Russia escalates...and we're one step closer to a nuclear crisis

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,684
11,959
1
I posted a month ago that >>...if the tide turns against Moscow, Putin will escalate rather than "lose." To me, this has always seemed obvious.<<

And here we are: an impending annexation of swaths of Ukrainian territory accompanied by partial mobilization and the call-up of military reserves.

After the sham referendums and annexation of the occupied regions, the Russian leader in effect has declared that any attack on Kherson or the Donbas will be treated as an attack on Russia, potentially requiring a proportionate response. "All means at our disposal...this is not a bluff," said Putin.

It's an escalating crisis that didn't have to happen except for a kind of madness that has infected our leadership class. It's not enough for them to wreck our own country. They've set their sights on bigger game...like the entire friggin' world.

The only way Putin "loses" will be if he's not the only one losing, which means that in the end he'll take the temple down on everyone's head to prevent a "win" by the Regime.

In fact, this is a game that could only have been won by not playing.
 

TN Lion

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2001
33,898
14,683
1
I posted a month ago that >>...if the tide turns against Moscow, Putin will escalate rather than "lose." To me, this has always seemed obvious.<<

And here we are: an impending annexation of swaths of Ukrainian territory accompanied by partial mobilization and the call-up of military reserves.

After the sham referendums and annexation of the occupied regions, the Russian leader in effect has declared that any attack on Kherson or the Donbas will be treated as an attack on Russia, potentially requiring a proportionate response. "All means at our disposal...this is not a bluff," said Putin.

It's an escalating crisis that didn't have to happen except for a kind of madness that has infected our leadership class. It's not enough for them to wreck our own country. They've set their sights on bigger game...like the entire friggin' world.

The only way Putin "loses" will be if he's not the only one losing, which means that in the end he'll take the temple down on everyone's head to prevent a "win" by the Regime.

In fact, this is a game that could only have been won by not playing.
Your take is spot on. I agree that the West is playing a dangerous game in continuing to escalate with advanced US and other Western military technologies.
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
47,070
22,753
1
DFW, TX
I posted a month ago that >>...if the tide turns against Moscow, Putin will escalate rather than "lose." To me, this has always seemed obvious.<<

And here we are: an impending annexation of swaths of Ukrainian territory accompanied by partial mobilization and the call-up of military reserves.

After the sham referendums and annexation of the occupied regions, the Russian leader in effect has declared that any attack on Kherson or the Donbas will be treated as an attack on Russia, potentially requiring a proportionate response. "All means at our disposal...this is not a bluff," said Putin.

It's an escalating crisis that didn't have to happen except for a kind of madness that has infected our leadership class. It's not enough for them to wreck our own country. They've set their sights on bigger game...like the entire friggin' world.

The only way Putin "loses" will be if he's not the only one losing, which means that in the end he'll take the temple down on everyone's head to prevent a "win" by the Regime.

In fact, this is a game that could only have been won by not playing.

I thought it was funny that every article I read calls the vote a 'sham'.

The articles don't even qualify it with 'seemingly' or 'likely'. They just call it a sham as a fact.

Meanwhile when the US invaded Iraq and the Iraqis voted, we called that a fair election.

In the end, Putin is exactly where he said he would be. On the other hand the US is not.

LdN
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
10,046
12,429
1
I posted a month ago that >>...if the tide turns against Moscow, Putin will escalate rather than "lose." To me, this has always seemed obvious.<<

And here we are: an impending annexation of swaths of Ukrainian territory accompanied by partial mobilization and the call-up of military reserves.

After the sham referendums and annexation of the occupied regions, the Russian leader in effect has declared that any attack on Kherson or the Donbas will be treated as an attack on Russia, potentially requiring a proportionate response. "All means at our disposal...this is not a bluff," said Putin.

It's an escalating crisis that didn't have to happen except for a kind of madness that has infected our leadership class. It's not enough for them to wreck our own country. They've set their sights on bigger game...like the entire friggin' world.

The only way Putin "loses" will be if he's not the only one losing, which means that in the end he'll take the temple down on everyone's head to prevent a "win" by the Regime.

In fact, this is a game that could only have been won by not playing.

If he already annexed Crimea into Russia back in 2014 and an attack on Russia justifies an escalation in Putin's mind, then why is this annexation any different? He already could have used this justification to escalate well before this based on Crimea, yet he didn't. This is for the consumption of his citizens to try and generate more forces. Putin is not going nuclear over Ukraine or any piece of Ukraine that was not Russia before 2014.

Russia can still come out of this conflict without being a pariah for generations. Putin gets overthrown, the Russians leave Ukraine and Putin gets all the blame, as "we were just following orders." Go nuclear in Ukraine they become a pariah state for generations that separates itself from Europe for multiple generations. They aren't going there. Putin isn't going to live forever and there is no guarantee that his generals would follow his orders anyway if he did order a nuclear attack.

Putin is turning Russia into the Soviet Union minus the Eastern Block. It is nowhere near as powerful and nuclear threats don't make him any more powerful as the danger of nuclear escalation has always existed since 1949.
 
Last edited:

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
26,938
32,363
1
An altered state
I posted a month ago that >>...if the tide turns against Moscow, Putin will escalate rather than "lose." To me, this has always seemed obvious.<<

And here we are: an impending annexation of swaths of Ukrainian territory accompanied by partial mobilization and the call-up of military reserves.

After the sham referendums and annexation of the occupied regions, the Russian leader in effect has declared that any attack on Kherson or the Donbas will be treated as an attack on Russia, potentially requiring a proportionate response. "All means at our disposal...this is not a bluff," said Putin.

It's an escalating crisis that didn't have to happen except for a kind of madness that has infected our leadership class. It's not enough for them to wreck our own country. They've set their sights on bigger game...like the entire friggin' world.

The only way Putin "loses" will be if he's not the only one losing, which means that in the end he'll take the temple down on everyone's head to prevent a "win" by the Regime.

In fact, this is a game that could only have been won by not playing.
BS. Not playing means you automatically lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
26,938
32,363
1
An altered state
If he already annexed Crimea into Russia back in 2014 and an attack on Russia justifies an escalation in Putin's mind, then why is this annexation any different? He already could have used this justification to escalate well before this based on Crimea, yet he didn't. This is for the consumption of his citizens to try and generate more forces. Putin is not going nuclear over Ukraine or any piece of Ukraine that was not Russia before 2014.

Russia can still come out of this conflict without being a pariah for generations. Putin gets overthrown, the Russians leave Ukraine and Putin gets all the blame, as "we were just following orders." Go nuclear in Ukraine they become a pariah state for generations that separates itself from Europe for multiple generations. They aren't going there. Putin isn't going to live forever and there is no guarantee that his generals would follow his orders anyway if he did order a nuclear attack.

Putin is turning Russia into the Soviet Union minus the Eastern Block. It is nowhere near as powerful and nuclear threats don't make him any more powerful as the danger of nuclear escalation has always existed since 1949.
His ‘partial mobilization’ comes with major risks. The ‘special military operation’ is not backed by the people of Russia and faces a lot of opposition. Wait until he starts removing young men from their homes and forcing them into the military. This actually weakens Putin and he knows it.....which is why he resisted doing so until now.

This mobilization will take many months. And the will to fight of those conscripted will be very low. And it doesn’t get him more tanks, missiles, artillery, ammo, and the officer corps he desperately needs.

As for some tactical nuke, I am quite sure our side has given his command the direct and unequivocal message of severe results of any use of nukes.
 
Last edited:

TN Lion

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2001
33,898
14,683
1
Cooler heads need to prevail. The right move here is peace talks that results in respect for Ukrainian territory while allowing Putin to save face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
10,046
12,429
1
His ‘partial mobilization’ comes with major risks. The ‘special military operation’ is not backed by the people of Russia and faces a lot of opposition. Wait until he starts removing young men from their homes and forcing them into the military. This actually weakens Putin and he knows it.....which is why he resisted doing so until now.

This mobilization will take many months. And the will to fight of those conscripted will be very low. And it doesn’t get him more tanks, missiles, artillery, ammo, and the officer corps he desperately needs.

As for some tactical nuke, I am quite sure our side has given his command the direct and unequivocal message of severe results of any use of nukes.

The proper response:

EXCLUSIVE: America WILL retaliate with 'a devastating strike' against Russia's Black Sea Fleet or bases in Crimea if Putin follows through on threat to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, US Army's former European commander warns

  • In a chilling address to Russia, Putin threatened the West with nuclear weapons, saying: 'I'm not bluffing'
  • Retired US Army General Ben Hodges, says its 'unlikely' Moscow will order a nuclear strike upon Ukraine
  • BUT he warns if it does, America could blast Russian military facilities in Crimea with a deadly missile strike
  • In the firing line could include the Sevastopol naval base and Putin's prized Black Sea fleet of warships
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
26,938
32,363
1
An altered state
The proper response:

EXCLUSIVE: America WILL retaliate with 'a devastating strike' against Russia's Black Sea Fleet or bases in Crimea if Putin follows through on threat to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, US Army's former European commander warns

  • In a chilling address to Russia, Putin threatened the West with nuclear weapons, saying: 'I'm not bluffing'
  • Retired US Army General Ben Hodges, says its 'unlikely' Moscow will order a nuclear strike upon Ukraine
  • BUT he warns if it does, America could blast Russian military facilities in Crimea with a deadly missile strike
  • In the firing line could include the Sevastopol naval base and Putin's prized Black Sea fleet of warships
I would tell them. .... ‘ You are getting your ass whipped by decades old Soviet weapons like tanks and MiG 21s with a few modern ones added in....and by a rag tag army. Use one single nuke, no matter how small, and we will unleash the full conventional power of NATO and the west until every asset in Ukraine proper(Crimea)is destroyed.”
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
10,046
12,429
1
Russia threatening nukes? That’s gotta be good for another 6-7 billion to Ukraine.

Right. Much better to give Putin Ukraine now and then we can fight them later when they decide that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are also part of Mother Russia. It is much better to shed NATO/US blood later than to send money to stop Putin now. Putin just wants some lebensraum and to have ethnic Russians join the motherland. If we just make some concessions, we can have peace in our time.
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2002
41,055
12,392
1
SE PA
Right. Much better to give Putin Ukraine now and then we can fight them later when they decide that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are also part of Mother Russia. It is much better to shed NATO/US blood later than to send money to stop Putin now. Putin just wants some lebensraum and to have ethnic Russians join the motherland. If we just make some concessions, we can have peace in our time.
How would it be any easier to fight Russia over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania than it would be to fight them over Ukraine now? Allowing Russia to annex south Ukraine in addition to Crimea only makes them more powerful, controlling far more oil/gas and produce distribution from/through that region. It gives them more resources to draw upon in a fight later. It would be FAR easier to squash Putin now than it would be later. He would also have gained confidence that his threats of nuclear retaliation are effective, thus to be used again, and again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

rutgersdave

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2004
755
395
1
So if North Korea or China threaten nuclear war, we are suppose to do whatever they want. Russia threaten us and the US backs down. If any of them threaten to attack the US, we must give in because they might actually use the nuclear bomb.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,684
11,959
1
I thought it was funny that every article I read calls the vote a 'sham'.

The articles don't even qualify it with 'seemingly' or 'likely'. They just call it a sham as a fact.

Meanwhile when the US invaded Iraq and the Iraqis voted, we called that a fair election.

In the end, Putin is exactly where he said he would be. On the other hand the US is not.

LdN

You're laboring under a basic confusion. Let me help you out:

When we overthrow a government, it's not a "coup" but rather a spontaneous outburst of popular fervor.

When we invade a country, it's always for noble and just reasons.

When we sponsor a foreign election, it's always free and fair by definition.

It's only the other guys who commit crimes against Sacred Global Democracy.

But seriously, the planned referendums are a farce. People can't very well cast a meaningful vote in the presence of occupying forces with shells raining down on their heads.

There is hardly any suspense here as to the outcome: a vote in favor of joining Russia.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,684
11,959
1
So if North Korea or China threaten nuclear war, we are suppose to do whatever they want. Russia threaten us and the US backs down. If any of them threaten to attack the US, we must give in because they might actually use the nuclear bomb.

Oh hell, Dave, why don't we just get ahead of the curve and nuke their commie asses now.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,684
11,959
1
Cooler heads need to prevail. The right move here is peace talks that results in respect for Ukrainian territory while allowing Putin to save face.

Good idea, but it's too late. The time for that -- and there was a time for that -- was this past January...or at any point in the seven years previous to this past January.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JR4PSU

rutgersdave

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2004
755
395
1
Oh hell, Dave, why don't we just get ahead of the curve and nuke their commie asses now.
No easy answers, maybe we give them some land, call a truce and hope Putin die soon.

Putin will first see if Winter will destroy NATO will with gas and oil being cut off which give us another 5-6 months.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Hotshoe

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,684
11,959
1
If he already annexed Crimea into Russia back in 2014 and an attack on Russia justifies an escalation in Putin's mind, then why is this annexation any different? He already could have used this justification to escalate well before this based on Crimea, yet he didn't. This is for the consumption of his citizens to try and generate more forces. Putin is not going nuclear over Ukraine or any piece of Ukraine that was not Russia before 2014.

Russia can still come out of this conflict without being a pariah for generations. Putin gets overthrown, the Russians leave Ukraine and Putin gets all the blame, as "we were just following orders." Go nuclear in Ukraine they become a pariah state for generations that separates itself from Europe for multiple generations. They aren't going there. Putin isn't going to live forever and there is no guarantee that his generals would follow his orders anyway if he did order a nuclear attack.

Putin is turning Russia into the Soviet Union minus the Eastern Block. It is nowhere near as powerful and nuclear threats don't make him any more powerful as the danger of nuclear escalation has always existed since 1949.

Ski, as we blithely wade deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy, I keep hearing a lot of whistling past the graveyard as the Regime and its "experts" keep reassuring us that all is well...don't worry...Putin would never do such a thing.

I mean, the track record of these people is not good, and if they're wrong this time, as they've been wrong so often before, we'll all pay a very high price. Personally, I'd prefer not to risk it, but I'm not driving the bus...just an unhappy passenger watching it approach the cliff.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,967
21,892
1
His ‘partial mobilization’ comes with major risks. The ‘special military operation’ is not backed by the people of Russia and faces a lot of opposition. Wait until he starts removing young men from their homes and forcing them into the military. This actually weakens Putin and he knows it.....which is why he resisted doing so until now.

This mobilization will take many months. And the will to fight of those conscripted will be very low. And it doesn’t get him more tanks, missiles, artillery, ammo, and the officer corps he desperately needs.

As for some tactical nuke, I am quite sure our side has given his command the direct and unequivocal message of severe results of any use of nukes.
Pretty much THIS ^^^^. I'm starting to think that Jerry should be renamed "Henny Penny."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,684
11,959
1
After you strip away all the lies and bullshit, it seems like the world is increasingly governed by a predatory globalist ruling class and its corrupt allies among the financial, corporate, media, and cultural elites.

The Ukraine war is their baby, in my view. As an American nationalist, I have never been able to fathom how the conflict serves the interests of our own citizenry.

One of my heroes is the great Russian writer and Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn. After his exile from the Soviet Union he gave a speech at Harvard where he warned against the blindness and illusions of that day's Western leaders.

Much of that speech still rings true in our own world today. This line, for example: >>There is...a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of a petrified armor around people's minds...It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.<<
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
26,938
32,363
1
An altered state
How would it be any easier to fight Russia over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania than it would be to fight them over Ukraine now? Allowing Russia to annex south Ukraine in addition to Crimea only makes them more powerful, controlling far more oil/gas and produce distribution from/through that region. It gives them more resources to draw upon in a fight later. It would be FAR easier to squash Putin now than it would be later. He would also have gained confidence that his threats of nuclear retaliation are effective, thus to be used again, and again.
Ski’s post was a bit of sarcasm. He understands all this very well.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
26,938
32,363
1
An altered state
After you strip away all the lies and bullshit, it seems like the world is increasingly governed by a predatory globalist ruling class and its corrupt allies among the financial, corporate, media, and cultural elites.

The Ukraine war is their baby, in my view. As an American nationalist, I have never been able to fathom how the conflict serves the interests of our own citizenry.

One of my heroes is the great Russian writer and Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn. After his exile from the Soviet Union he gave a speech at Harvard where he warned against the blindness and illusions of that day's Western leaders.

Much of that speech still rings true in our own world today. This line, for example: >>There is...a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of a petrified armor around people's minds...It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.<<
What year was that speech?
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
10,046
12,429
1
How would it be any easier to fight Russia over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania than it would be to fight them over Ukraine now? Allowing Russia to annex south Ukraine in addition to Crimea only makes them more powerful, controlling far more oil/gas and produce distribution from/through that region. It gives them more resources to draw upon in a fight later. It would be FAR easier to squash Putin now than it would be later. He would also have gained confidence that his threats of nuclear retaliation are effective, thus to be used again, and again.

We agree. It was a little sarcasm. The countries next in the bullseye understand what is at stake.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
26,938
32,363
1
An altered state
Spin's mad because I've been proven right. Again.

Good idea, but it's too late. The time for that -- and there was a time for that -- was this past January...or at any point in the seven years previous to this past January.
Talk about delusional.....this has been anything but predictable.

And it was too late to negotiate seven years ago. It was too late ten years ago. It was too late after 2000.

We had negotiations. We reached a strong agreement.......on paper . Ukraine was foolish enough to trust the US and NATO. Putin knew that agreement, in reality, was actually weak. He knew we were weak and our weakness led us here. People kept talking, promising the classic ‘peace in our time’........which once again has led us to war.

Always does.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,684
11,959
1
So if North Korea or China threaten nuclear war, we are suppose to do whatever they want. Russia threaten us and the US backs down. If any of them threaten to attack the US, we must give in because they might actually use the nuclear bomb.

Dave, sorry, you raised a fair point, and my first response was snarky.

So in all seriousness, what I would say is that there's a difference between surrendering to nuclear blackmail and recklessly courting the risk of nuclear war.

Also, there are a few things in this world worth risking nuclear war for. They have to do with the vital interests and survival of our country. Ukraine doesn't fit the bill. Not even close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
63,354
40,888
1
I posted a month ago that >>...if the tide turns against Moscow, Putin will escalate rather than "lose." To me, this has always seemed obvious.<<
This first sentence always seemed obvious to me. There is NO WAY that Putin will simply walk away with his tail between his legs. The best case is a brokered agreement where Russia takes control of some regions but the longer we continue to support Ukraine the longer it will take to get to this point. Remember, we're all in this together.

27278.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry

Nittany Ned2

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2005
7,112
5,156
1
The proper response:

EXCLUSIVE: America WILL retaliate with 'a devastating strike' against Russia's Black Sea Fleet or bases in Crimea if Putin follows through on threat to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, US Army's former European commander warns

  • In a chilling address to Russia, Putin threatened the West with nuclear weapons, saying: 'I'm not bluffing'
  • Retired US Army General Ben Hodges, says its 'unlikely' Moscow will order a nuclear strike upon Ukraine
  • BUT he warns if it does, America could blast Russian military facilities in Crimea with a deadly missile strike
  • In the firing line could include the Sevastopol naval base and Putin's prized Black Sea fleet of warships
General Hodges has been nothing short of brilliant in communicating the real situation


Hodges makes a very revelatory comment. Russia is such a military power that less than ten months into a conflict and they are buying artillery rounds…from North Korea…. ‘Nuf said.

Jerry should grow a pair or move to Russia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: knickslions

Nittany Ned2

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2005
7,112
5,156
1
This first sentence always seemed obvious to me. There is NO WAY that Putin will simply walk away with his tail between his legs. The best case is a brokered agreement where Russia takes control of some regions but the longer we continue to support Ukraine the longer it will take to get to this point. Remember, we're all in this together.

27278.jpeg
Now post this again as a % of GDP. Your chart is very deceptive but that is your point.
Its a far more accurate picture to a) not only include military aid but also non military & humanitarian aid and b) rank the all aid as a percentage of GDP.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LafayetteBear

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,684
11,959
1
General Hodges has been nothing short of brilliant in communicating the real situation




Hodges makes a very revelatory comment. Russia is such a military power that less than ten months into a conflict and they are buying artillery rounds…from North Korea…. ‘Nuf said.

Jerry should grow a pair or move to Russia.

I have a better idea, Ned. Why don't you move to Ukraine, sign up as a foreign volunteer, and put your money where your mouth is.

No seriously, I know this is a radical thought, but my first concern is the interests of my own country, which happens to be America...not Ukraine.

Also, it is more than a little crazy to measure courage by the willingness to destabilize the global order and risk nuclear escalation to vindicate Ukraine's sacred right to join NATO. That ain't courage. It's idiocy.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
10,046
12,429
1
This first sentence always seemed obvious to me. There is NO WAY that Putin will simply walk away with his tail between his legs. The best case is a brokered agreement where Russia takes control of some regions but the longer we continue to support Ukraine the longer it will take to get to this point. Remember, we're all in this together.

27278.jpeg

The ghosts of Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier disagree with you. Wilson's and Roosevelt's ghosts do too, as oceans did not protect us from madmen hellbent on conquest in wars that were not in the US interest. Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Do you think maybe China and Iran and North Korea are taking notice of the world's response in Ukraine? How will they respond to successful nuclear blackmail and weakness in the face of a bully because it is not our fight? How about an emboldened Putin and Russia that will get away with it if we walk away because it is not our fight or too expensive? Do they stop there?
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,684
11,959
1
General Hodges has been nothing short of brilliant in communicating the real situation




Hodges makes a very revelatory comment. Russia is such a military power that less than ten months into a conflict and they are buying artillery rounds…from North Korea…. ‘Nuf said.

Jerry should grow a pair or move to Russia.

Addendum to my last...let's hope the retired General is talking out his ass. It's been amazing to me the last few months listening to some of these retired military types so casually and confidently talking up a nuclear friggin' war.

I mean, think about it, the Rooskies use a tactical nuke in Ukraine...so we launch a direct attack on Russian forces in the area...inviting a retaliatory strike against us by Russia's strategic nuclear force.

And this seems...sane...to you?
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
63,354
40,888
1
The ghosts of Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier disagree with you. Wilson's and Roosevelt's ghosts do too, as oceans did not protect us from madmen hellbent on conquest in wars that were not in the US interest. Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Do you think maybe China and Iran and North Korea are taking notice of the world's response in Ukraine? How will they respond to successful nuclear blackmail and weakness in the face of a bully because it is not our fight? How about an emboldened Putin and Russia that will get away with it if we walk away because it is not our fight or too expensive? Do they stop there?
???

I neither supported or condemned our involvement. I simply pointed out two things:
  1. Putin isn't going to accept defeat.
  2. The U.S. is shouldering a disproportionate share of the cost.
The first issue: You're damned if you do and damned if you don’t. It's a tough situation.

The second issue: This is B.S. Trump was 100% correct about NATO. The U.S. spends nearly double what they promised and no other country except the U.K. spends what they promised. Trump confronted the "allies" about this but Biden us back to bending over.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
10,046
12,429
1
Addendum to my last...let's hope the retired General is talking out his ass. It's been amazing to me the last few months listening to some of these retired military types so casually and confidently talking up a nuclear friggin' war.

I mean, think about it, the Rooskies use a tactical nuke in Ukraine...so we launch a direct attack on Russian forces in the area...inviting a retaliatory strike against us by Russia's strategic nuclear force.

And this seems...sane...to you?

I am a dictator that started a war against a sovereign nation that my country signed an agreement with to honor its borders after it voluntarily gave up its own nuclear weaponry. I am now threatening to go nuclear because my military can't back up my intentions. But if you give me what I want without me being able to take it myself we will have peace. I don't want anything else. You can trust me. Honest. No, I am not kidding.
53582492eab8ea1d1e6f7e2e
 

kts136

Well-Known Member
Nov 21, 2013
2,304
1,783
1
Now post this again as a % of GDP. Your chart is very deceptive but that is your point.
Its a far more accurate picture to a) not only include military aid but also non military & humanitarian aid and b) rank the all aid as a percentage of GDP.
And we're still higher than most of the places on that list who are far closer and are much more affected by this than us....so what's your point.
 

Nittany Ned2

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2005
7,112
5,156
1
Addendum to my last...let's hope the retired General is talking out his ass. It's been amazing to me the last few months listening to some of these retired military types so casually and confidently talking up a nuclear friggin' war.

I mean, think about it, the Rooskies use a tactical nuke in Ukraine...so we launch a direct attack on Russian forces in the area...inviting a retaliatory strike against us by Russia's strategic nuclear force.

And this seems...sane...to you?
Move to Russia, please. If you start a go fund me page I will donate.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
10,046
12,429
1
Now post this again as a % of GDP. Your chart is very deceptive but that is your point.
Its a far more accurate picture to a) not only include military aid but also non military & humanitarian aid and b) rank the all aid as a percentage of GDP.

The problem is the same two slackers that have been stabbing us in the back since forever, France and Germany. Huge economies by European standards with flea testicles.