Trump who has supplied them with weapons instead of blankets like Obama. 

Garbage.  There was no Ukraine/Russia war under Obama.

The 2016 Trump presidential campaign actively intervened to ease U.S. support for Ukraine by directing delegates to strip a provision calling for "lethal defensive weapons" to Ukraine out of the official Republican National Convention platform, replacing it with softer, generalized language.

Policy Reversal: Prior to the 2016 Republican convention, the GOP platform favored providing lethal defensive arms to Ukrainian forces fighting Russian-backed separatists. The Trump campaign orchestrated a behind-the-scenes effort to water down this stance to "appropriate assistance".

Campaign Ties: This policy shift raised alarms in Washington as it directly contradicted mainstream conservative and Republican congressional foreign policy. It was heavily scrutinized due to the campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s extensive prior lobbying work for former pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

Broader Context: The campaign's softer approach to Russian aggression in Ukraine laid the groundwork for policies pursued during the Trump presidency, most notably the 2019 freeze of nearly $400 million in congressionally approved military assistance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html

All for Putin !

Yeah sure Ben...Which is why Iler ignored my e-mail to him...

You are aware that Iler writes articles on Jim DiEugenio's website aren't you?...

Iler enforced the no proxy posting for banned members rule...Simkin was allowed to openly break it by posting Greg Parker's smearing of myself...That rule was made by Gordon specifically to keep me from showing the correct Prayer Man evidence on the board...It assumes the banning was valid...It gives no recourse to members who were wrongfully banned and were victims of Gordon's moderator abuse that Knight seemed to recognize in his posts in the forum reformation thread...Iler intends to enforce the clique...He also intends to make valid complaints against the moderators ban-able offenses...infallibility enforced by banning...The no proxy posting for banned members rule only applies to me...And it only applies to keeping my correct Prayer Man evidence off the board in order to keep the moderation from being exposed for incompetence on the issue...

Yes, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Gavin Newsom.  The obsession with Putin is bizarre.  He is a paper tiger.  He is in over his head in Ukraine due to the staunch support of Trump who has supplied them with weapons instead of blankets like Obama.  Was Obama KGB in your opinion because he refused to support Ukraine?

Dear "Dick,"

1) ME: I personally think Obama's big mistake was not providing Ukraine with lethal defensive weapons. Question: How much non-lethal aid did he give Ukraine?

Perplexity AI: Obama’s administration provided Ukraine with hundreds of millions of dollars in non‑lethal/security assistance, plus over $1.3 billion in broader foreign assistance and $2–3 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, but no U.S.-supplied lethal weapons.

Security (non-lethal) military aid

From the outbreak of the crisis in 2014 through early 2015, the Obama administration committed more than $120 million in security assistance to Ukraine’s military and pledged an additional $75 million in non‑lethal equipment. This security aid included items such as body armor, night‑vision goggles, communications gear, medical supplies, explosive‑ordnance disposal equipment, handheld radios, and around 230 armored Humvees.

Specific packages noted in contemporaneous reporting and official releases include:

$23+ million in “defensive security assistance” approved by Obama by June 2014 (body armor, NVGs, comms gear, MREs, medical supplies, tactical gear for border guards).

$46 million in new security assistance announced in September 2014, again explicitly non‑lethal.

A $53 million aid package in 2014 for Ukraine, still excluding weapons or lethal military gear.

A $75 million non‑lethal package in March 2015, including Humvees, counter‑mortar radars, radios, night‑vision devices, UAVs, and ambulances.

Defense and fact‑check sources summarize this as “more than $100–120 million” in security aid by March 2015, rising toward roughly $200 million as later non‑lethal tranches were added.

Broader non-military assistance and guarantees

Beyond military-type security aid, Obama’s administration committed over $1.3 billion in foreign assistance to Ukraine after 2014, aimed at economic and governance reforms, civil society, energy security, and border/defense institution building. This included $220 million in new assistance announced in 2016, plus humanitarian aid for conflict‑affected civilians and programs to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law.

In addition, the U.S. government under Obama provided $2 billion in loan guarantees and set up a third guarantee of up to $1 billion, conditional on reforms—effectively macro‑financial non‑lethal support backing Ukraine’s access to capital markets.

What this means in aggregate

Putting those strands together:

Non‑lethal/security military aid: on the order of $150–200+ million in body armor, NVGs, communications, Humvees, radars, UAVs, medical gear, and related equipment.

Non‑military foreign assistance: more than $1.3 billion for economic, governance, and institutional support, plus over $112 million in humanitarian aid.

Loan guarantees: $2–3 billion in U.S. guarantees, a financial backstop rather than direct cash or materiel.[/i]

2) ME: What do experts say will be the earliest that Russia could realistically invade Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and/or Latvia?

Perplexity AI: There is no single consensus date, but expert estimates generally cluster around the later 2020s: some intelligence officials warn Russia could be able to attempt aggression against NATO’s eastern flank as early as 2027, while others point to a 2029–2030 window—always with major caveats about politics, readiness, and deterrence.

Early “worst‑case” dates (around 2027)

Ukrainian and some European officials have raised the earliest alarms.

Ukraine’s military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov has said Russia originally planned to prepare for direct aggression against NATO by 2030, but has since shortened that timeline to 2027, with the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) cited as primary potential targets.

In Budanov’s reported assessment, Poland is viewed more as a target for air and missile strikes rather than full occupation, at least in the current planning horizon.

These statements are intentionally stark, aimed at galvanizing Western planning, and assume Russia continues rebuilding forces and industry despite its losses in Ukraine.

Later timelines (around 2029–2030)

Many Western defense officials and analysts put the earliest plausible window a bit later.

Germany’s defense minister Boris Pistorius has warned that Russia could be in a position to start a war with NATO “as early as 2029”, stressing that this is a worst‑case planning date and could be brought forward or pushed back.

Independent analysts cited alongside this warning note that some experts see even sooner possibilities, but the general planning assumption in several European capitals is a second half of the decade window.

Strategic scenario work on Russian threats to NATO’s eastern flank—from think‑tanks like Harvard’s Belfer Center—frames crises in the Baltics as becoming more acute over “the next decade,” not imminently, and emphasizes that Russia would likely combine hybrid measures and localized force buildups, rather than a sudden full‑scale invasion.

So, 2029–2030 appears as the more commonly cited horizon in mainstream Western planning documents, with 2027 as an aggressive, cautionary early marker.

Current intelligence and “no concrete plan” assessments

Baltic security services and officials also caution against treating these dates as firm plans.

A July 2026 report quoting Baltic intelligence sources states there is “no concrete plan” and “no known date” for Russian military provocation against the Baltic states or Poland, and that they see no changes in Russian military presence or preparations specifically aimed at those countries at present.

Officials emphasize that while Russia is hostile and capable of provocations, there is no evidence of a political decision for direct attack on NATO territory.

This reflects the distinction between capability timelines (when Russia could, in theory, have rebuilt enough force) and intent (whether the Kremlin actually chooses to risk war with NATO).

How experts use these dates

In practice, these early‑warning dates are used as planning benchmarks, not predictions.

Defense planners in Germany, the Baltics, and at EU level use 2027 and 2029 as target dates by which European forces, air defenses, and logistics must be ready to withstand high‑intensity conflict without depending entirely on U.S. support.

Scenario work stresses that Russia would likely need several years of force regeneration after Ukraine, including rebuilding armor, artillery, and munitions stocks, before attempting anything beyond coercive moves or limited probes against NATO.

So, when experts say “as early as 2027” or “by 2029,” they are essentially saying: if Europe fails to prepare, Russia might have regained enough capability by then that an attack becomes militarily thinkable, not that such an attack is already scheduled.

3) Regarding The Traitorous Orange Turd, remember when, on 25 July 2019, he tried to extort bogus political support from Zelensky in exchange for his mandated-by-Congress releasing of $400 million in funds to Ukraine?


-- Tom

Uh-huh. As usual, you obviously did not bother to read any of the cited sources, especially Weldon's chapter and Mantik's chapter, and did not bother to watch any of the linked videos.

Actually, this was one of the rare occasions that did look at your bogus sources. That's how I can see those alleged bullet holes keeps showing up in different places. [/quote]

All the descriptions that mention a location put the hole in the same general area. [/quote]

The same general area? Are you freaking nuts? If these were legitimate, they would show the bullet hole in the same EXACT place. Did you really need me to explain that to you?

All said it was on the driver's side of the mirror.

WOW! You've really narrowed it down there, Sherlock.

Perhaps you got confused because the witnesses used different frames of reference--some described the location from the rear view while others described it from the frontal view.

Depending one which photo you show, the bullet hole could be up by the mirror or down near the bottom of the windshield. Instead of a Magic Bullet, you are postulating a Magic Bullet Hole.

So we're all eight of these witnesses -- spread over three different locations and unaware of each other's accounts -- hallucinating?

You seems that you are.

Just curious:

Could Vladimir Putin have installed anyone worse for our country than Donald Trump?

Yes, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Gavin Newsom.  The obsession with Putin is bizarre.  He is a paper tiger.  He is in over his head in Ukraine due to the staunch support of Trump who has supplied them with weapons instead of blankets like Obama.  Was Obama KGB in your opinion because he refused to support Ukraine?