MacGregor hasn’t offered you evidence either. He can’t. Neither can anyone else warning us that Russia is going to turn a corner and conduct a catastrophic counteroffensive against Ukraine “any day now.” It’s information operations. It’s a bluff. My answer to anyone parroting the Russian talking points that Ukraine needs to negotiate an unequal peace now, before it’s too late remains the same: Have Russia prove it. Absolutely nothing would impress me more than Russia putting together a professional, combined-arms offensive that captures significant ground as well as kills or captures a large formation of Ukrainians. I’ll be the first to say on here “Unless NATO is prepared to introduce significant air and sea forces to change the tide, it’s time for Ukraine to throw itself on the mercy of the Russians.” The difference between what I’m telling you and what MacGregor is telling you isn’t a question of evidence. It’s a question of you preferring his opinion to mine, even though he has deliberately misled you on the following: - The casualty count - The difference between a strategic and an operational reserve - Our ability to manufacture more munitions if the President ordered it - That we are depleting munitions stocks that would be necessary to defend Taiwan, even though any idiot (but especially a retired colonel) would understand intuitively that we have been giving Ukraine ground-based munitions (Javelins, 155mm artillery, MLRS, etc) and any war over Taiwan would primarily involve sea and air-delivered munitions (Tomahawks, Penguins, Harpoons, Hellfire, JDAM, etc), which we have not been donating to Ukraine. Whoops! I guess that was just another innocent oversight on the retired colonel’s part. (And those are just off the top of my head) But you just keep right on citing this guy’s expert analysis so long as it fits your political narrative. I’m sure that won’t affect your credibility a month or two from now when not a single one of his dire warnings have come true.
Last year Jeffrey Sachs wrote that Ukraine is “the latest neocon disaster.” He described the war in Ukraine as “the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement.” Sachs in that piece recounted the neocon track record of promoting disastrous military adventures that have resulted in diminishing U.S. influence abroad and, in the case of Ukraine, risking a wider European war. Ukraine Is Neocons' Last Gasp
It really is sad that some people are so ignorant that they don't understand the difference between fighting a war and supplying weapons to a country at war. It's not a subtle difference. It's not a complicated difference. It's actually a very simple difference. And it's mind boggling how someone that can't understand that difference is able to operate a computer without hurting themselves. Yes, we know that the U.S. supplying weapons to Ukraine has brought your favorite imperialists (Russia) to the brink of annihilation. And to do that with minimal expenditure (3% of a single year's defense spending destroying 50% of Russia's combat capability--WOW!) really must hurt. Quoting a modern-day Neville Chamberlain does not help what's left of your credibility: "If only we give this imperialistic nation-devouring madman what he wants, he'll stop invading other countries. He'll stop being who he is. And then we'll have PEACE IN OUR TIME!" A more gullible attitude you will not find.
it’s really sad that some people are so ignorant that they don’t understand the difference between spending our tax money on improving the lives of American taxpayers, versus spending out tax Money improving the lives of strangers 1/2 way around the world. I guess those same ignorant people don’t know what the term priority means.
On the one hand, we can believe that the world’s most powerful and destructive government is just a passive, innocent witness to the violence in Ukraine, and is only benefitting immensely from the war as a complete coincidence. Second, we can believe the US intentionally provoked this war with the understanding that it would benefit from it. I choose #2. Biden, Blinken and Austin told me so.
What you are calling for here is more bloodshed to prove a point that you already know to be true. Empire nations don't throw their entire stand-up ready force into a singular front, especially when they are expanding. We don't need 100,000+ more dead bodies to prove that. I'm non-judgmental. You do you, but that's what you're asking for here. You know, but you're using this pretext to justify more fighting and I can't go along with that. As it relates to talking points, these silly propaganda schticks such as "Russia doesn't have any reserves ready to fight in Ukraine" are just like the "Russia is going to run out of missiles this month" and "at this pace, Russia will be pushed out of Crimea within a few months" and "Putin's going to the Hague" and so on and so on and so on. You believe what you want to believe and stand for what you want to stand for, but as for me, I don't need to see a quarter million more deaths to verify something common sense already verifies for us. It's as if people can't see how much we've been lied to regarding international military affairs over the past 20 years or they see it and don't want to acknowledge it for selfish reasons. But again, at the end of the day, I'm a humanitarian. Ukraine is not going to win the war. Even you admit that. So at some point they will inevitably have to settle if they want to have a country, countrymen and countrywomen.
We spend $876 billion/year on national defense. My personal estimate is that the existence of Russia, a dangerous totalitarian superpower with one of the largest militaries on earth, is responsible for 40% of the threat to the U.S., and therefore 40% of the spending ($350 billion). It's been over 30 years since we've had a proxy war with Russia over an invasion of an innocent neighbor. In terms of today's dollars, we have spent $10.5 trillion on defending ourselves and our trading partners from Russia in the last 30 years. We have sent, what, $30 billion in military equipment (mostly moth-balled equipment, mind you) to Ukraine. That's about 0.3% of what we spent defending ourselves from Russia over that time period. That miniscule amount of spending resulted in a reduction of the Russian non-nuclear threat by 50%. Return on investment? PHENOMENAL. Bonus? It has prevented one more nation from becoming a vassal state of a totalitarian state (more freedom in the world). Future savings over the next 30 years? If Ukraine wins, we probably save about 75% of of the $10.5 trillion that we spent the last 30 years, or $7.8 trillion, or $260 billion per year. True ignorance in this case is: a) Not appreciating the financial implications of a massive return on investment. b) Not understanding the value of freedom and the reason why democracies oppose totalitarian countries on principle. c) Recognizing that, at some point, our freedom and safety is dependent on the freedom and safety of other countries. Only a fool would wait for a pack of wolves to eat everyone else in the neighborhood before lifting a finger to oppose the wolves. d) A lack of humanity in relegating innocent people to endless suffering at the hands of a madman.
Also, please stop it with the brain dead Neville Chamberlain trope … An Amicus Brief for Neville - LewRockwell
did you copy your diatribe straight from MSNBC? 1950 called… They want their foreign policy objectives back. The time for the US to stop acting as the worlds free peace keeping force ended with Reagan.
“If Ukraine stops fighting there will be no more Ukraine.” Germany and Japan on the phone for Ukraine. Conceivably, if Ukraine doesn’t stop fighting there will be no more Ukrainians.
O.k., it's obvious that big business concepts like return on investment escape your ability to comprehend them and you have no regard for other people's freedom, so how about this: by sending Ukraine old, used equipment that we will almost certainly never use again, we will save money on maintenance and upkeep of that equipment. Are you willing to get on board that train? Or do you prefer to wait until Russia and China have divided the rest of the world amongst themselves and are flipping a coin to decide which one gets the U.S.? The truth is that sending Stinger missiles to the proxy war in Afghanistan was some of the best money that the U.S. government ever spent as far as defeating an enemy without firing a shot. It's rare that you even get the opportunity to do that. It is also true that we do benefit financially from other countries being free and being able to trade with us. If Russia controls the grain exports out of Ukraine, then they will then control the U.N., since almost every single country in Africa and the middle east will vote with their stomachs and not their brains (starvation has a way of doing that). If Russia withholds food from these countries, the U.S. will wind up spending a lot more money in humanitarian aid for these places, and we will spend a lot more money providing security and/or stopping wars in these places. These places will also produce a lot more terrorist organizations. Maybe you would like to see another 9-11? Again, starvation makes people desperate and capable of dangerous things.
So you’re admitting that supplying bullets, guns, bombs, etc to Country A so they can kill the people of Country B is a business. On that we can agree. As for the ROI, what exactly is that for the 60 year old retired Marine Sgt who is barely scraping by, or your 3rd grade teacher making $40k a year and who is very disappointed in you right now? You probably read 1 or 2 books on conflicts at UF, written in the 60s, when you took your introduction to Global Conflicts course at Turlington. Now you are an expert on regurgitating the neocon play book. Oorah! But you’re right…the grain shipments to Africa are paramount. Exactly how many bullets have the nations of Africa sent to Ukraine? Do they even have enough to spare after all the genocide there? How much cash from Equatorial Guinea has found its way to Kiev? Here is a list of the single democracy (not flawed or authoritarian) in Africa we spending a quarter trillion dollars on for free flowing grain. 2019 ranking of democracies in Africa according to the EIU - Ecofin Agency. Seems like a legit endeavor for the business pursuits we do agree on. SMH. But wait, you say…there’s more. We actually save money by sending sending 10s of billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine because we will save the 10s of thousands of dollars in maintenance cost. Friggin genius! The ROI model on that is similar to the JC Penny model. Wait…That doesn’t really work well.
If we weren't spending the money to assist Ukraine, the House would be trying to give additional tax credits to people buying jets. Your suggestion that the money would make it down to the 60 year old Marine or a 3rd grade teacher is naive at best, more likely laughable. We tried to be isolationists, it didn't work...it never works. We can help Ukraine fight this war now or send our troops in to defend a fellow NATO member a year or two down the road.
That Westerners believe the counter-offensive is going well is especially disgraceful in the Internet Age … https://x.com/armchairw/status/1698800300109517115?s=61
Obviously, the main savings is from disabling a known threat to us so we can . . . wait for it . . . stop paying $350 billion EVERY YEAR to prepare for that threat. Let's make the math so simple that even an alleged lawyer can understand it. Would you be willing to pay $30 to save $350 every year for the next decade or two? Yes, it's that simple. And yes, every taxpaying teacher at every grade level (and every retired U.S. Marine) would agree that it sounds like an excellent investment. Less risk to U.S. soldiers AND less risk to taxpayers. Were you dropped on your head as a child? Fell off the turnip truck and run over? Is that what drives you to try to insist that starving people in Africa pay money they don't have for Ukraine to fight one of the most powerful militaries in the world? The only thing I can conclude is that you are legal representation for the Military Industrial Complex, and you are looking at smaller paydays if we reduce spending on defense for any reason whatsoever. Either that, or you're working for Russia. And, no, I never took a Global Conflicts course at Turlington or anywhere else.
