The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)

[MatteoV25]

Yup.

Wow, are you helping me prove my point? That's so unlike you. Thank you. The absolute refusal to acknowledge when you are wrong sure does say a lot.

I understand why you would want to change your point. The first one was just stupid. The second one is a strawman. No one said otherwise. You are having a bad day.

Still waiting on someone to explain how America suffers when NATO countries don't make it to 2%. Especially if they're so well protected from a Russian attack.

 

[JumperJack]

Just admit that you’re fine with him telling our biggest enemy to attack our allies so we can both move on

I think that’s absurd. The man was making a point (the correct point that should be made).

I know you’re smart enough to understand what exaggeration for effect is.

 

[JumperJack]

There is no impact on America and its defense if these other countries don't spend 2%. It's purely an optics issue where Trump was getting mad that America allocated a higher percentage than other countries.

This is terribly wrong. I suspect that you’re one of the people that think debt won’t ever be a problem.

That’s not true. It’s never been true in history.

At some point, we and our children are going to pay dearly in ways that are hard to imagine.

If we had a much smaller federal debt I’d be inclined to support this spending more. But, we don’t. And, it’s all pissed away anyway since they can’t take their territory back.

 

[MatteoV25]

I think that’s absurd. The man was making a point (the correct point that should be made).

I know you’re smart enough to understand what exaggeration for effect is.

I cannot stress this enough, EVERY NATO country is anticipated to reach the 2% threshold this year and it has zero to do with Trump. For him to threaten them, whether he’s exaggerating or not, is not only reckless but simply stupid.

 

[MatteoV25]

This is terribly wrong. I suspect that you’re one of the people that think debt won’t ever be a problem.

That’s not true. It’s never been true in history.

At some point, we and our children are going to pay dearly in ways that are hard to imagine.

If we had a much smaller federal debt I’d be inclined to support this spending more. But, we don’t. And, it’s all pissed away anyway since they can’t take their territory back.

Does our national debt suddenly fix itself if more NATO countries start reaching the 2% threshold? I wasn’t aware of that.

 

[JumperJack]

Does our national debt suddenly fix itself if more NATO countries start reaching the 2% threshold? I wasn’t aware of that.

If we had leaders who demanded that they pay more so we spent less, then yes, over time it can be fixed.

 

[MatteoV25]

If we had leaders who demanded that they pay more so we spent less, then yes, over time it can be fixed.

Gasp! America cutting its defense spending, how liberal of you. Regardless, the goal of 2% of GDP being spent on defense has no impact on America paying more than other countries. It is simply a goal for each country, which is why it's ridiculous that Trump is getting upset over them not reaching it.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

NATO countries being prepared to defend the predicted imminent attacks from Russia is not important and will not “impact” the United States? Gotcha!

 

[Bill Cosby]

Having a young son, mindset changes drastically on whether the US should be the world’s police.

I just don’t want the warhawks to get us in a situation where my son may be forced to go fight some young Russian boys who also think Biden and Putin are just corrupt pieces of shit.

And I’d prefer the United States intelligence agencies stop ****ing things up at home and abroad.

 

[MatteoV25]

NATO countries being prepared to defend the predicted imminent attacks from Russia is not important and will not “impact” the United States? Gotcha!

My comment about having no impact on America was under the assumption of times of peace. I should've explained myself better in that regard. If Russia attacks then it still doesn't frankly matter how much that countries spends on defense because America would get involved regardless. People like you wouldn't like it, but they still would.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Some might say that IF Russia plans to go beyond Ukraine, having a military that can defend an attack could be a major deterrent, in times of peace.

 

[SDC888]

It's the naive and cursory understanding of the region most people have that is used to finesse people by the media and MIC thinktanks into thinking this needless war implies anything about Putin attacking NATO.

 

[MatteoV25]

Some might say that IF Russia plans to go beyond Ukraine, having a military that can defend an attack could be a major deterrent, in times of peace.

Good thing that all of the NATO countries that directly border Ukraine spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense so that someone couldn't come along and say that we shouldn't defend them because they don't pay their fair share.

Romania-2.44%
Hungary-2.43%
Slovakia-2.03%
Poland-3.9% (most among NATO)

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Good thing that all of the NATO countries that directly border Ukraine spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense so that someone couldn't come along and say that we shouldn't defend them because they don't pay their fair share.

Romania-2.44%
Hungary-2.43%
Slovakia-2.03%
Poland-3.9% (most among NATO)

This is a weird take. Is the argument from the current left that only those countries contiguous to Ukraine are in danger and that the non-contiguous European countries have no Russian worries? Because you seem to be suggesting that a NATO made up of strong countries is not a deterrent to an attack on NATO, and that is a wild proposition.

You are working so hard to just oppose the Trump comment that you seem to have abandoned all common sense.

 

[SDC888]

I think it's just about framing for narrative, that Trump is somehow a threat to our national security via NATO interests.

Trump had us on a path towards world peace, such that that lofty ideal even makes sense to say. There's no doubt in my mind that had Trump been re-elected, Putin never has the courage to invade: this war never happens. I didn't used to think that, but as events have unfolded, I have zero doubts... well as much as one can say about a hypothetical where one doesn't have personal involvement.

 

[MatteoV25]

This is a weird take. Is the argument from the current left that only those countries contiguous to Ukraine are in danger and that the non-contiguous European countries have no Russian worries? Because you seem to be suggesting that a NATO made up of strong countries is not a deterrent to an attack on NATO, and that is a wild proposition.

You are working so hard to just oppose the Trump comment that you seem to have abandoned all common sense.

No, the "current left" does not have that view, that's you making an assumption (and you know what they say when you assume). You were talking about Russia going beyond Ukraine so I simply used the countries that were directly beyond Ukraine as the example.

It is definitely a deterrent, a strong and UNITED NATO would normally prevent anyone from trying to attack but Putin isn't normal. Do you really think it's wild to think that Putin could continue his attacks? Do you have a better idea about what's in Putin's mind than the rest of us? If so, you should let people who make the decisions on foreign affairs aware of your abilities.

 

[MatteoV25]

I think it's just about framing for narrative, that Trump is somehow a threat to our national security via NATO interests.

Trump had us on a path towards world peace, such that that lofty ideal even makes sense to say. There's no doubt in my mind that had Trump been re-elected, Putin never has the courage to invade: this war never happens. I didn't used to think that, but as events have unfolded, I have zero doubts... well as much as one can say about a hypothetical where one doesn't have personal involvement.

I'm just curious, what has Trump said in regards to Russia that makes you believe that they would be less likely to invade Ukraine.

 

[hmt5000]

Some might say that IF Russia plans to go beyond Ukraine, having a military that can defend an attack could be a major deterrent, in times of peace.

You mean like how Trump tried to get NATO members to up their spending and preparedness? Or is it just always us that pay for everything as long as they send a few hundred people to help fight? LOL.

In 2018 a German General warned Berlin that if war broke out they only had about 20 main battle tanks 100% ready to go to war and only about 2 weeks of munitions and supplies. He was ignored. Fast forward to now and people make all these grand statements about what Germany is promising to supply Ukr... and they haven't done 1/4 of it.... It's all in the future... They talk big and then just send a few things here and there. They can't even get their shell production ramped up due to energy prices and raw material prices being insanely high in Germany right now.

Poland, who is right next door to Ukr has said they just found 800k artillery shells they could supply to Ukr but they need the US to fund shipping it there.... We have to pay for Poland to ship shells to Ukr border. LOL... Right next door.

Also need to add Australia on this. They recently released a report that if China attacked them they had about 2 weeks of munitions and would have to receive massive shipments from outside to survive past those 2 weeks.

 

[hmt5000]

Not answering my question. But we don't owe Australia any more, or less, than we owe Ukraine.

We have treaties and long standing cooperation with Australia.

Armenians are about to be killed to hell by Azerbaijan again... Once again nobody in America cares about that. For some reason those Christians don't matter at all. In fact, out of the millions of illegal immigrants coming to this country the only group that has routinely been denied refugee status in the US are Armenian Christians.

Propaganda works... That's why they do it. You've lapped it up and are willing to sacrifice America for Ukr due to propaganda.

 

[hmt5000]

While what you say is true, it's 10 years later. So we should support another country based on how prosperous it is?

They aren't less corrupt... We are just reporting it's less corrupt. LOL. People are paying off recruiters to not have to fight. People pay off the government to get war contracts they can't supply. Did you know Ukraine is responsible for more Credit Card theft in the USA than any other country? Nice little fact for our good friends isn't it...

 

[Caveman Catfan]

No, the "current left" does not have that view, that's you making an assumption (and you know what they say when you assume). You were talking about Russia going beyond Ukraine so I simply used the countries that were directly beyond Ukraine as the example.

It is definitely a deterrent, a strong and UNITED NATO would normally prevent anyone from trying to attack but Putin isn't normal. Do you really think it's wild to think that Putin could continue his attacks? Do you have a better idea about what's in Putin's mind than the rest of us? If so, you should let people who make the decisions on foreign affairs aware of your abilities.

Actually, you and the pro-war left have said there is a real fear that Putin will attack other NATO countries. In fact you again admit it above.

I think if NATO countries are strong, as in paying at least 2% of their GDP toward military, as they committed years ago, Putin will not attack NATO. I think most people think he attacked Ukraine, in part, because it was not NATO, but there were statements that it would become part of NATO. After this debacle, I seriously don’t think Putin will engage a better defended country.

I also think if we had focused less on the Olympics in China and more on dissuading Russia from its attack, there would be no war today.

Finally, I think you have been all over the board with your drifting opinions and statements today.

 

[MatteoV25]

Actually, you and the pro-war left have said there is a real fear that Putin will attack other NATO countries. In fact you again admit it above.

So according to you, I was arguing that all NATO countries are at risk. Then I (along with the current left) have the opinion that the risk is only on the countries that border Ukraine (which again, was your assumption). And now apparently, I'm back to everyone is at risk. Does that sound about right to you?

I think if NATO countries are strong, as in paying at least 2% of their GDP toward military, as they committed years ago, Putin will not attack NATO. I think most people think he attacked Ukraine, in part, because it was not NATO, but there were statements that it would become part of NATO. After this debacle, I seriously don’t think Putin will engage a better defended country.

I agree with you on this statement. My argument this whole time is that Putin would be more inclined to attack a NATO country if Trump follows through on his "let them do whatever the hell they want" threat.

I also think if we had focused less on the Olympics in China and more on dissuading Russia from its attack, there would be no war today.

Finally, I think you have been all over the board with your drifting opinions and statements today.

If it seems that I'm drifting, it is because whenever anything political is discussed, it seems that I must debate with at least three people at once that all want to talk about a different aspect on what is going on. Apologies to you on the sense of confusion.

 

[hmt5000]

Polls... I know... But none were showing Trump winning. Some had him within the margin of error to win but almost all predicted a Biden win.

Also should note that Mich might be swinging way more to Trump than what they are letting on. the huge muslim population is hating Biden. If Biden is still on the ticket in Nov you could see that whole segment stay home as they have said as much.

 

[MatteoV25]

View embedded media

Polls... I know... But none were showing Trump winning. Some had him within the margin of error to win but almost all predicted a Biden win.

Also should note that Mich might be swinging way more to Trump than what they are letting on. the huge muslim population is hating Biden. If Biden is still on the ticket in Nov you could see that whole segment stay home as they have said as much.

Why wouldn't Biden be on the ticket

 

[hmt5000]

 

[hmt5000]

NATO members talking about sending troops to ukr... They want to force us to into this war. How many of you guys are going to go with it? Russia didn't attack the US or NATO... but we are going to kill American kids to defend billionaire Ukr oligarchs.... Geeze.

France is going to send troops in but aren't funding the war at all. How much do you need to see the game?

 

[WildcatofNati2]

Does anyone on this thread advocate sending troops? It appears that the hawks here are outnumbered, but there are still about five or six who post. OK, hawks, is it time to send troops, and a simple yes or not will suffice to answer the question. VH, Big Blue GA, Richie, Catemus, Bcw, Entropy, let's have answers. Troops, or no? War, or not?

 

[hmt5000]

NATO seems to be dead set on sending troops in order to force our hands... Are we willing to back up people who failed their obligations for the last 20 years?... I'll bet the assholes still would...

 

[Caveman Catfan]

So according to you, I was arguing that all NATO countries are at risk. Then I (along with the current left) have the opinion that the risk is only on the countries that border Ukraine (which again, was your assumption). And now apparently, I'm back to everyone is at risk. Does that sound about right to you?

I agree with you on this statement. My argument this whole time is that Putin would be more inclined to attack a NATO country if Trump follows through on his "let them do whatever the hell they want" threat.

If it seems that I'm drifting, it is because whenever anything political is discussed, it seems that I must debate with at least three people at once that all want to talk about a different aspect on what is going on. Apologies to you on the sense of confusion.

No one but you said only the NATO countries on the border of Ukraine were the only countries at risk. Like most lefties, you run to the nearest rabbit hole when you get stuck by your own contradictions.

If you were consistent and not simply constantly political, you would not drift. You know the end game you desire, rather than have a firm foundation upon which to stand.

 

[MatteoV25]

No one but you said only the NATO countries on the border of Ukraine were the only countries at risk. Like most lefties, you run to the nearest rabbit hole when you get stuck by your own contradictions.

If you were consistent and not simply constantly political, you would not drift. You know the end game you desire, rather than have a firm foundation upon which to stand.

I never once said that specifically the only countries at risk were the ones that bordered Ukraine. If you go back and read, you very clearly just interpreted what I had said as such but I never once said that.

You keep claiming that I’m drifting but it’s because you like to be suggestive in your replies to make it seem like I’m always saying something I’m not.

I would repeat myself and give you my whole thoughts on the matter since you seem to be having such an issue with interpretation but then you’d just spin it to fit your preconceived narrative, like you always do (incoming hypocrite comment because you are that predictable).

 

[Spica Orbit]

NATO seems to be dead set on sending troops in order to force our hands... Are we willing to back up people who failed their obligations for the last 20 years?... I'll bet the assholes still would...

NATO’s Debate Over Whether To Conventionally Intervene In Ukraine Shows Its Desperation

NATO is planning for a possible Russian breakthrough across the Line of Contact later this year but isn’t yet sure how to react if that happens. French President Macron hosted over 20 fellow European leaders in Paris on Monday to discuss their next moves in

korybko.substack.com

 

[Caveman Catfan]

NATO’s Debate Over Whether To Conventionally Intervene In Ukraine Shows Its Desperation

NATO is planning for a possible Russian breakthrough across the Line of Contact later this year but isn’t yet sure how to react if that happens. French President Macron hosted over 20 fellow European leaders in Paris on Monday to discuss their next moves in

korybko.substack.com

Scary stuff.

 

[JumperJack]

Scary stuff.

Well, you know, MAYBE there should be an effort to end this war rather than prolong it, if that’s truly what our NATO allies think.

It would seem that they prefer opening the door to WWIII rather than cut a deal with the Russians. Something is terribly wrong.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Well, you know, MAYBE there should be an effort to end this war rather than prolong it, if that’s truly what our NATO allies think.

It would seem that they prefer opening the door to WWIII rather than cut a deal with the Russians. Something is terribly wrong.

Let Russia know that other European countries are contemplating entering the war on behalf of Ukraine. If that is a negotiation strategy to end the war, I understand. But, begin the negotiation process now.

The candidates for presidency need to tell us in unconditional terms that Ukraine will not get US troops as support.

 

[JumperJack]

 

[Spica Orbit]

Captured Ukrainian M2 Bradley Paraded On Russian Propaganda Train

Russia is known to have captured damaged Bradleys, but this is the first time we have seen one being used as a traveling war trophy.

www.twz.com

 

[Spica Orbit]

And this pretty much confirms what was reported a day or so ago. If the Pentagon Fan Boys at the War Zone report it, it's got to be close to 100% true. I'm also sure they'll post a 35 page article on why the US needs to spend a few hundred billion more in Ukraine, they just need some time to get over this, first. They just love those wars, as long as somebody else is fighting them.

https://www.twz.com/land/ukraines-first-m1-abrams-tank-loss-appears-to-have-occurred

 

[hmt5000]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...S&cvid=8ca12e0262364afc94d01b5fa040ce5d&ei=25


ussia's capture of Avdiivka has been followed by continued gains by Moscow in Ukraine, as concerns grow about continued United States support for Kyiv's forces, who one military expert told Newsweek are "both outmanned and outgunned along the front."

Russian forces have maintained momentum after Ukraine's retreat from the Donetsk town on February 17 which was partly blamed on ammunition shortages.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...S&cvid=8ca12e0262364afc94d01b5fa040ce5d&ei=25


ussia's capture of Avdiivka has been followed by continued gains by Moscow in Ukraine, as concerns grow about continued United States support for Kyiv's forces, who one military expert told Newsweek are "both outmanned and outgunned along the front."

Russian forces have maintained momentum after Ukraine's retreat from the Donetsk town on February 17 which was partly blamed on ammunition shortages.

The media seems to be pumping Russian successes recently, if this thread is any indication. They probably want to push the public to place pressure on Congress to spend more money to get this back to a stalemate.

 

[Bill Cosby]

“Back to a stalemate”

It’s never been a stalemate