of direct invasion than the United States, need to start beefing up their own military, as well as sending aid to Ukraine.

It is surprising how much Poland and Latvia have contributed, given how poor those countries are, and the threat they face from Russia in the coming years. On the other hand, they are in danger of losing 100 % of their GDP if Russia overruns them so spending up to 0.9 % of aid for Ukraine is very penny foolish, but dollar wise.

And again, our military aid to Ukraine is under 10 per cent of what we spend each year on our own defense. Most of our defense expenditures over the years, does not go into doing something useful, like subtracting from Russia's offensive potential. It generally gets stored away and not used, or used in questionable wars, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. This ten per cent sent to Ukraine is by far the most productive, dollar for dollar, military expenditures, we have made in the last 60 plus years. It directly subtracts from Russia's offensive capabilities. These expenditures do immediate good. Much of this expenditures is in military aid that we consider obsolete but which is very useful for the Ukrainians. Yes, most Stinger Missiles are gone, but our military stopped using them or making them immediately available for our troops years ago, because we now have better and more useful options now.

Those numbers are wildly overblown since the US is also giving support to those NATO countries including paying for the privilege of defending them.  Europe can afford its socialist agenda only because the US has provided the military force for its defense including paying to use the military bases in Europe used by Americans to defend Europe.  As Trump pointed out numerous times, many NATO members don't even pay their small share.  It is one of the greatest scams in history.  The US military and contractors convince the politicians to pay trillions to defend Europe and then kickback payments to the politicians to ensure that this has continued since the end of WWII.  The Europeans must fall over laughing at us.  While the US has hundreds of thousands of homeless, schools that are falling down, and rampant poverty, the Europeans are able to afford a socialist utopia paid for by the US. 

[Richard Smith]

Have the Ukranians ever acknowledged that it was one of their missiles that fell into Poland killing two people?  Has the US intelligence community ever confirmed who pulled off a highly sophisticated operation to blow up the Russian pipelines?  Where is the leftist media when it comes to stories like this that might result in WWIII?  Oh year, they have nothing to do with Trump. 

[Joe Elliott]

Those numbers are wildly overblown since the US is also giving support to those NATO countries including paying for the privilege of defending them.  Europe can afford its socialist agenda only because the US has provided the military force for its defense including paying to use the military bases in Europe used by Americans to defend Europe.  As Trump pointed out numerous times, many NATO members don't even pay their small share.  It is one of the greatest scams in history.  The US military and contractors convince the politicians to pay trillions to defend Europe and then kickback payments to the politicians to ensure that this has continued since the end of WWII.  The Europeans must fall over laughing at us.  While the US has hundreds of thousands of homeless, schools that are falling down, and rampant poverty, the Europeans are able to afford a socialist utopia paid for by the US.

Insufficient reasons for not stopping the march of Authoritarianism while we can. Let's just do it. The iron is hot. Besides, I don't think the Russians will last the winter. Too much Russian corruption. Too much poor logistics for their army to stand during a cold winter. They had enough problems getting adequate supplies up to the front during warm weather. But we shall see.

A relatively small investment now, just ten per cent of our yearly defense spending, may greatly reduce the need for such a large amount of defense spending in the years to come. If the threat of Russia is removed, I don't see why we couldn't get away with a 20 % reduction in defense spending in the years to come. We surely won't need to spend as much to defend against China alone as we will need to continue to defend against both China and Russia. It's a good gamble.