Colors of Blue and Gold

[Martin Weidmann]

Ukraine is not a democracy.  They oppress free speech and religion almost as much as the US.  Ukraine does not have the capability to force an end to this war through military means.  No matter how many weapons they are sent.  They can't conquer Russia and force a surrender.  The only strategy outlined by Zelinsky to end this war is to hold out for as long as it takes.  A North Vietnam-like strategy that plays the long game.  A decade or more of war until Russia decides to leave.  The US is already in over $100 billion in the first year.  Europe and the rest of the world are laughing their arses off at us.  They are contributing almost nothing.  Our corrupt establishment politicians used Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq to funnel trillions of dollars to their supporters.  They are doing exactly the same thing in Ukraine.  McConnell recently said that Ukraine is the number one priority of Republicans.  Number one.  Not crime, inflation, an open border, crashing stock market or homelessness, but Ukraine.  Why?  Because he has a burning desire to promote "democracy" in some regional conflict?  Of course not.  McConnell is using the war as an excuse to funnel an inexhaustible amount of money to military contractors who will support him and other establishment politicians in future campaigns.   An endless cycle.  Not every wrong can be righted.  There are many wars in the world.  Ukraine is just a cause for our corrupt politicians to control the money.

So much misguided BS from the number one USA hater. Idiots waving the American flagg and calling themselves "Patriots" are the biggest threat to the country. They don't want democracy. They don't even know what the word means.

Because he has a burning desire to promote "democracy" in some regional conflict?

A regional conflict? HAHAHAHA Such stupidity!

If the world allows Russia to take Ukraine. the Chinese will feel free to take Taiwan next.... But I bet you don't even understand the significance for the world economy and the USA of something like that happening, do you now?

[Richard Smith]

So much misguided BS from the number one USA hater. Idiots waving the American flagg and calling themselves "Patriots" are the biggest threat to the country. They don't want democracy. They don't even know what the word means.

Because he has a burning desire to promote "democracy" in some regional conflict?

A regional conflict? HAHAHAHA Such stupidity!

If the world allows Russia to take Ukraine. the Chinese will feel free to take Taiwan next.... But I bet you don't even understand the significance for the world economy and the USA of something like that happening, do you now?

Why am I not surprised that you are in favor of endless war so long as it is all paid for by the US?  A typical opinion from "Europe."   Maybe if some of the NATO countries even satisfied their basic obligations to contribute the US would not have to to carry the entire effort.  If this is such a noble effort and "Europe" is at direct risk of further Russian aggression, why are they doing as little as possible?  Because it is a fake narrative.  Russia can't even overrun Ukraine but they are a larger threat?  LOL.  "Europeans" are playing off the corrupt political situation in the US that promotes endless war by giving Congress an excuse to appropriate billions to folks who will then fund their campaigns.  A vicious political cycle that dates back to Vietnam or further to the Cold War.  These US politicians actually don't want the help of "Europe."   They want to control the purse strings for trillions of dollars and need a cause to justify the spending.  And the endless wars and fake narratives make that possible.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why am I not surprised that you are in favor of endless war so long as it is all paid for by the US?  A typical opinion from "Europe."   Maybe if some of the NATO countries even satisfied their basic obligations to contribute the US would not have to to carry the entire effort.  If this is such a noble effort and "Europe" is at direct risk of further Russian aggression, why are they doing as little as possible?  Because it is a fake narrative.  Russia can't even overrun Ukraine but they are a larger threat?  LOL.  "Europeans" are playing off the corrupt political situation in the US that promotes endless war by giving Congress an excuse to appropriate billions to folks who will then fund their campaigns.  A vicious political cycle that dates back to Vietnam or further to the Cold War.  These US politicians actually don't want the help of "Europe."   They want to control the purse strings for trillions of dollars and need a cause to justify the spending.  And the endless wars and fake narratives make that possible.

Why am I not surprised that you are in favor of endless war so long as it is all paid for by the US?

I'm not in favor of endless war, regardless who pays for it. I would prefer there was no war at all.

But why I am not surprised that you wouldn't mind if Putin takes Ukraine and shows the Chinese how it can be done with the Western world looking at the sideline and doing nothing?

Surely, you wouldn't mind either if China took back Taiwan, even if the economic damage to the US would be beyond belief, right?

Maybe if some of the NATO countries even satisfied their basic obligations to contribute the US would not have to to carry the entire effort.  If this is such a noble effort and "Europe" is at direct risk of further Russian aggression, why are they doing as little as possible?

I agree. All NATO members should carry the weight and it is true that some don't. Having said that, NATO and the European countries are not doing as little as possible, although I would like to see them doing more. But they are walking a thin line. If Russia is attacked by NATO, the next step of that idiot Putin could be a nuclear response and nobody wants that. But, your friend Putin isn't a complete idiot. The sanctions and the help Ukraine gets from the Western countries have clearly made him think again.

Because it is a fake narrative.  Russia can't even overrun Ukraine but they are a larger threat?  LOL.

So, having a massive nuclear arsenal doesn't make them a threat? In what kind of weird alternate reality do you live? Are you one of those fools who believe a nuclear war is survivable?

"Europeans" are playing off the corrupt political situation in the US that promotes endless war by giving Congress an excuse to appropriate billions to folks who will then fund their campaigns.

This BS might make sense if I first take some LSD trip... What in the world are you talking about?

[Richard Smith]

Why am I not surprised that you are in favor of endless war so long as it is all paid for by the US?

I'm not in favor of endless war, regardless who pays for it. I would prefer there was no war at all.

But why I am not surprised that you wouldn't mind if Putin takes Ukraine and shows the Chinese how it can be done with the Western world looking at the sideline and doing nothing?

Surely, you wouldn't mind either if China took back Taiwan, even if the economic damage to the US would be beyond belief, right?

Maybe if some of the NATO countries even satisfied their basic obligations to contribute the US would not have to to carry the entire effort.  If this is such a noble effort and "Europe" is at direct risk of further Russian aggression, why are they doing as little as possible?

I agree. All NATO members should carry the weight and it is true that some don't. Having said that, NATO and the European countries are not doing as little as possible, although I would like to see them doing more. But they are walking a thin line. If Russia is attacked by NATO, the next step of that idiot Putin could be a nuclear response and nobody wants that. But, your friend Putin isn't a complete idiot. The sanctions and the help Ukraine gets from the Western countries have clearly made him think again.

Because it is a fake narrative.  Russia can't even overrun Ukraine but they are a larger threat?  LOL.

So, having a massive nuclear arsenal doesn't make them a threat? In what kind of weird alternate reality do you live? Are you one of those fools who believe a nuclear war is survivable?

"Europeans" are playing off the corrupt political situation in the US that promotes endless war by giving Congress an excuse to appropriate billions to folks who will then fund their campaigns.

This BS might make sense if I first take some LSD trip... What in the world are you talking about?

So the US should fund a war indefinitely to the tune of over $100 billion per year?  A war that can't be won through military means and whose objective from an American perspective is obscure or nonexistent.  Sounds familiar.  It makes no real difference to America whether Ukraine is governed by Zelinsky (a corrupt bureaucrat) or Putin (a corrupt dictator).  Russia is in the moral wrong for invading a sovereign state but such wars are going on around the world.  It is not the responsibility of America to right every wrong.  And such prior efforts have failed throughout history.  Many citizens of Ukraine favor Russian rule.  Many likely favor it over the complete destruction of their homes and annihilation of their families that will certainly occur if the war continues and escalates indefinitely - as it almost certainly will. 

What is really going on here?  American politicians have learned that they can gain control of billions of dollars by promoting a fake narrative to support an endless war.   In Vietnam, it was stopping the expansion of Communism.  In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was combatting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.  Prior to that it was largely overstating threats posed from Russia during the Cold War.  All of these efforts were spectacular failures based on documented lies.  It took decades for them to play out and ended in the complete destruction of these countries.  But those in Congress were able to funnel oceans of taxpayer money to the military contractors who then kicked it back to their campaigns and cronies. 

[Martin Weidmann]

So the US should fund a war indefinitely to the tune of over $100 billion per year?  A war that can't be won through military means and whose objective from an American perspective is obscure or nonexistent.  Sounds familiar.  It makes no real difference to America whether Ukraine is governed by Zelinsky (a corrupt bureaucrat) or Putin (a corrupt dictator).  Russia is in the moral wrong for invading a sovereign state but such wars are going on around the world.  It is not the responsibility of America to right every wrong.  And such prior efforts have failed throughout history.  Many citizens of Ukraine favor Russian rule.  Many likely favor it over the complete destruction of their homes and annihilation of their families that will certainly occur if the war continues and escalates indefinitely - as it almost certainly will. 

What is really going on here?  American politicians have learned that they can gain control of billions of dollars by promoting a fake narrative to support an endless war.   In Vietnam, it was stopping the expansion of Communism.  In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was combatting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.  Prior to the it was largely overstated treat from Russia during the Cold War.  All of these efforts were spectacular failures based on documented lies.  It took decades for them to play out and ended in the complete destruction of these countries.  But those in Congress were able to funnel oceans of taxpayer money to the military contractors who then kicked it back to their campaigns and cronies.

So the US should fund a war indefinitely to the tune of over $100 billion per year?  A war that can't be won through military means and whose objective from an American perspective is obscure or nonexistent.  Sounds familiar.

Yes, it shows a high level of ignorance. If you really believe it's not in American interest to keep Russia, China and others at bay, you're even a bigger fool than I thought you are. Hasn't Pearl Harbor tought you nothing? Do you really think America is an island that can easily stay out of an international conflict? Really?

It makes no real difference to America whether Ukraine is governed by Zelinsky (a corrupt bureaucrat) or Putin (a corrupt dictator).

Oh boy... this is dumb, even for you.

Many citizens of Ukraine favor Russian rule.

This is simply not true and only shows just how little you know and understand about the actual situation.

What is really going on here?  American politicians have learned that they can gain control of billions of dollars by promoting a fake narrative to support an endless war.   In Vietnam, it was stopping the expansion of Communism.  In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was combatting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.  Prior to the it was largely overstated treat from Russia during the Cold War.  All of these efforts were spectacular failures based on documented lies.  It took decades for them to play out and ended in the complete destruction of these countries.  But those in Congress were able to funnel oceans of taxpayer money to the military contractors who then kicked it back to their campaigns and cronies.

In hindsight it's easy to make speeches, but the reality is that all it takes is underestimating a crisis once. The fact that America has politicians that are just as corrupt as those in other countries doesn't alter the fact that there are plenty of treats and challenges out there and just shutting your eyes for them for mere monetary reasons is naive and self destructive. 

[Jon Banks]

But neither Jon Banks nor Richard Smith have answered my previous question. If we reduce our support for Ukraine, the Russians will conclude that it is the threat of Nuclear War that caused us to back off. So, when is the best time to stand up to the Russians? Now? If Russian later assaults Ukraine by land again in ten years? Or with Nuclear Weapons in one year? Or attacks the Baltic States, or Finland, or Poland, or Germany? Or is it best not to stand up to them at all and allow Russia to overrun all of Central Europe right up to the French border? What is our best option and why?

Given that Russia can't even conquer all of eastern Ukraine after 10 months of war against a smaller and poorer country (albeit a country with intelligence and military aid from NATO countries), why do you think it's realistic that Putin would try to invade a NATO country next?

This war has exposed Russia's weaknesses in terms of waging a conventional war. They're in no position to expand their war beyond Ukraine. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they're not a NATO member state so they're on their own. And I doubt that they can win the war. The best case for Ukraine in terms of what is realistically possible is for them to fight Russia to a stalemate.

So to answer your question, no, I don't think there's a realistic threat of Putin attacking a NATO country any time soon. I don't think we need to "stand up" to Russia. They're not attacking the US or our national interests. 

This war is a regional war being fought over regional issues. It's not America's fight. Regardless of the outcome of the war, there's very little at stake for us. I also don't believe Russia intends to nuke Ukraine. They are doing more than enough damage to Ukraine with conventional weapons.

Russia is not the Soviet Union. Russia today is a corrupt and declining country. It doesn't do the US any good to exaggerate or overestimate the threat to us posed by Russia.

While I don't agree with the policy of confronting China militarily, they are far more formidable as a rival to the US than Russia is...

[Martin Weidmann]

Given that Russia can't even conquer all of eastern Ukraine after 10 months of war against a smaller and poorer country (albeit a country with intelligence and military aid from NATO countries), why do you think it's realistic that Putin would try to invade a NATO country next?

This war has exposed Russia's weaknesses in terms of waging a conventional war. They're in no position to expand their war beyond Ukraine. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they're not a NATO member state so they're on their own. And I doubt that they can win the war. The best case for Ukraine in terms of what is realistically possible is for them to fight Russia to a stalemate.

So to answer your question, no, I don't think there's a realistic threat of Putin attacking a NATO country any time soon. I don't think we need to "stand up" to Russia. They're not attacking the US or our national interests. 

This war is a regional war being fought over regional issues. It's not America's fight. Regardless of the outcome of the war, there's very little at stake for us. I also don't believe Russia intends to nuke Ukraine. They are doing more than enough damage to Ukraine with conventional weapons.

Russia is not the Soviet Union. Russia today is a corrupt and declining country. It doesn't do the US any good to exaggerate or overestimate the threat to us posed by Russia.

While I don't agree with the policy of confronting China militarily, they are far more formidable as a rival to the US than Russia is...

While I don't agree with the policy of confronting China militarily, they are far more formidable as a rival to the US than Russia is...

And that's exactly why it is in the interest of America to support (within NATO) Ukraine, because if they don't help and Putin takes Ukraine it may well send the message to China that it's ok to take Taiwan, because the Americans won't do anything anyway.