Some of your math is off, but I won’t quibble with that right now. What I will do is categorically disagree with the statement above. What you’ve written is a constructed narrative that along with “Well, Ukraine was always going to lose eventually” and “Well, it’s still Trump’s fault that Ukraine lost” are designed to excuse this Administration’s lack of any real action over the last year. We cannot afford to think this way, and we have to get loud every time the Administration drops little hints that’s what it’s thinking. Instead of excusing why we didn’t act, let’s just act.
"I have access to a lot of people who see things. The stories I've been hearing about the war have been pretty dire. Right now it's just a question of how many more of his own people Zelensky wants to kill. It's going to be over." — Seymour Hersch —
i think we’ve only spent around $30B in aid to Ukraine. That is less than 4% of out annual military budget and doesn’t even register as a % of total federal spending ($6.7T). We could easily spend 3 or 5 times that with out blinking an eye. As I said before let them free fire in to Russia. Start killing Russian women, babies and pensioners in large #’s.
No issues with that. But I still think it comes down to more than just giving Ukraine more stuff (though, as I’ve said, that is also important). We have to examine the entire spectrum of escalation between what we are doing now and directly attacking Russian forces. Then steadily apply that pressure at a measured pace until Russia gets the message, makes its excuses, and leaves.
US: Russia has committed crimes against humanity in Ukraine More declarations from the U.S. of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. My position on this remains the same as it was a year ago: This only matters if Russia loses. If we allow Russia to walk away with strategic victory, then it does not matter even a little bit what crimes against humanity can be proven. Like it or not, the consequences of war crimes are only something a loser has to worry about.
This might be of interest to you. European electricity giant posts record losses Electricite de France (EDF) has reported a record single-year loss of €17.9 billion (around $19 billion) for 2022, pushing the power giant’s overall debts to €64.5 billion. The losses, which contrast with a profit of €5 billion in 2021, are the third largest in French corporate history and the worst for more than two decades. The fall comes despite a 70% surge in EDF’s revenues, which totaled €144 billion due to increases in global energy prices. India’s imports from Russia soar 400% – media India’s imports from sanctions-hit Russia have leapt by 400% so far this fiscal year, the Nikkei Asia news website reported on Friday, citing the latest data from the Indian Commerce Ministry. The growth is attributed to large-scale purchases of discounted crude oil from Russia amid Western sanctions, which recently targeted the country’s exports of seaborne oil and petroleum products, including fuel and gasoline.
I would say that it is a much smaller win for us (and civilization) if Ukraine eventually falls to Russia. It gives Russia the opportunity to regroup (eventually) and continue invading their neighbors in a couple decades. That said, we need to do everything we can to make it a big win for us (and civilization). I don't think this is necessarily a Trump or Biden issue. I don't blame Trump for being an imbecile--it is what it is--he had no business being in politics or international affairs. He isn't the first U.S. president to be fooled by Russia--FDR certainly was during WWII. Biden is doing a decent job of getting military equipment to Ukraine, but he could (and should) do more. I would like to see Biden at least offer a hundred or more Abrams tanks to Germany in exchange for them to free up more Leopards for Ukraine.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R) railing about the failure of the US to humble Russia when China is the preferred target. Recent poll shows nearly half of Americans regard China as an enemy, while nearly all of Congress views China as such. Uniparty.
I don’t think Germany would accept Abrams in exchange for donating Leopard IIs. They are rightfully proud that they, like France and the UK, produce their own MBT. But countries like Poland would probably accept Abrams in exchange for their older tanks. What Germany might accept is the money and/or raw materials to produce more tanks for Ukraine. I have no problem with that.
Yeah no. Their population is poor, elderly (I think their lifespan is at least 7 years less than the first world) and are majority alcoholics.
Stop Russia now, give Ukraine all the fighter jets it has pilots for and start crash courses in every NATO country to train more.
A voice from the past rails against "armed missionaries" invading other countries: Robespierre. Ukraine war has exposed the folly – and unintended consequences – of 'armed missionaries'
US currently practicing on weather balloons. Russian women and children next ? Remarks by President Biden on the United States' Response to Recent Aerial Objects - The White House.
I really do not understand the thinking of ignorant people that we need a "multi-polar" world instead of a uni-polar world. First of all, the U.S. does not force other countries at the barrel of a gun to agree with them. Europe agrees with the U.S. on most things, as it makes trade easier, and we have a common history and culture. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries also agree with us on things, as they are committed to competing economically to get what they want, and only use their military for self-defense. Of the countries that do not agree with the U.S. very much, there are two categories: small dictatorships like Iran and North Korea that are clinging desperately to power over a repressed population, and large countries like Russia and China that are clinging desperately to power over a controlled population. These two countries use their military for repressing their population, and are willing to use their militaries for invading other countries. In their mind, they have historic grievances against their neighbors, and are obsessed with solving those grievances through war instead of looking forward to a brighter future. Basically, they represent evil in the equation (I have weapons, therefore give me what I want), whereas the U.S. and its allies represent good (economic cooperation, natural resource preservation, etc.). The U.S. initiated the United Nations to give everyone a voice in global events. Why would anyone want to support evil? Why would anyone want to support countries that are committed to warfare to get what they want? I get it, the U.S. winds up being the enforcer (the policeman) in a lot of cases, and it certainly appears that the U.S. is enforcing "its will" upon others. That is just a side-product of us being the most successful country and having the ability to enforce the rules. The U.S. has responsibilities. There are much bigger issues that we need to worry about: global warming, natural disasters, and disappearance of natural resources. We need international cooperation to deal with those issues, and ignorant people demanding a multi-polar world are distracting us from solving these problems. If we don't solve these problems, the survival of humanity (in its modern form) will be at stake. Billions could die, or we could be reduced to some kind of "Mad Max" future.
I don't think that is necessarily the best way to think, especially where nuclear weapons are involved. Certainly, Russia needs to suffer (and they are), but we should try to keep to the high road and not support the killing of women and children. Destruction of the Russian military, and crippling of the Russian political structure, are enough. Russia has the potential to be a peaceful country, just like Germany and Japan did after WWII, and you cannot grow that potential if you start killing women and children.
No one, even Russia to speak the truth, is trying to kill women and children. There is no military value in it, and negative informational value. The question is the degree to which both players try not to kill women and children (and other noncombatants, of course). Russia does very little in that regard. To the point I think Soho was trying to make, Ukraine should probably be more flexible in its rules of engagement. Does that mean that Russian noncombatants will die? Yes, it does. And, yes, I support it.
Russia intentionally targets civilian infrastructure, apartment complexes and hospitals and such. So actually, they do rather get into the category of deliberate killing of women and children (and that’s before we get into the widespread rapes and kidnapping of Ukranian women and children by Russian soldiers).
