oski003 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Big C said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

This is a most interesting question. Unlike the times of yore the readers are terribly biased for the most part and the journalists on both sides feed their audiences. I have almost given up at this late age. You either get vitriol or suppression of news. For the time being, the middle has disappeared in journalism as well as the population, As a much younger man I never knew Walter Cronkite's political persuasion until he was on his deathbed. Not any longer.

---

Amen. Worse still, we are being told we don't need a middle...the government will decide the truth and censor the rest.

---

Amen+ to lamenting the lack of a middle. Back in the day, there were the three networks and each competed to see how close to the middle they could be. Okay, the news was homogenized and a lot of voices weren't heard from, but at least they tried to balance the right and the left.

Dunno what network news is lately, because who the heck watches the networks! (I guess they are a lot of video, some mainstream stories and some fluff.)

I can't overemphasize how disappointed I am with PBS, being completely locked in to the politically-correct-left (but not too left) and basically never showing any other perspective, or even two competing perspectives in the same story.

Being able to choose the "news" that matches one's own (often ignorant) viewpoint is one of the things wrecking this country.

---

I understand this lament generally, but I don't find it super relevant to the discussion of the Ukraine war.

Are we trying to find the "middle" between reality and Putin's propaganda? I am not sure I see a need to give space for Putin's firehose of falsehoods, whether through broadcast media or anywhere else.

I don't think that the traditional right/left political spectrum is applicable here. There are a few extremists on the left and the right who amplify Putin's lies, but generally speaking I don't think it's the job of US media to allow extremists or obvious lies to present an anchor that may be balanced against.

If some nut job says that 500 million Ukrainians have been killed in this war does that mean the media should say that somewhere between 100k and 500 million have died? Or should they just split the difference?

We are still very deep in the fog of war across a number of large stories. For example - the NS pipeline bombing. We very much don't know what happened so it's largely speculation based on circumstantial evidence. Similar for the KHPP. I've found the reporting to be fairly reasonable on both of those matters with acknowledgment that there isn't much ground truth.

Contrast that with some of the early war crimes we saw in Mariupol and Bucha. US media didn't give much air time to Putin's propaganda (which his agents spent a lot of time amplifying in this thread - and will probably use this as an opportunity to re-trigger their firehose). Does anyone think there is a political reason why the media chose not to amplify Putin's lies? Is there anyone who believes that democrats or republicans are the reason that the media didn't do so?

I think the biggest problem with reporting in this war is that there is just an overwhelming amount of source material, much of which has either credibility issues or is unverifiable. I think in this respect, it's unlike any war the media has had to cover. We had direct feeds the US government from our smart bombs to share in the last few US-centric wars but here the fighting is dispersed across a huge front and much of the footage is coming from drones or cell phones. US networks simply aren't positioned to deal with that sort of footage.

Where I think US media is really letting us down is in more technical coverage of what weapons we are or aren't providing to Ukraine, what Ukraine has asked for, why they've asked for them and where the shortfalls can have an impact. They can easily parade their military experts to have a lively debate. We saw some of this with the will they / won't they on F-16s, but I don't feel like it was prevalent otherwise. All that said, I don't spend any time watching TV news so I could be off there.

---

"Middle" is a proxy for "truth." It is relevant to Ukraine because nobody knows the truth about what is going on. Putin/Russia supporters that have their news sources, which they believe and which Ukraine supporters dismiss. Vice versa for the Ukraine supporters, their news sources, etc.

---

I believe everyone here supports Ukraine. Some, like Cal88, are realists. Some, like Unit2, are romanticists.

---

I don't think everyone here supports Ukraine.

Quote:

---

I don't think everyone here supports Ukraine.

---

Many here support Ukraine, to the last Ukrainian.

movielover said:

---

I support peace. Immediate, unconditional peace talks.

---

What does "unconditional" mean here? Any peace agreement will have conditions.

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

Consensus Koala said:

---

Big C said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Big C said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

This is a most interesting question. Unlike the times of yore the readers are terribly biased for the most part and the journalists on both sides feed their audiences. I have almost given up at this late age. You either get vitriol or suppression of news. For the time being, the middle has disappeared in journalism as well as the population, As a much younger man I never knew Walter Cronkite's political persuasion until he was on his deathbed. Not any longer.

---

Amen. Worse still, we are being told we don't need a middle...the government will decide the truth and censor the rest.

---

Amen+ to lamenting the lack of a middle. Back in the day, there were the three networks and each competed to see how close to the middle they could be. Okay, the news was homogenized and a lot of voices weren't heard from, but at least they tried to balance the right and the left.

Dunno what network news is lately, because who the heck watches the networks! (I guess they are a lot of video, some mainstream stories and some fluff.)

I can't overemphasize how disappointed I am with PBS, being completely locked in to the politically-correct-left (but not too left) and basically never showing any other perspective, or even two competing perspectives in the same story.

Being able to choose the "news" that matches one's own (often ignorant) viewpoint is one of the things wrecking this country.

---

I understand this lament generally, but I don't find it super relevant to the discussion of the Ukraine war.

Are we trying to find the "middle" between reality and Putin's propaganda? I am not sure I see a need to give space for Putin's firehose of falsehoods, whether through broadcast media or anywhere else.

I don't think that the traditional right/left political spectrum is applicable here. There are a few extremists on the left and the right who amplify Putin's lies, but generally speaking I don't think it's the job of US media to allow extremists or obvious lies to present an anchor that may be balanced against.

If some nut job says that 500 million Ukrainians have been killed in this war does that mean the media should say that somewhere between 100k and 500 million have died? Or should they just split the difference?

We are still very deep in the fog of war across a number of large stories. For example - the NS pipeline bombing. We very much don't know what happened so it's largely speculation based on circumstantial evidence. Similar for the KHPP. I've found the reporting to be fairly reasonable on both of those matters with acknowledgment that there isn't much ground truth.

Contrast that with some of the early war crimes we saw in Mariupol and Bucha. US media didn't give much air time to Putin's propaganda (which his agents spent a lot of time amplifying in this thread - and will probably use this as an opportunity to re-trigger their firehose). Does anyone think there is a political reason why the media chose not to amplify Putin's lies? Is there anyone who believes that democrats or republicans are the reason that the media didn't do so?

I think the biggest problem with reporting in this war is that there is just an overwhelming amount of source material, much of which has either credibility issues or is unverifiable. I think in this respect, it's unlike any war the media has had to cover. We had direct feeds the US government from our smart bombs to share in the last few US-centric wars but here the fighting is dispersed across a huge front and much of the footage is coming from drones or cell phones. US networks simply aren't positioned to deal with that sort of footage.

Where I think US media is really letting us down is in more technical coverage of what weapons we are or aren't providing to Ukraine, what Ukraine has asked for, why they've asked for them and where the shortfalls can have an impact. They can easily parade their military experts to have a lively debate. We saw some of this with the will they / won't they on F-16s, but I don't feel like it was prevalent otherwise. All that said, I don't spend any time watching TV news so I could be off there.

---

Agree that US support for this war (or lack thereof) doesn't break in the traditional left-right split, like, say Vietnam.

Also agree about more coverage of the weapons systems.

However, there are a lot of questions not being addressed, national debates we should be having... and I am NOT talking about "Putin: Good guy or bad guy?" (because I think it's pretty obvious that he's the latter and the main cause of all this).

Here are some of my questions:

Was it a mistake to talk about Ukraine joining NATO 30 years ago and is it a mistake to be talking about that today?

---

Yes. For the same obvious reason that the U.S. would be uptight if Mexico was in a military alliance with Russia.

Quote:

---

What does Putin really want? Is this a "dominoes theory" thing where, if he gets Ukraine, will he then go after Poland, then Germany, etc, etc and pretty soon he's at the top of the Campanile, gazing down at the new University of Putinfornia? Or does he pretty much just want Ukraine because, you know, USSR and close cultural ties and all that?

---

No, that dominoes theory is crap. What Putin wants is to not have U.S. weapons in a country on Russia's border for obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

To what extent is the US actually kinda glad this war is happening, because it pumps up our defense economy, exhausts Russia and gives us an up-close-and-personal look at their military capabilities...

---

Very

Quote:

---

... and are we subtly (or not so subtly) egging Ukraine on for the above self-serving reasons?

---

Not to be overly blunt, but no *****

Quote:

---

Just about every war we've been involved in over the past 75 years was later believed to be a mistake, yet the media rarely even questions things until well after the fact, accepting false pretenses as if they are free pizza at a frat house. Why is that?

---

Because the media practices access journalism and in order to do that, you have to be willing to put in print what the government wants in print. Otherwise, you lose your access.

---

Well, yes, those would be my speculative answers, as well, to one extent or another. And so I wish these questions were being asked and debated around the country, but it is probably too much to ask.

---

I'm sure you can find plenty of media organizations where these questions are routinely asked and debated. Maybe not on PBS, but they exist. Is something wrong with those?

---

Well, I'm pretty lazy. How far am I supposed to look? bearister asked about unbiased and credible sources for news on this war... and I would expand that to opinions and answers to these sorts of fundamental questions, as well. Seems like a PBS should be addressing this. If it takes a huge search, then who's ever going to see them?

---

A bunch of links and sources have been posted by Cal88 and others in this very thread. I assume you don't find these credible. What makes a source credible, in your eyes?

---

A source is credible if...

a) they have built up respect with me (or other sources I respect) over time

and/or...

b) what they report corroborates my educated opinion and meets the "gut test", or makes enough sense to get me to challenge my own opinions... if it's a subject I don't know much about, I'm not going to pretend like I do; there are plenty of topics that I don't have an "educated opinion" about (but this is not one of them)

Looking at the two (diametrically opposed) posters who have presented reams and reams of sources on this thread, some of it is credible, some of it is not and most of it, I have no idea. When I see several links in one post and do not recognize the sources for any of it, I just ignore it all.

---

So basically you're saying that there are no outlets that have built up respect over the years who are currently taking the "Ukraine questioning" position. Maybe that says something about the position?

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

I support peace. Immediate, unconditional peace talks.

---

What does "unconditional" mean here? Any peace agreement will have conditions.

---

Posters here, and supposedly US officials, have asked Russia to withdraw and then engage in peace talks. That would be conditional peace talks. You are saying unconditional peace agreement. He is saying unconditional peace talks. Big difference.

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

I support peace. Immediate, unconditional peace talks.

---

What does "unconditional" mean here? Any peace agreement will have conditions.

---

Unconditional peace talks.

No, "Russia has to give back Crimea before we sit down" conditions.

Food for thought. Ritter reviews some of the known issues, and some I was unfamiliar with - like Zelensky flip flopping on selling high-quality Ukranian agriculture land at bargain prices to Cargill and Monsanto (Blackrock).

Scott Ritter Investigation: Agent Zelensky - Part 2.

But its not that simple because the parties do not agree to territorial lines.

tequila4kapp said:

---

But its not that simple because the parties do not agree to territorial lines.

---

This. Peace talks without withdrawal is Russia's condition for Ukraine (so they can keep the territory they invaded). It's only "unconditional" for Russia.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

But its not that simple because the parties do not agree to territorial lines.

---

This. Peace talks without withdrawal is Russia's condition for Ukraine (so they can keep the territory they invaded). It's only "unconditional" for Russia.

---

Realistically speaking, the Russians are never going to relinquish Crimea and its mostly russophone land bridge, or the Donbass.

The problem with your approach is that it has already resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers, and at this rate, there will be hundreds of thousands more, until you will come to the same conclusion above.

One of the main points we disagree about is the inevitability of the military outcome. Russia has escalatory dominance, and will in all likelihood win. There is a significantly smaller chance of the war ending up in a stalemate, but virtually no chance of Ukraine winning. Last year I gave:

-65% chance of Russia winning the war,
-30% chance of a WW1-like stalemate
-5% chance of Ukraine winning (meaning they manage to push through all the way to the Crimean border and retake a significant part of the Donbass)

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2084292

My predictions are proving to be right. If anything I might have actually underestimated the probability of a Russian win.

Basically at the end of a long carnage in 6 to 18 months, we are going to be back to square one, because even in the case of a stalemate, Russia is going to hold on to the territories it currently controls. So you're really expending the lives of half a million Ukrainians for the tiny hope of them advancing and changing the current map in their favor... And the worst aspect of this is that in this scenario the people in the territories that the Ukrainians will have reconquered don't want to be part of Zelensky's Ukraine, so what's the point?!?

---

Yes, I know that your argument has basically mirrored Russian propaganda from the beginning, which basically boils down to one point: We're going to win anyway, so give us whatever we want.

Never mind that the bulk of this war has thus far demonstrated that Russia is NOT getting whatever they want, you are going to stick to this no matter what.

This is why I said above that not everyone actually supports Ukraine on this board. You clearly don't.

sycasey said:

---

Yes, I know that your argument has basically mirrored Russian propaganda from the beginning, which basically boils down to one point: We're going to win anyway, so give us whatever we want.

Never mind that the bulk of this war has thus far demonstrated that Russia is NOT getting whatever they want, you are going to stick to this no matter what.

This is why I said above that not everyone actually supports Ukraine on this board. You clearly don't.

---

If anything my posts mirrored reality. And yes, if Russia is going to win anyway, why fight this to the last Ukrainian, what's the bloody point? How in the world is this "rooting for Ukraine"??

The only reason you believe that Ukraine is winning or that they can win is because you're completely beholden to the NATO war narrative, which admittedly has been a well-constructed storyboard that has had enormous traction among the general public.

Zelensky, his banderite entourage and his NATO godfathers have been recklessly sacrificing Ukrainians in a lost cause, they don't have the best interests of Ukraine in mind, quite the opposite, and therein lies the rub.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yes, I know that your argument has basically mirrored Russian propaganda from the beginning, which basically boils down to one point: We're going to win anyway, so give us whatever we want.

Never mind that the bulk of this war has thus far demonstrated that Russia is NOT getting whatever they want, you are going to stick to this no matter what.

This is why I said above that not everyone actually supports Ukraine on this board. You clearly don't.

---

If anything my posts mirrored reality. And yes, if Russia is going to win anyway, why fight this to the last Ukrainian, what's the bloody point? How in the world is this "rooting for Ukraine"??

---

It's rooting for Ukraine because Ukraine has very clearly demonstrated that they want to fight and are able to fight. Russia's "special military operation" that was supposed to be over in a few weeks has now been beaten back for a year and a half. You root for Russia to win.

I actually also thought that Russia was likely to win when the invasion of Kiev started last February. It's Russia's own performance on the battlefield that has changed my mind and made me think Ukraine actually has the advantage now.

sycasey said:

---

It's rooting for Ukraine because Ukraine has very clearly demonstrated that they want to fight and are able to fight. Russia's "special military operation" that was supposed to be over in a few weeks has now been beaten back for a year and a half. You root for Russia to win.

I actually also thought that Russia was likely to win when the invasion of Kiev started last February. It's Russia's own performance on the battlefield that has changed my mind and made me think Ukraine actually has the advantage now.

---

-The majority of Ukrainian conscripts don't want to fight, Ukraine is bleeding, they are losing their men. This war has largely been a one-sided artillery-intensive bloodbath. The Ukrainian nationalist "zealots" no longer are the majority on the front.

-You're probably going to change your mind again later this year as the real nature of this war becomes harder to spin. We already are seeing MSM sources trying to manage expectations and starting to narrow the gap between the narrative they've fed the public and reality.

-I think this war is stupid and cruel. I don't have the kind of hatred for Russia that has taken over since 2016, but this doesn't mean I am rooting for Russia in this war, it's ridiculous and cruel to have allowed this to happen in 21st century Europe. but like many legit observers like Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Jeffrey Sachs, I believe that Russia was pushed into this war, and that NATO has used Ukraine as a fodder against Russia in a cynical geopolitical ploy. It's a bit more complicated than rooting for one side.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

It's rooting for Ukraine because Ukraine has very clearly demonstrated that they want to fight and are able to fight. Russia's "special military operation" that was supposed to be over in a few weeks has now been beaten back for a year and a half. You root for Russia to win.

I actually also thought that Russia was likely to win when the invasion of Kiev started last February. It's Russia's own performance on the battlefield that has changed my mind and made me think Ukraine actually has the advantage now.

---

-The majority of Ukrainian conscripts don't want to fight, Ukraine is bleeding, they are losing their men. This war has largely been a one-sided artillery-intensive bloodbath. The Ukrainian nationalist "zealots" no longer are the majority on the front.

-You're probably going to change your mind again later this year as the real nature of this war becomes harder to spin. We already are seeing MSM sources trying to manage expectations and starting to narrow the gap between the narrative they've fed the public and reality.

-I think this war is stupid and cruel. I don't have the kind of hatred for Russia that has taken over since 2016, but this doesn't mean I am rooting for Russia in this war, it's ridiculous and cruel to have allowed this to happen in 21st century Europe. but like many legit observers like Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Jeffrey Sachs, I believe that Russia was pushed into this war, and that NATO has used Ukraine as a fodder against Russia in a cynical geopolitical ploy. It's a bit more complicated than rooting for one side.

---

As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if facts on the ground change. I don't buy your observations, any more than I bought your claims on election night that Biden was about to lose all the battleground statues. From where I sit, it looks like Russia's claims about the nature of this war are the ones that have continually failed to hold up to reality.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

It's rooting for Ukraine because Ukraine has very clearly demonstrated that they want to fight and are able to fight. Russia's "special military operation" that was supposed to be over in a few weeks has now been beaten back for a year and a half. You root for Russia to win.

I actually also thought that Russia was likely to win when the invasion of Kiev started last February. It's Russia's own performance on the battlefield that has changed my mind and made me think Ukraine actually has the advantage now.

---

-The majority of Ukrainian conscripts don't want to fight, Ukraine is bleeding, they are losing their men. This war has largely been a one-sided artillery-intensive bloodbath. The Ukrainian nationalist "zealots" no longer are the majority on the front.

-You're probably going to change your mind again later this year as the real nature of this war becomes harder to spin. We already are seeing MSM sources trying to manage expectations and starting to narrow the gap between the narrative they've fed the public and reality.

-I think this war is stupid and cruel. I don't have the kind of hatred for Russia that has taken over since 2016, but this doesn't mean I am rooting for Russia in this war, it's ridiculous and cruel to have allowed this to happen in 21st century Europe. but like many legit observers like Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Jeffrey Sachs, I believe that Russia was pushed into this war, and that NATO has used Ukraine as a fodder against Russia in a cynical geopolitical ploy. It's a bit more complicated than rooting for one side.

---

As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if facts on the ground change. I don't buy your observations, any more than I bought your claims on election night that Biden was about to lose all the battleground statues. From where I sit, it looks like Russia's claims about the nature of this war are the ones that have continually failed to hold up to reality.

---

You do, however, seem to buy the narrative from the poster spouting a firehose of NATO falsehoods, who just recently accused Clarence Thomas of taking Venmo bribes from those arguing before the court because his "unbiased" sources failed to inform him that it was just his former law clerks paying $20 for their share of a reunion dinner.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

It's rooting for Ukraine because Ukraine has very clearly demonstrated that they want to fight and are able to fight. Russia's "special military operation" that was supposed to be over in a few weeks has now been beaten back for a year and a half. You root for Russia to win.

I actually also thought that Russia was likely to win when the invasion of Kiev started last February. It's Russia's own performance on the battlefield that has changed my mind and made me think Ukraine actually has the advantage now.

---

-The majority of Ukrainian conscripts don't want to fight, Ukraine is bleeding, they are losing their men. This war has largely been a one-sided artillery-intensive bloodbath. The Ukrainian nationalist "zealots" no longer are the majority on the front.

-You're probably going to change your mind again later this year as the real nature of this war becomes harder to spin. We already are seeing MSM sources trying to manage expectations and starting to narrow the gap between the narrative they've fed the public and reality.

-I think this war is stupid and cruel. I don't have the kind of hatred for Russia that has taken over since 2016, but this doesn't mean I am rooting for Russia in this war, it's ridiculous and cruel to have allowed this to happen in 21st century Europe. but like many legit observers like Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Jeffrey Sachs, I believe that Russia was pushed into this war, and that NATO has used Ukraine as a fodder against Russia in a cynical geopolitical ploy. It's a bit more complicated than rooting for one side.

---

As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if facts on the ground change. I don't buy your observations, any more than I bought your claims on election night that Biden was about to lose all the battleground statues. From where I sit, it looks like Russia's claims about the nature of this war are the ones that have continually failed to hold up to reality.

---

You do, however, seem to buy the narrative from the poster spouting a firehose of NATO falsehoods, who just recently accused Clarence Thomas of taking Venmo bribes from those arguing before the court because his "unbiased" sources failed to inform him that it was just his former law clerks paying $20 for their share of a reunion dinner.

---

Can you point me to where I commented on this matter?

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

It's rooting for Ukraine because Ukraine has very clearly demonstrated that they want to fight and are able to fight. Russia's "special military operation" that was supposed to be over in a few weeks has now been beaten back for a year and a half. You root for Russia to win.

I actually also thought that Russia was likely to win when the invasion of Kiev started last February. It's Russia's own performance on the battlefield that has changed my mind and made me think Ukraine actually has the advantage now.

---

-The majority of Ukrainian conscripts don't want to fight, Ukraine is bleeding, they are losing their men. This war has largely been a one-sided artillery-intensive bloodbath. The Ukrainian nationalist "zealots" no longer are the majority on the front.

-You're probably going to change your mind again later this year as the real nature of this war becomes harder to spin. We already are seeing MSM sources trying to manage expectations and starting to narrow the gap between the narrative they've fed the public and reality.

-I think this war is stupid and cruel. I don't have the kind of hatred for Russia that has taken over since 2016, but this doesn't mean I am rooting for Russia in this war, it's ridiculous and cruel to have allowed this to happen in 21st century Europe. but like many legit observers like Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Jeffrey Sachs, I believe that Russia was pushed into this war, and that NATO has used Ukraine as a fodder against Russia in a cynical geopolitical ploy. It's a bit more complicated than rooting for one side.

---

As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if facts on the ground change. I don't buy your observations, any more than I bought your claims on election night that Biden was about to lose all the battleground statues. From where I sit, it looks like Russia's claims about the nature of this war are the ones that have continually failed to hold up to reality.

---

You do, however, seem to buy the narrative from the poster spouting a firehose of NATO falsehoods, who just recently accused Clarence Thomas of taking Venmo bribes from those arguing before the court because his "unbiased" sources failed to inform him that it was just his former law clerks paying $20 for their share of a reunion dinner.

---

Can you point me to where I commented on this matter?

---

Well, you are dismissing Cal88 because of a comment from two years ago. Just thought I'd point out that the person posting the NATO propaganda from random Twitter accounts just recently posted liberal propaganda that was proven false after a smidgen of research.

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

But its not that simple because the parties do not agree to territorial lines.

---

This. Peace talks without withdrawal is Russia's condition for Ukraine (so they can keep the territory they invaded). It's only "unconditional" for Russia.

---

No. Talk is talk. I didn't say anything about anybody keeping anything. Talk is a lot better than 10 million people fleeing, and 360,000 KIA and 500k plus injured.

Bad boy Scott Ritter claims Ukraine had a national law requiring a public vote before their world-famous agriculture lands were sold. Now Zelensky's created a loophole for Cargill and Monsanto to buy these same lands, better quality than EU dirt at a fraction of the cost. Which gets into a whole other sphere of food production, leverage, possibly control.

Ukraine doesn't have the GDP to pay back their debts, and won't have the young families or next generation. Will their church OK bigamy? Are there an excess of single Polish and Lithuanian men?

Imagine in the 1970s Jimmy Carter did some shrooms, and after giving away Panama, he gave San Diego County to Mexico. SDC operated in two worlds, but 90% of their citizens spoke English, did commerce with America, were culturally American, and most folks were Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, or Baptist.

Then in 2014 President Obama reclaims San Diego. "San Diegans are historically American, speak English, and are culturally American. They still have the Chargers, the Padres, and Hotel Coronado. Carter had some bad chet. I'm correcting a historically bad decision."

Mexico decides to go to war. Who wins?

No matter who aids Mexico, we win. We're a superpower, contiguous, and have a long history tied to San Diego. This is no fly-by-night marriage.

I've got moles older than Ukraine. The former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was only founded in 1991.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

It's rooting for Ukraine because Ukraine has very clearly demonstrated that they want to fight and are able to fight. Russia's "special military operation" that was supposed to be over in a few weeks has now been beaten back for a year and a half. You root for Russia to win.

I actually also thought that Russia was likely to win when the invasion of Kiev started last February. It's Russia's own performance on the battlefield that has changed my mind and made me think Ukraine actually has the advantage now.

---

-The majority of Ukrainian conscripts don't want to fight, Ukraine is bleeding, they are losing their men. This war has largely been a one-sided artillery-intensive bloodbath. The Ukrainian nationalist "zealots" no longer are the majority on the front.

-You're probably going to change your mind again later this year as the real nature of this war becomes harder to spin. We already are seeing MSM sources trying to manage expectations and starting to narrow the gap between the narrative they've fed the public and reality.

-I think this war is stupid and cruel. I don't have the kind of hatred for Russia that has taken over since 2016, but this doesn't mean I am rooting for Russia in this war, it's ridiculous and cruel to have allowed this to happen in 21st century Europe. but like many legit observers like Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Jeffrey Sachs, I believe that Russia was pushed into this war, and that NATO has used Ukraine as a fodder against Russia in a cynical geopolitical ploy. It's a bit more complicated than rooting for one side.

---

As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if facts on the ground change. I don't buy your observations, any more than I bought your claims on election night that Biden was about to lose all the battleground statues. From where I sit, it looks like Russia's claims about the nature of this war are the ones that have continually failed to hold up to reality.

---

You do, however, seem to buy the narrative from the poster spouting a firehose of NATO falsehoods, who just recently accused Clarence Thomas of taking Venmo bribes from those arguing before the court because his "unbiased" sources failed to inform him that it was just his former law clerks paying $20 for their share of a reunion dinner.

---

Can you point me to where I commented on this matter?

---

Well, you are dismissing Cal88 because of a comment from two years ago. Just thought I'd point out that the person posting the NATO propaganda from random Twitter accounts just recently posted liberal propaganda that was proven false after a smidgen of research.

---

Have I cited Unit2Sucks' posts as a reason for me holding my opinions? I don't think so. You did that on your own.

My opinion is based on the observable reality that Russia has done a s*** job fighting this war.

If reports are true that there is a 10-to-1 kill ratio, or even an overall 6-to-1 kill ratio in favor of Russia, that's devastating.

That said, some citizens in Russia favor going for the jugular, ending this. Colonel McGregor claims Putin has purposefully fought a measured war, attempting to limit civilian and Russian casualties and not provoke NATO joining the battle.

How many Ukrainian newly acquired long-range missiles get through to Moscow or elsewhere?

movielover said:

---

If reports are true that there is a 10-to-1 kill ratio, or even an overall 6-to-1 kill ratio in favor of Russia, that's devastating.

---

I'm pretty sure those are not true.

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

What if NATO gives air support? I think they will if Russia gets near Kyiv.

---

There are only about a dozen air bases in the eastern half of Poland and northern half of Romania, they would be disabled in the first 48hrs of a stepped-up air war through hypersonic missiles.

Any tanker or AWACS flying within 400km of an S-400 installation would be in danger of being shot down.

Russia has about 9,000 anti-air missiles, if NATO were to attempt a comprehensive A2/AD suppression campaign (SEAD), they would have to take a loss of several hundred jets before they could make a dent into Russian air defenses.

NATO's wildcard could be its long-range stealth bombers that could fly out from western Europe, but the USAF has fewer than 20, and them being big and slow, and not particularly maneuverable might not last very long.

If the air war were a viable option for NATO, we would have had F-16s in year 1. I believe there is a handful of Ukrainian pilots who have already trained on the F-15 before the war, they would have been used by now. Part of this reluctance is that the US MIC doesn't want to see its jets being shot down, bad for business and for US/NATO prestige and soft power, The venerable old but still quite solid F-15's main claim to fame is that it has never been shot down in nearly 50 years of operation, that would quickly end in a direct confrontation with Russian Su-35s or Mig-31s, whose R-37 missiles outrange all NATO jets today.

---

Baghdad Bob's Greatest Hits:

There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

"My feelings, as usual, we will slaughter them all."

"Our initial assessment is that they will all die."

"No I am not scared and neither should you be!"

"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."

"Faltering forces of infidels cannot just enter a country of 26 million people and lay besiege to them! They are the ones who will find themselves under siege. Therefore, in reality, whatever this miserable Rumsfeld has been saying, he was talking about his own forces. Now even the American command is under siege."

"Washington has thrown their soldiers on the fire."

"They fled. The American louts fled. Indeed, concerning the fighting waged by the heroes of the Arab Socialist Baath Party yesterday, one amazing thing really is the cowardice of the American soldiers. we had not anticipated this."

"God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of Iraqis."

"They tried to bring a small number of tanks and personnel carriers in through al-Durah but they were surrounded and most of their infidels had their throats cut."

"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."

Several military leaders say there has never been this intense and ferocious an artillery war since WWI or WWII.

Amazing, given that Russia ran out of ammo and only had shovels left. s/ ... the enlightened, arrogant West, which gave away its middle class manufacturing base to China, Mexico, and elsewhere. This includes much of the mnf in SoCal. Not a single steel plant in the West Coast?

Consensus Koala said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

It's rooting for Ukraine because Ukraine has very clearly demonstrated that they want to fight and are able to fight. Russia's "special military operation" that was supposed to be over in a few weeks has now been beaten back for a year and a half. You root for Russia to win.

I actually also thought that Russia was likely to win when the invasion of Kiev started last February. It's Russia's own performance on the battlefield that has changed my mind and made me think Ukraine actually has the advantage now.

---

-The majority of Ukrainian conscripts don't want to fight, Ukraine is bleeding, they are losing their men. This war has largely been a one-sided artillery-intensive bloodbath. The Ukrainian nationalist "zealots" no longer are the majority on the front.

-You're probably going to change your mind again later this year as the real nature of this war becomes harder to spin. We already are seeing MSM sources trying to manage expectations and starting to narrow the gap between the narrative they've fed the public and reality.

-I think this war is stupid and cruel. I don't have the kind of hatred for Russia that has taken over since 2016, but this doesn't mean I am rooting for Russia in this war, it's ridiculous and cruel to have allowed this to happen in 21st century Europe. but like many legit observers like Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Jeffrey Sachs, I believe that Russia was pushed into this war, and that NATO has used Ukraine as a fodder against Russia in a cynical geopolitical ploy. It's a bit more complicated than rooting for one side.

---

As always, I reserve the right to change my mind if facts on the ground change. I don't buy your observations, any more than I bought your claims on election night that Biden was about to lose all the battleground statues. From where I sit, it looks like Russia's claims about the nature of this war are the ones that have continually failed to hold up to reality.

---

You do, however, seem to buy the narrative from the poster spouting a firehose of NATO falsehoods, who just recently accused Clarence Thomas of taking Venmo bribes from those arguing before the court because his "unbiased" sources failed to inform him that it was just his former law clerks paying $20 for their share of a reunion dinner.

---

Can you point me to where I commented on this matter?

---

Well, you are dismissing Cal88 because of a comment from two years ago. Just thought I'd point out that the person posting the NATO propaganda from random Twitter accounts just recently posted liberal propaganda that was proven false after a smidgen of research.

---

Have I cited Unit2Sucks' posts as a reason for me holding my opinions? I don't think so. You did that on your own.

My opinion is based on the observable reality that Russia has done a s*** job fighting this war.

---

How dare the Russians not defeat half of the Western world single-handedly on your time line!

---

If the Russians actually had to fight the full NATO armies then this thing clearly would have been over a long time ago, given that they already can't beat our hand-me-downs.

You leave out basic facts:

1. NATO and the Western world are out of 155 shells - what are they going to hammer Russia with, falafel?

2. Russia has 300,000 - 400,000 men in reserve, ready to go, and is recruiting another approximately 300,000 troops. Russia hasn't shown us everything.

3. Russia is on a wartime footing and is producing large amounts of ammunition and has new deals with Iran and China. Meanwhile, our 44 4-star Generals still haven't figured out how to ramp up production and 40% of our submarines are down.

Question: are our military doctors in Poland? If no, why not? Great place for experience and a direct way to aid Ukraine.

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have been fighting the full NATO arsenal, or just about.

---

No fair! When they invaded an independent nation for no justifiable reason, the rest of the world should have stood down, or cheered, or given THEM the arsenal. Why do these darn meddling democracies and republics always have to mess up perfectly good maniacal autocrats plans?

blungld said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have been fighting the full NATO arsenal, or just about.

---

No fair! When they invaded an independent nation for no justifiable reason, the rest of the world should have stood down, or cheered, or given THEM the arsenal. Why do these darn meddling democracies and republics always have to mess up perfectly good maniacal autocrats plans?

---

Russia invaded for these reasons:

-Ukraine had been violently suppressing Russians in the Donbass, killing 11,000 civilians between 2014-21 ("Our children will go to school, their children will grow up hiding in their basements" Poreshenko 2015)

-Ukraine mobilized an army of 60,000 and was about to overrun the Donbass rebels, with the next objective being the takeover of Crimea.

-Ukraine's post-Maidan ethno-nationalist regime is ideologically hostile to Russia, had been rearming, becoming the strongest army in Europe and a de facto hostile NATO arm, and was acquiring nuclear weapons.

It is NATO here that has had the maniacal plan of eastwards expansion, an outgrowth of the neocon Wolfowitz doctrine of US global hegemony.


Regardless, the point here is that despite NATO injecting its substantial military and financial weight into this war, Russia is winning, Ukraine is getting wrecked after being led down the primrose path by NATO, just as Mearsheimer had predicted in 2015.

This policy has been a disaster for Ukraine.

What's your solution, more weapons? Escalation? Who has escalatory dominance in Ukraine?

Another quarter million Ukrainians killed, most of them against their will, and more territory lost? Or maybe if you could light up another dozen Zelensky votive candles and pray to your blue and yellow bedroom shrine, you could reverse that outcome??

Cal88 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The Russians have been fighting the full NATO arsenal, or just about.

---

No fair! When they invaded an independent nation for no justifiable reason, the rest of the world should have stood down, or cheered, or given THEM the arsenal. Why do these darn meddling democracies and republics always have to mess up perfectly good maniacal autocrats plans?

---

Russia invaded for these reasons:

-Ukraine had been violently suppressing Russians in the Donbass, killing 11,000 civilians between 2014-21 ("Our children will go to school, their children will grow up hiding in their basements" Poreshenko 2015)

-Ukraine mobilized an army of 60,000 and was about to overrun the Donbass rebels, with the next objective being the takeover of Crimea.

-Ukraine's post-Maidan ethno-nationalist regime is ideologically hostile to Russia, had been rearming, becoming the strongest army in Europe and a de facto hostile NATO arm, and was acquiring nuclear weapons.

It is NATO here that has had the maniacal plan of eastwards expansion, an outgrowth of the neocon Wolfowitz doctrine of US global hegemony.


Regardless, the point here is that despite NATO injecting its substantial military and financial weight into this war, Russia is winning, Ukraine is getting wrecked after being led down the primrose path by NATO, just as Mearsheimer had predicted in 2015.

This policy has been a disaster for Ukraine.

What's your solution, more weapons? Escalation? Who has escalatory dominance in Ukraine?

Another quarter million Ukrainians killed, most of them against their will, and more territory lost? Or maybe if you could light up another dozen votive Zelensky candles and prayed to your blue and yellow bedroom shrine you could reverse that outcome??

---

If Ukraine had the largest army in Europe, why did Russia think it could walk into Kyiv at the beginning of the war? Why did they talk like it would be over in weeks?