War in Ukraine

Are we sure Trump was actually aware of any of that? Every utterance from Trump would have indicated otherwise. In fact, from his words you’d think NATO needed to cut the U.S. a check for money it “owed”. Not how any of that works, but that was his level of understanding..

I’m thinking Pence/Pompeo were making those calls. Kind of like on Jan 6 it was actually Pence who finally authorized the national guard, even though he technically had no authorization to do so.

 

Talk about misreading the tea leaves....you weren't even in the same room.

 

This narrative that Trump was the cause of NATO increasing spending is pure hogwash, Putin was responsible for that. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/3/pdf/230321-def-exp-2022-en.pdf

Further, a lifelong Republican that was actually in the room where decisions on NATO were being made was terrified Trump would pull the US out of NATO in 2018 and has come out and said Trump made it easier for Putin to invade Ukraine.

 

Lol, I’ve been called a lot of things here, but never a liar. But insults are usually the last refuge of a lost argument I suppose.
You said he supported article 5, I gave you evidence from his own mouth he purposely didn’t publicly. Once that happened, you moved the goalposts to say “ well yeah but he did it for a good reason and he didn’t mean it”. The original argument here was that Trump caused rifts, which this and some of his other comments about leaving entirely and NATO’s obsolescence absolutely did, even if you believe he was doing it for the right reasons. Biden had fences to mend. No ally looks kindly to being publicly chastised or minimized. None of that is really even disputable.
but I’ve made my points on this, petty bickering isn’t really interesting to me. If you disagree that’s fine.

 

I mean, if we can just make it up as we go along and libel whomever, we could do that with [insert politician of your choice] and just say whatever we want to without any factual backing or understanding of the situation. But that would kill the forum with a lot of smart UF grads who can do much better than that, so it would be a shame if we allow that to go on.

The facts are not in the words/political rhetoric. The facts are what actually happened. Trump asked NATO repeatedly to increase their military spend after Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, sent the largest cadre of US soldiers to the Eastern European flank along Russia’s borders in 25 years, deployed thousands of troops to Poland to help deter Russian aggression there, sent military aid to Ukraine after Obama refused to do so, killed Nordstream 2 which was a major gas pipeline Russia was going to use to sell billions of dollars worth of gas to Europe to fund their war machine they had already unleashed on Ukraine before and magically Putin’s military adventurism ceased when Trump was at the helm.

A point I will make about Trump’s rhetoric. You will never get anywhere with your adversaries by disrespecting them in public or calling them “murderers.” They will always react sharply to such treatment. Likewise, your friends will rarely go out of their way to help you if you let them take advantage of you constantly. Trump was correct that America was being taken advantage of by NATO. Especially, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014. If you need any evidence of that, just look at the 180 Germany did after Russia went full scale invasion of Ukraine. Now all the sudden, military spend and ending reliance on Russian gas is paramount in Germany. Both things Trump was pushing for.

Silly to knock Trump for asking NATO to do what they had already agreed to and ended up doing out of necessity when reality hit home. Did Trump actually understand that? This video confirms he did quite clearly and his words were eerily prescient…

 

You’re a liar, because you stated Trump repeatedly refused to commit to Article 5, which was clearly a negotiation tactic and I showed you where he repeatedly committed to Article 5 soon after that. A fact you omitted. Lying by omission.

Add to that everything Trump was pissed about NATO not doing, they are doing now. As I stated yesterday, who cares if he hurt their feelings. He was spot on 100%. Tens of thousands of people are dying, refugees are in the millions, property damages are in the hundreds of billions. So you are either lying by being intentionally obtuse or you’re not very smart, because magically everything Trump was chiding NATO to do, they are doing now that they see the Russian threat is real. Watch the video in the previous post. Trump was warning them they needed to get their act together. And miraculously they are doing that today. Everything Trump was asking them to do, they are doing now out of necessity. Refusing to acknowledge that makes you a liar.

 

The reason Trump was asking them to increase their military spending WAS Russia. The NATO members, namely Germany had already agreed to do so in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Germany then reneged on their agreement. Something Trump never did, by the way, with respect to NATO.

I don’t care that a “lifelong Republican” was in the room. Clearly there are many politicians who don’t have balls, including many Republicans. What Trump was asking NATO to do was correct. Yes, he used strong arm tactics. That’s why the American people elected him.

And what was Biden’s big olive branch to Germany to “mend fences”? Nordstream 2. Ooooooops…..

Which leads us back to my original assertion that Biden is a coward. Biden actually re-blessed Nordstream 2 after Trump stopped it…..as Putin was already ramping up troops at the Ukrainian border. Let that sink in.

 

Is it possible to get back to the current situation in Ukraine now? Whatever anyone thinks of Trump, he’s not President anymore. Whatever anyone thinks he would have or would not have done under the same circumstances the U.S. is facing today is purely speculative and mostly irrelevant.

Back to reality and the present, Zelensky now states the counteroffensive is “ready.” I feel like he’s said that before, but I looked back and couldn’t find anywhere in the past where he has stated that, specifically. I’m still confused by the idea of telling the general public (and therefore the enemy) when you’re going to attack. Generally speaking, you make such an announcement after the battle is underway. But so far Zelensky has been far more successful than he has not, especially given the power disparity between Ukraine and Russia, so maybe this is a Ricky Bobby case of “winners do what they want.”

Ukraine war latest: Zelenskyy ready to launch counteroffensive - as heavy-handed crackdown on raids shows Russian 'nervousness and insecurity'

 

I do not know whether or not you realize it, but at least at some level, we're likely being lied to by Ukraine. So that would explain this head-scratcher. Also, alarming is what I mentioned a few pages up that Russia seems to want Ukraine to attack in the south and east. They seem to be doing everything they can to bait Ukraine into doing this. You have to remember, Ukraine leadership doesn't have a whole lot of experience in war. Also, again, I think the situation in Ukraine is a little more dour than we're being led to believe. But yeah, you're spot on. Why would you talk about a counteroffensive for months and then announce it's finally ready? Perhaps this is some trickery on Ukraine's part, but I doubt it. I think Bakhmut was very telling as to the inexperience within the Ukrainian ranks and we're going to see that play out more. They sacrificed way too many men with nothing to show for it.

 

Japan will be sending TNT to the U.S. to make shells for Ukraine, helping to clear a bottleneck in supplying Ukraine with artillery shells. Japan was prohibited by law from sending military hardware and chemicals to other countries, but TNT has non-military uses, so it is o.k. to ship.

Japan finds workaround to sell TNT to USA for ammo supply for Ukraine

 

You do know that the U.S. has some high-level military advisors helping Ukraine with virtually every major decision (and probably quite a few minor ones) with the war, don't you?

And if the stories are correct, Russia was losing at least five times as many soldiers in Bahkmut as Ukraine was. What do you say about all of the men that Russia literally sacrificed with nothing to show for it? Russia sent soldiers out as walking targets to draw fire from Ukrainian positions. Does that tell you anything? Inexperience of the Ukrainian military? That's not what Wagner's chief has been saying about Ukraine's soldiers. He says that Ukraine's troops are far better than Russia's. Or is that just propaganda to make Ukraine feel better? Ukraine only backed out of Bahkmut because Russia sent in enough troops (and had enough of them die) to capture the city. And even then, Ukraine made very good progress in capturing part of the flanks around Bahkmut, so much so that they could possibly re-capture the city by the end of summer.

YOU have to remember, Ukraine has not only out-performed Russia in this war, they've also out-performed almost everyone's wildest expectations. Only an ignorant person would suggest that Ukraine's troops are lacking in experience.

 

Yep, if he does it, he’s got to win. Fact. Russia is in a worse quandary. They can’t afford a failed offensive, they can’t sit still, and they can’t give up any more ground. As things stand today, I’d rather be Ukraine.

 

Yes, I do know neo-cons from the US are very involved with the goings on in Ukraine and want this war to drag on and potentially escalate. All while Ukraine is being decimated. Yes, I'm well aware of that and have talked about it previously in this thread on multiple occasions. And yes, I know Russia has experienced a large number of casualties. I know a lot of them in Bakhmut were former prisoners and I don't for a second believe anything Wagner's chief tells us about this war. Not sure why you would. He's a Putin crony. Also, there are many reports that Ukrainian casualties are way higher than what's being told to us. Please don't be naive enough to believe Wagner's chief, who is one of Putin's henchmen. Please don't be naive to believe that everything Ukraine tells us is pure as the driven snow. Ukraine has been a bastion of corruption for years. Please understand that it doesn't matter to the neo-cons in Washington what Ukraine's body count is. They want Russia to bleed and they do not care about the cost to Ukraine. Their goal is to achieve a geopolitical victory for America, not Ukraine.

While I would love for Russia to pack up and go home and give Ukraine all of its territory back without another shot being fired, I understand that's not realistic at all. Also what's not realistic is assuming Ukraine will win this. The objective of the neo-cons is not necessarily for Ukraine to win. It's just to make Russia bleed....a lot. All the while tens of thousands of Ukrainians are being killed, their country is being decimated and 3+ million refugees. The war will drag on as long as Russia wants to fight it. The neo-cons are happy to fund a proxy war against Russia at the expense of Ukraine.

 

So what solution do you offer that does not grant Russia a strategic victory and the ability to finish its conquest in a couple of years after it has licked its wounds?

 

If you’d bothered to take even a two minute look at the link you’d understand your argument that Trump made them abide by the 2% agreement rings hollow. FYI, it was a non-binding agreement that was actually made in 2006 and recommitted to in 2014. The countries were ramping up spending long before Trump ever set foot in the Oval Office. There’s literally a chart showing the year over year spending increases. It’s also worth noting that it was never expected that every member would hit 2%.

And you may not care what a life-long Republican with expertise in national security thinks even if he was in the room where these decisions were being made. That’s your prerogative, but IMO that just goes to show you don’t really have an interest in considering information counter to your preferred narrative. I’ve said my peace and am done with this. Have a good weekend.

 

Well, as you may remember, I don't quite see it that way. I see this as we crossed Putin's red line (whether or not that's right, in this discussion, you have to be able to see the other side's mindset) and until we find a compromise that will work for the Russians, there will be no peace. And I've said many times I do not believe Putin's goal is to conquer Europe. If that were his goal, he would not have waited until he was 70 to put it into motion. He's been running Russia for 23 years now. Notwithstanding the ass kicking he is receiving in Ukraine over the past year plus, I don't think anyone in Russia has any illusions they could mount a successful offensive against NATO bloc countries. Putin may be evil, but he's not stupid.

Back to your question and perhaps you'd agree, the only way we could actually guarantee a Ukrainian victory is sending 300,000 American combat troops into Ukraine. We do that, we're coming away with a W. But Russia might nuke us if we directly engage, you say? Really? Because we're already sending billions in military hardware and aid to fund a proxy war against Russia, but no nukes. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way advocating for US troop involvement. I'm simply pointing out this is the only way to ensure Ukrainian victory. And so short of that, you could quadruple the amount and quality of military hardware going into Ukraine, but that would be too costly and there is more risk if we were to quadruple a proxy fight. So you're left with what we see today, which is where the neo-cons send Ukraine juuuuuust enough to hang on and make it a stalemate. Russia still bleeds, tanks, missiles are exhausted, but we haven't turned it into WW3.

Two major problems with this. One, it still sets up for what you call a "strategic victory" for Russia, because a stalemate inside Ukraine while their country is turned to rubble very much sounds like a strategic victory for Russia and eventually, there will be capitulation and a settlement where Russia has more hand. Secondly and more importantly, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will be killed and their country will be flattened, which makes life very difficult for the lucky ones who survive.

The only solution that guarantees Russia doesn't have a "strategic victory" is American combat troops on the ground and in the air. That ain't happenin'. Biden doesn't want that. They are content with the current state of affairs. The "counteroffensive" is just talk. It may happen, but you won't see much of a shift in this war.

Ideally, we would see an opportunity for diplomacy. We can't just sit here and hope for complete annihilation. Problem is Biden has killed any chance of diplomacy by making it personal and calling Putin a "murderer". Biden knows that. This sort of rhetoric provides cover for his proxy war at home. Biden doesn't want a diplomatic solution. So I expect as long as Biden is POTUS, this will be a bloody stalemate, tens of thousands more will die and Ukraine will be completely gutted in the process. But hey, at least it isn't Americans dying over there. And oh yeah, Russia still gets their "strategic victory" in the end.

 

So Biden and his people are neo-cons now? When did that happen? Did they have political reassignment surgery, or was it something in the water? Do you actually think before you post?

The Wagner chief's speeches run counter to the prevailing Russian narrative, which is pure communist propaganda. That's what makes them interesting and potentially true.

It probably wasn't realistic for the Continental Army to defeat the British in the 1770's and 1780's, yet they did. (And they did so without advanced weaponry from any of the other superpowers of the day.) They had homefield advantage, which counts for a lot, in my estimation. They were also fighting for their freedom, which, again, counts for a lot. I don't assume that Ukraine will win the war, but I believe they have a better chance than Russia, if we keep supporting them.

Ukraine's past corruption has no relevance to the current war. Prove me wrong.

I believe that it is Biden's objective to see Ukraine win the war. What evidence do you have that this is not the case? A geopolitical victory for Ukraine, in this instance, IS a geopolitical victory for both the U.S. and Europe. What's the problem with that?

And like I've told other looney-tunes posters, the U.S. funding a proxy war against Russia is not being done "at the expense of Ukraine". Ukraine is free to refuse the military assistance and advice at any time. The U.S. does not control Ukraine, and we are not forcing them to fight. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.

 

Good grief, Charlie Brown. You do realize that much of the western investment in offensive high-tech weapons for Ukraine has not seen any action yet, don't you? All you see is a stalemate, with neither side gaining any ground. Everyone else, with their eyes open, recognizes that a lot of the weapons that have been sent to Ukraine in the last several months have not yet seen any action. Do you go to Florida games, wait patiently through pre-game stretches and the coin toss, and demand to know why the Gators aren't winning, even before the opening kickoff? A whole new war is about to open up once the counter-offensive begins. We will see the new weapons in action. We will see new strategies and philosophies. And I believe we will see some major progress for Ukraine. Russia has barely been able to fight to a stalemate with Ukraine holding back the western tanks, IFV's and other equipment for the counter-offensive. (Ukraine is also holding back much of their ammunition for the counter-offensive.)

My prediction is that there will be no need to even consider using U.S. troops for Ukraine to defeat Russia.

 

Biden's incremental funding of the war shows you he's sending Ukraine just enough to keep this a stalemate. Yes, I know you're resting your hopes on a "counteroffensive" that was supposed to have happened already, but you're living in a dream world if you think Ukraine is going to drive Russia out with a few tanks and jets we provided them. Russia has not even been using their regular military units much in the past few months. Except to build trenches and fortify the territory they currently occupy.

And you can call me a looney-tune poster all you want, but your 3 other major presidential candidates opposing Biden at this stage are Trump, DeSantis and RFK Jr, who are all echoing the same sentiment I am. When combined, that's a pretty large voting bloc. Perhaps you need to take a look in the mirror and a look back at this thread and see how much propaganda you've copied and pasted to this site over the past year. You will never have an objective mind as it relates to this war, because you're so caught up in the propaganda and you snort it like a line of coke every day.

Yes, there is such a thing as letting Ukraine destroy themselves while they do our bidding. You should at least try to offset your propaganda and research some different viewpoints and subject material. Because all your are now is just a copy and paster and anyone can do that.