War in Ukraine

The West should have said no to Ukraine being a member of NATO. No war would have happened.

 

I've heard the same, but conjecture only. And, yes, I can't wait to watch the movie. Unfortunately, though, we're like people who are two years removed from the Iranian Revolution (say, 1981) but are on the edge of their seats for Argo (2012) to come out.

 

I believe this is factually incorrect. Do you have a source for this claim?

Hezbollah is using russian weapons against Israel. manufacture dates of 2020 found on equipment in Lebanon. Should Israel attack Russia?

refusing the right to use our weapons ins elf defense of against the aggressor is one of the worst things this admin did. it cost Ukraine tens of thousands of troops that would still be here if they would have had this ability much sooner in the process.

maybe you enjoy pacifying a threatening bully, not me.

 

do you honestly believe that russian propaganda? the only thing that would have stopped a war was Zelensky getting voted out and a putin puppet put back in office.

is that why they invaded Crimea too?

you have to be smarter than that

 

State moves to forgive $4.65B in loans to Ukraine. glad djt won't have this to use as leverage

US State Department Confirms Notification To Congress To Cancel Ukraine $4.65 Billion Debt

The State Department has notified Congress of its intent to cancel approximately $4.65 billion in loans previously provided to Ukraine as part of economic assistance, according to spokesperson Matthew Miller. The move, enabled by a provision in a supplemental appropriations bill passed earlier this year, has sparked bipartisan discussions and the possibility of congressional intervention.

During a press briefing, Miller explained that the April appropriations bill granted the administration discretionary authority to cancel certain loans provided to Ukraine. Congress has the option to pass a resolution of disapproval to block the cancellation.

“We have taken the step outlined in the law to cancel those loans and provide that economic assistance to Ukraine,” Miller said. “Congress is welcome to take it up if they wish.”

Miller expressed skepticism that Congress would pass a resolution of disapproval, citing the strong bipartisan support for aiding Ukraine. However, he emphasized that the administration would adhere to legal requirements.

 

interesting, hopefully he is standing on a really tall balcony somewhere soon

Putin's record absence raises health and political concerns

The Russian channel WCzK-OGPU, which has sources close to the security services, confirms that the dictator has not been seen at the Kremlin lately. A source close to the dictator reported, "Recently, Putin has been absent from work and receives all reports exclusively through special communication channels."

Associates receive the same message: "Putin is undergoing periodic medical check-ups and is recuperating." The source added, "No one knows where he really is".

The last time Putin appeared at a public event was on November 7, when he spoke at the Valdai Club forum.

"Since then, only information about phone calls with leaders of other countries, pre-recorded video greetings, and reports from his meetings with Russian officials, deputies, and cultural representatives have been published on the Kremlin's website and his Telegram channel. These materials may, however, be 'cans' (a term used by journalists to describe pre-recorded reports of Putin's meetings, which are published during his periods of absence - ed.)",we read.

 

When did they say “yes?” Because last I checked, Ukraine is not and never has been a member of NATO. This excuse is made up horse-crap, as much as the initial excuse that Russia needed to de-Nazify the Ukrainian government.

 

They did say no. The West has been saying no to Ukraine and NATO since WWII.

All of the interest in allowing Ukraine entry into NATO has happened SINCE the war started. And it is absolutely reasonable. Ukraine is a European country that has demonstrated that they are under threat of invasion from Russia. In fact, a Russian invasion is actually happening right now, and has been happening since February of 2022. When you study for your G.E.D., they will probably tell you that in either a current events class or a history class, depending on how long it takes for you to get to that part of the curriculum. "Curriculum" is a big word--sorry about that--it means topics of study.

 

and they gave up their nukes with some degree of commitment that they would have security protection from the west, which obama threw away when crimea was invaded

 

This is complete BS.

Reagan exited Lebanon because the US wasn’t ready for combat there. The suicide bombing that killed 150 or so soldiers led to Reagan deciding he didn’t want the US to be in that position in the middle east.

The war in Ukraine is 100% different than that situation. No man power, just a proxy funding war like when US funding led to USSR/Russia’s defeat in Afghanistan.

Also, Reagan’s entire agenda was to end the expansion and downfall of the USSR (Russia/putin). To insulate that Reagan wouldn’t do everything in his power to fight a Soviet sycophants (putin) invasion into a democratic European country is exceedingly witless.

Trump's mandate had very little to do with Ukraine. It was to reverse the woke agenda, cut government spending, protect the border and help the economy/inflation. Responsible Republicans are disappointed in the Trump/Putin love affair and disgusted by the betrayal of free Ukrainians.

War hawkism is dying in the GOP you say- does Israel know that?

 

Again, Trump won the election and you are just going to have to suck it up.

 

Yes, I know. Let the Russians and Ukrainians kill themselves. We'll just supply them the weapons. Unfortunately for you, your side picked a guy who can't even finish out his term. And then picked the worst general election candidate in at least 40 years. So our weapons are leaving Ukraine and you'll just have to suck it up.

 

The West has been talking to Ukraine about NATO ascension for over 20 years, if not longer.

Ukrainian membership in NATO gained support from a number of NATO leaders.[44] In February 2008 57.8% of Ukrainians supported the idea of a national referendum on joining NATO, against 38.6% in February 2007.

In January 2008, US Senator Richard Lugar said: "Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Parliamentary chairman Arsenii Yatsenyuk have signed the statement calling for consideration on Ukraine's entry into the NATO via the MAP programme at the Bucharest summit."[47]

US President George W. Bush and both nominees for President of the United States in the 2008 election, U.S. senator Barack Obama and U.S. senator John McCain, did offer backing to Ukraine's membership of NATO.[50][51][52] Russian reactions were negative. In April 2008, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke out against Ukraine's membership in NATO.[53][54]

Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia.

 

Imagine having hundreds (possibly thousands) of posts in this thread alone and not knowing that the West has been recruiting Ukraine into NATO for the better part of 20 years (at least). How one continues to discuss this war daily, after almost 3 years and still doesn't know the basic precipitous events which led up to this war, boggles the mind. You have to try really hard to be that ignorant.

 

Sorry to be the military history geek here (we all have our roles), but your facts are way off here. First off and most obviously, it was Marines who were involved in the Beirut operation, not Soldiers. Second, the suicide bombing, while tragic (one of my first memories is how upset my father, who used to haunt these pages as arnodiller, was after that happened), did not lead to the U.S. withdrawal as people commonly assume. The mission was always intended to be temporary. It's necessary to remember why the Marines (and other expeditionary forces, such as the French) were there. Israel had invaded Lebanon (for reasons not dissimilar as their present operation) but instead of limiting their operation to the Litani River Valley as earlier intended, they got drunk with victory and pressed all the way to Beirut with the intent of fully destroying the PLO. Instead they got bogged down, and an international force (including the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit) intervened to allow the IDF to withdraw in good order. That MAU (they are called Marine Expeditionary Units, or MEUs today) was on a scheduled deployment and was always going to withdraw on the timeline that it did. Third, I have to challenge that the "U.S. was not ready for combat operations." What they were not ready for was peacekeeping operations, especially in a mess of a place like Beirut. When they relieved the first MAU that went in there in 1982, they did so with no more than the routine work-ups that every MAU went through in those days, nothing specific to counterinsurgency, etc. Another part of the history that often gets overlooked is after that bombing, the U.S. radically changed its rules of engagement and force protection posture in Lebanon; consequently, they killed a lot of the Islamic Jihad (precursor to Hezbollah) whose presence they had tolerated to that point; consequently, they were not messed with again for the rest of their time there. Readiness for combat was never the problem.

 

If the U.S. president's opinion was all it took to get Ukraine into NATO, and Ukraine wanted to be in NATO, WHY ISN'T UKRAINE IN NATO?

Obviously, some other members of NATO did not want Ukraine in the organization. Some European countries did not trust a corrupt Ukraine (at the time) to not start a fight with Russia and drag the rest of NATO into it. Europe has changed their minds about Ukraine after watching Russia invade Ukraine with absolutely no provocation from Ukraine whatsoever, and seeing that Zelenskyy's government is willing to fight corruption.

 

Yes, YOU do.

 

I think you are confusing Ukraine's lobbying to get into NATO (for wholly understandable reasons as it turned out) with NATO recruiting Ukraine. They are not the same thing. NATO has been consistently reticent about Ukraine joining. Even after the limited invasion in 2014, NATO support never reached a majority, and a consensus is necessary. This is a chicken-or-egg argument about what caused what. Yes, Ukraine has openly wanted to join NATO, because they feared Russia with good reason. Yes, Russia has never wanted Ukraine to join NATO, because it ultimately expected to bring Ukraine back into Russia, one way or another, and NATO membership would interfere with Russian grand strategy. The idea that if Ukraine had not lobbied to join NATO, or that if NATO had been more firm in saying no, would have kept this invasion from happening is ridiculous. The whole point is to subordinate Ukraine to Russia, not to keep them neutral. If that could have been done with non-kinetic means, such as keeping a puppet government in Kyiv (the Belarus model), then great. If it could have been done with limited means, such as keeping Kyiv cowed with a frozen conflict (the Georgia model), then great. But since both of those methods failed, what was most expedient was conquest. And here we are. Only Ukraine does not want to be conquered, and that remains a problem.

 

As I have tried to point out, you may be the one who has to "suck it up," one way or another. Very seriously doubt Trump is going to do what you want him to do on this. And then what? Turn on him, or act like he is showing great wisdom and you were behind him all along?

 

Republicans in the Senate are going ballistic over Russia's latest ballistic missile attack on Ukraine, but they are headed in opposite directions. Mitch McConnell is angry that Biden is not doing more to support Ukraine, and Eric Schmitt (R, MO) has his panties in a wad because he thinks that Biden is going to make Putin angry.

Russia tests ballistic missile in Ukraine strike